An overseas brand may license photographs or illustrations for a mainland China campaign and later discover that a distributor has reused them on a different channel. Before alleging infringement, reconstruct the permission actually granted. The same exercise is useful when the brand itself wants to extend an existing campaign.
Buying access to an asset, paying a creative invoice and obtaining a broad copyright assignment are different events. The review should connect the identified work, the person granting permission, the agreed rights and the actual use. A well-organised licence file helps distinguish unauthorised activity from use that the rights holder has already permitted.
Start with the precise work and permission document
Give each asset a stable identifier. Keep the file, thumbnail, version and relevant project name together so the team can tell which photograph, illustration or edited variant the licence covers. A generic reference to “campaign materials” may conceal several works supplied by different creators or libraries.
Collect the signed agreement, schedules, amendments and any applicable standard terms as they existed when permission was obtained. Retain order confirmations and payment records as supporting evidence. A current webpage of standard terms may differ from the version that governed the transaction; preserve the historical version where available and explain any gap.
Check the licensor’s authority to grant the particular rights. If permission came through a studio, agency or distributor, identify the underlying owner and the basis for the intermediary’s authority. This article addresses the scope of a licence once identified; a disputed ownership chain still requires its own review.
Translate campaign activities into copyright rights
Article 10 of the Copyright Law as amended in 2020 distinguishes rights including reproduction, distribution, communication through information networks, adaptation and translation. A commercial description such as “digital use” needs to be read in its contractual context rather than treated as automatic permission for every possible activity.
Describe what the campaign actually does. Printing a catalogue, making downloadable copies, publishing an online product page and translating text involve different questions. Identify who makes the copy, who publishes it and how the public obtains it. Ask counsel to map these facts to the relevant rights and any applicable statutory exception.
The law also recognises personal rights such as attribution and protection of a work’s integrity. A licence to exploit an economic right should not be read as an unlimited waiver of every concern about credit or modification. Record cropping, editing and attribution instructions explicitly when reviewing the intended output.
Build a use-by-use licence matrix
Article 26 states that using another person’s work requires a licence agreement unless the law permits use without permission. It identifies principal licence terms including the rights licensed, exclusive or non-exclusive character, territory, period, remuneration and liability for breach. These categories provide a useful structure for a practical review.
- Identify the work and exact version being used.
- Describe the activity and the entity carrying it out.
- Record the relevant permission clause and any restrictions.
- Check territory, start and end dates, and permitted distribution channels.
- Flag edits, third-party use or continuation after expiry for clarification.
The matrix is a working tool, not a statutory court form. Quote the relevant clause accurately and retain its context. Where the agreement uses an undefined phrase, record the uncertainty and supporting communications rather than choosing whichever meaning best serves the current dispute.
Check distributors, affiliates and service providers separately
A licence granted to a parent company should not automatically be assumed to cover every affiliate or reseller. Check the definition of the licensee, any authorised-user language and any permission to sublicense or distribute materials through specified partners. Sharing the same brand does not itself answer these questions.
In a hypothetical campaign, permission for a named brand’s own online store may not resolve whether an independent distributor can use the image in paid advertisements. Preserve the actual licence wording, the distributor agreement and the disputed advertisement. Avoid describing the distributor as unlicensed until the relevant permission chain has been assessed.
Check agency and production-vendor use as well. A vendor may need to handle source files to produce an authorised deliverable, but that does not necessarily authorise its unrelated portfolio, resale or later campaign use. Describe the actual activity and examine the agreed scope instead of relying on a job title.
Separate an extension from an assignment
Article 29 provides that rights not expressly licensed or transferred may not be exercised by the other party without the copyright owner’s consent. Article 27 separately requires a written contract for transfer of the economic rights identified in Article 10(1)(5)–(17). A request to extend a campaign should therefore specify which additional permission is needed.
For an extension, identify the extra channels, period, territory, users and alterations, together with remuneration and any reporting requirement. Preserve the agreement to that extension and its effective date. Do not backdate a document to make earlier disputed use appear authorised.
Where an existing licence has expired, identify live pages, stored downloads and printed stock before selecting remedial steps. The treatment of existing copies and continuing availability depends on the agreement and applicable law. Avoid assuming either a universal sell-off entitlement or an automatic obligation to destroy all remaining material.
Preserve the facts before making a demand
If misuse is suspected, retain the complained-of page or material, the date, operator, work identifier and relevant permission documents. Distinguish a potential contractual breach from an infringement allegation and assess the remedy available for the specific conduct. A missing internal record is a reason to investigate, not proof that permission never existed.
For a scope review, contact Pan Jianxing with a non-confidential description of the asset, intended or disputed use and any urgent deadline. The first task is to identify the permission that covers each activity and the gaps that require evidence or a further agreement.
Official sources & legal review
Legal position checked 2026-10-21. Official Chinese texts govern; the English analysis is a summary.
General information about mainland China. The applicable law, rights, evidence and procedure require review for a specific matter.
Pan Jianxing
China-qualified lawyer · Partner, 北京市长安律师事务所
Beijing & Shenzhen
Discuss a China IP matter →