Translation:2004 Min San Ta Zi No. 5

by the Supreme People's Court of China

Original

山东省高级人民法院：

⁠你院〔2003〕鲁民三终字第68号《关于山东天笠广告有限责任公司与青岛海信通信有限公司侵犯著作权纠纷一案的请示报告》收悉。经研究并征求国家版权局意见后，现就你院请示报告中所涉及的有关法律适用问题答复如下：

⁠根据《中华人民共和国著作权法》第二十二条的规定，“对设置或者陈列在室外公共场所的艺术作品进行临摹、绘画、摄影、录像”，“可以不经著作权人许可，不向其支付报酬，但应当指明作者姓名、作品名称，并且不得侵犯著作权人依照本法享有的其他权利”。青岛海信通信有限公司对“五月的风”进行拍摄的行为，属于著作权法上述规定的对作品合理使用的范围。

⁠《最高人民法院〈关于审理著作权民事纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释〉》第十八条，针对著作权法第二十二条第（十）项的规定作了司法解释，即对设置或者陈列在室外社会公众活动处所的雕塑、绘画、书法等艺术作品的临摹、绘画、摄影、录像人，可以对其成果以合理的方式和范围再行使用，不构成侵权。在此，对于“合理的方式和范围”，应包括以营利为目的的“再行使用”，这是制定该司法解释的本意。司法解释的这一规定既符合伯尔尼公约规定的合理使用的基本精神，也与世界大多数国家的立法例相吻合。根据上述司法解释的规定，你院审判委员会对此案的倾向性处理意见是正确的。

二〇〇四年八月二十四日

Translation

August 24, 2004

Shandong Provincial Higher People's Court,

Your Request Report on the Case of Infringement of Copyright Disputes between Shandong Tianhao Advertising Co., Ltd. and Qingdao Hisense Communication Co., Ltd. ([2003] Lu Min San Zhong Zi No. 68) was received. After researching and soliciting the opinions of the National Copyright Administration, the answers to the relevant legal issues involved in your request report are as follows:

According to the provisions of Article 22 of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China, "copying, drawing, photographing, or video recording of an artistic work located or on display in an outdoor public place … may be exploited without the permission from, and without payment of remuneration to, the copyright owner, provided that the name of the author and the title of the work are mentioned and the other rights enjoyed by the copyright owner by virtue of this Law are not infringed upon". The behavior of Qingdao Hisense Communication Co., Ltd. shooting the sculpture The Wind of May belongs to the scope of reasonable use of the works as stipulated in the above-mentioned provisions of the Copyright Law.

According to Article 18 of The Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases of Civil Disputes over Copyright, which makes judicial interpretations on the provisions of Article 22, Item 10 of the Copyright Law, that copying, painting, photography, and video recording of works of art such as sculptures, paintings, and calligraphy that are set up or displayed in public places of public activities in outdoor communities, it may be used in a reasonable approach and scope for its results and does not constitute infringement. Here, for 'reasonable approach and scope', the 'approach and scope' for profit purposes should be included. This is the original intention of formulating the Judicial Interpretation. This provision of judicial interpretation is in conformity with the basic spirit of fair use as stipulated by the Berne Convention, and it is also in line with the legislation of most countries in the world. According to the provisions of the above judicial interpretation, the judgment of the judicial committee of your court is correct in handling the tendency of the case.