Selling an Original Artwork in China: Separate the Object from Its Copyright

By Pan Jianxing · Published 23 October 2026

An overseas artist sells a painting to a buyer in China. Later, the image appears on merchandise or in an online campaign. Before sending a demand, identify what was sold and which later act is disputed. Ownership of the physical painting, permission to exhibit it and permission to reproduce its image are distinct questions.

The same distinction matters to galleries, collectors and businesses buying commissioned or existing work. This article addresses the position under Chinese copyright law. For a foreign work, first confirm the basis for protection under Article 2 of the Copyright Law as amended in 2020, and assess the applicable law where creation, ownership or contracts span jurisdictions.

Read the rule for the original object

Article 20 states that transferring ownership of a work’s original does not change ownership of its copyright. It provides an important qualification: the owner of the original of an artistic or photographic work enjoys the right to exhibit that original.

The same article addresses an unpublished artistic or photographic work. Where the author transfers ownership of its original, the buyer’s exhibition of that original does not infringe the author’s right of publication. An objection based solely on the work having been unpublished therefore needs to take this provision into account.

These rules make identification of the object important. Record the title, creator, dimensions, medium, distinguishing features and provenance. Establish whether the transaction concerned an original, a reproduction, an edition or merely a digital file. Do not assume that every purchased image file is an original carrying the same legal consequences.

Separate exhibition from further exploitation

Article 10 lists distinct rights, including reproduction, distribution, exhibition and making a work available through an information network. A plan to place an original in a gallery should be assessed separately from printing its image on products or uploading a downloadable digital version.

Prepare a use list before reviewing permissions: physical display of the original, catalogue reproduction, advertising images, online access, merchandise and any adaptation. Identify who performed each act, where, when and using which version. The point is to connect the disputed activity to a specific right, not to treat every use surrounding a lawful exhibition as automatically unlawful.

Check both contractual permissions and relevant statutory exceptions. For artwork in public places, Article 24 and current Article 16 of the Supreme People’s Court copyright interpretation, revised in 2026, require particular attention. That interpretation addresses reasonable further use of depictions and limits unauthorised setting up, display or public communication in the same manner. A public display is not a blanket permission for all commercial reuse.

Examine the complete sale and rights documents

Read the sale contract, invoice, catalogue conditions, correspondence, delivery record and any separate licence or assignment. A high purchase price does not by itself establish that copyright was transferred. Conversely, the absence of a separate document bearing the heading “copyright assignment” is not enough to disregard all other contractual evidence.

Article 27 requires a written contract to transfer the specified economic rights. Its listed terms include the work, types of rights, territory, price, payment arrangements and liability for breach. Where the historical arrangement was not written, current Article 20 of the copyright interpretation directs courts to assess contract formation under Civil Code Article 490. An informal transaction should therefore receive legal analysis rather than an automatic declaration that no contract could exist.

For future transactions, identify any copyright grant expressly and distinguish it from the object sale. Specify the exact work and permitted activities, including whether promotional images or merchandise are included. Preserve the seller’s authority to grant those rights; a gallery acting as sales agent may need a separate mandate from the relevant rights holder.

Preserve evidence before seeking removal

Keep creation files, dated photographs of the original, ownership documents and the complete transfer history. Current Article 6 of the copyright interpretation recognises materials such as drafts, originals, lawful publications, registration certificates and rights-acquisition contracts as possible evidence. No single item should be treated as a substitute for resolving inconsistencies in the chain.

For the alleged reuse, preserve full pages with their addresses and dates, product records, relevant samples and the operator’s identity. Match the copied image to the work and explain any cropping, colour changes or added elements. Retain unedited captures and make annotated comparisons separately.

In the hypothetical painting example, distinguish a photograph showing a lawful exhibition from a product bearing a reproduction of the painting. Identify the actual activity and any permission for it before seeking a remedy. A general statement that the artist “retained all rights” may need to be reconciled with the statutory exhibition rule and the contract.

Frame a proportionate next step

A useful assessment identifies the disputed uses, the rights relied on, the supporting documents and any gaps. It can then evaluate a request for information, licensing discussions or an enforcement route. Keep the desired outcome precise: stopping a particular reproduction, clarifying image permissions or resolving contractual obligations may require different steps.

Contact Pan Jianxing with a non-confidential description of the work, the sale arrangement and the later use. The object’s ownership and the copyright position should be understood before making an allegation or promising the buyer unrestricted image rights.

Pan Jianxing
China-qualified lawyer · Partner, 北京市长安律师事务所
Beijing & Shenzhen
Discuss a China IP matter →