Jointly Created Content in China: Who Can Grant Permission?

By Pan Jianxing · Published 28 October 2026

A foreign brand receives an illustration created by two contributors. One contributor approves its use in a China campaign, but the other objects. The question is not resolved simply by identifying who sent the final file or received payment. The brand needs to establish who created the work, who owns the relevant rights and what authority supports the proposed use.

This hypothetical situation illustrates why collaborative content needs its own permission file. Article 14 of the Copyright Law as amended in 2020 governs jointly created works. Its rules differ from a general assumption that any participant may approve everything, or that every disagreement necessarily prevents every use.

Identify the creators and the relevant work

Article 14 provides that copyright in a work jointly created by two or more people is jointly enjoyed by its co-authors. A person who did not participate in creation cannot become a co-author merely by being involved in the project. Start with the actual expression and contributions, not the labels in an informal project chart.

Preserve drafts, revision histories, sketches, correspondence and records explaining who produced each part. Distinguish creative contributions from supplying a general brief, arranging payment or coordinating delivery. Where accounts conflict, retain the competing versions and supporting materials. A later joint declaration can help explain the history, but should not be presented as a substitute for the underlying work.

Also identify the applicable ownership rules. Works attributed to an organisation, employee-created works and commissioned works require attention to Articles 11, 18 and 19 and the relevant agreements. An agency’s staff may have collaborated creatively without each individual being the current owner of the economic rights. For foreign works, assess protection under Article 2 and any applicable-law issues in the cross-border chain.

Read the consensus rule and its limits

Article 14 starts with exercise of joint copyright through agreement among the co-authors. Where agreement cannot be reached and there is no justified reason, one party may not prevent the others from exercising rights other than assignment, exclusive licensing and pledging. Income must be reasonably distributed to all co-authors.

That qualified rule is not blanket authority for a project contact to grant exclusivity. Nor should silence be treated automatically as agreement or as proof that an objection lacks justification. Preserve the proposal, its scope, each response and any stated reason for disagreement before relying on the statutory position.

For a proposed exclusive campaign licence, identify all relevant owners and secure the necessary agreement or documented representative authority. A statement that the contact “handles the project” is less useful than evidence showing which rights that person can license, to whom, for what purpose and on what terms.

Assess whether contributions can be used separately

Article 14 also addresses works whose parts can be used separately. An author may independently enjoy copyright in the part they created, but exercising that right must not infringe copyright in the work as a whole. Dividing a digital file into layers does not, by itself, answer this legal question.

Map the proposed use to the actual contribution. An extract, combined image, translated text or redesigned layout may require different analysis. Record which part will be used and whether it incorporates protected expression belonging to another contributor. Keep a copy of the exact approved version so later changes can be assessed against it.

Specify the rights instead of relying on a broad approval

Article 10 distinguishes rights such as reproduction, distribution, adaptation and making a work available through an information network. A permission file should connect the intended activity with the relevant rights, the territory, duration, users and any sublicensing arrangements. Approval for a printed catalogue should not simply be assumed to cover every later digital campaign.

If the arrangement transfers economic rights, Article 27 requires a written contract. Identify the work and the particular rights transferred, rather than describing the transaction only as delivery of “all files”. Keep permissions, assignments and the authority of any signing representative together, while preserving personal-rights issues for separate assessment.

Current Article 6 of the SPC copyright interpretation, revised in 2026, recognises evidence including drafts, originals, lawful publications, registration certificates and rights-acquisition contracts. Read those records as a connected chain. A certificate or signature that conflicts with the development history needs investigation rather than selective reliance.

Respond to an objection with an evidence-based scope review

When an objection arrives, preserve the challenged publication, the permission relied on and the communications preceding it. Identify whether the disagreement concerns authorship, ownership, exclusivity, a particular adaptation or the scope of distribution. Avoid promising a remedy before those issues are separated.

The next step may involve clarifying authority, obtaining an additional permission, narrowing the proposed use or assessing an enforcement response. Contact Pan Jianxing with a non-confidential outline of the collaboration, the intended use and the permission documents. A clear account of who contributed what is the starting point for a reliable rights assessment.

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