Photographer Awarded RMB 12,000 in Copyright Dispute Over Unauthorized Use of Image in Product Brochure
Photographer Awarded RMB 12,000 in Copyright Dispute Over Unauthorized Use of Image in Product Brochure
Case Overview
A professional photographer successfully sued a company for copyright infringement after the company used one of his photographic works without permission on the cover of its product brochure. The court in Eastern China ruled in favor of the photographer, ordering the company to cease infringement, destroy infringing materials, and pay RMB 12,000 in damages. The case highlights the legal protections available for photographic works under Chinese copyright law.
Case Background and Facts
The plaintiff, Mr. Wang, is a professional photographer and a member of both the China Photographers Association and the Guangdong Photographers Association, with over 30 years of experience. His works have won numerous awards in various competitions. One of his photographic works, titled Li Park, was created independently and published on a website dedicated to Shenzhen scenery photography. The image was also previously used on the cover of a government-published investment guide.
In September 2010, Mr. Wang discovered that the defendant, Shenzhen JinhaoX Electronic Co., Ltd., had used his photograph Li Park on the cover of its product brochure for the HY2009 series digital medical intercom system. The brochure was a promotional publication containing company information, product descriptions, and images. Mr. Wang alleged that the defendant used his work without obtaining permission, without crediting him as the author, and without paying any license fee. He claimed this infringed his rights of attribution, reproduction, and remuneration under copyright law.
Court Proceedings and Evidence
The case was heard by a collegiate bench in a court in Eastern China. The plaintiff appeared through his legal representative, while the defendant did not appear in court despite being properly served with a summons. The court proceeded with a default judgment.
Mr. Wang submitted several pieces of evidence to support his claim. He provided the original negative of the photograph Li Park, which served as strong proof of authorship. He also presented evidence showing the work had been published on his personal photography website and had been used in an official government publication. The infringing product brochure was submitted as evidence, showing that the image on its cover was substantially identical to Mr. Wang’s photograph. Additionally, the plaintiff submitted certificates and awards demonstrating his professional standing as a photographer.
The defendant did not submit any written defense or evidence to challenge the plaintiff’s claims.
Court Findings and Judgment
The court determined that a photographic work is an artistic creation protected under copyright law. According to relevant legal provisions, the person named as the author on a work is presumed to be the copyright holder unless contrary evidence exists. Since the plaintiff submitted the original negative and evidence of publication, and the defendant provided no opposing proof, the court recognized Mr. Wang as the copyright owner of Li Park.
The court found that the defendant had access to the plaintiff’s work, which had been publicly available online and in print. By using the photograph in its promotional brochure without authorization, the defendant reproduced and distributed the work, thereby infringing the plaintiff’s copyright. The court ordered the defendant to immediately stop the infringement and destroy all remaining infringing brochures.
Regarding damages, the court noted that the plaintiff had not provided evidence of actual losses suffered or profits gained by the defendant from the infringement. Therefore, the court declined to award the full RMB 30,000 requested. Instead, considering the type of work, the nature and circumstances of the infringement, and the plaintiff’s reasonable costs for enforcing his rights, the court awarded RMB 12,000 in compensation. The court rejected the plaintiff’s request for a formal apology, finding that the infringement involved economic rights rather than personal rights.
Key Legal Principles
The court applied the principle that a photographer who creates an original work and can prove authorship through negatives or publication records is entitled to copyright protection. Unauthorized reproduction of a copyrighted photograph in commercial promotional materials constitutes infringement. When calculating damages, if actual losses or illegal profits cannot be proven, the court has discretion to award statutory damages based on the nature of the work, the scope of infringement, and enforcement costs. The right to attribution and economic rights are separate; infringement of economic rights alone does not automatically entitle a plaintiff to a public apology.
Practical Insights
This case serves as a reminder to businesses that using images found online or in other publications without obtaining proper licenses or permission from the copyright owner can lead to legal liability. Photographers should maintain original negatives, digital files, and publication records to prove ownership. Companies creating marketing materials should implement strict procedures for verifying image rights and obtaining necessary licenses. Copyright holders who discover unauthorized use of their works should gather evidence promptly and seek legal recourse, as courts will enforce copyright protections even when defendants fail to appear.
Legal References
Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China (2010): Articles 9, 10(5), 10(6), 11(4), 48(1), 49
Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China (2001): Articles 9, 10(5), 10(6), 11(4), 48(1), 49
Supreme People’s Court Interpretation on Copyright Civil Disputes: Articles 25(1), 25(2), 28
Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (2007): Articles 64(1), 130
Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for specific legal matters.