Who Owns Commissioned Artwork in China? A Copyright Checklist for Foreign Brands

By Pan Jianxing · Published 20 September 2026

A foreign brand pays for an illustration, receives the final files and launches the product. It later discovers that the contract says little about copyright. The payment and delivery records matter, but they do not answer who owns the artwork, what the brand may do with it or whether it can enforce the rights against another seller in China.

A reliable review connects the actual work to its creator, the contracting parties and the rights granted. The answer may differ for a freelance commission, an agency's employee or a work legally attributed to an organisation. Labels imported from a foreign template should be checked against the applicable Chinese rules.

Start with the commission's ownership clause

Article 19 of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China, amended in 2020, leaves ownership of commissioned works to the parties' agreement. Without a contract or a clear ownership provision, copyright belongs to the commissioned party. Article 20 separately distinguishes ownership of an original artwork from copyright.

Read the agreement, order form, accepted proposal and amendments together. A promise to deliver editable files concerns deliverables; a promise to produce exclusive designs may concern reuse. Neither should be assumed to contain every right needed for reproduction, adaptation, online distribution or enforcement. Identify the accepted final work and whether the wording also covers sketches, rejected concepts, later versions and localised variants.

Ownership and permitted use also differ. Article 15 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Copyright Civil Disputes, as amended effective 1 September 2026, allows the commissioning party to use a commissioned work within the agreed scope when copyright belongs to the commissioned party. Without an agreed scope, use without an additional fee is permitted within the specific purpose of the commission. That does not establish an unrestricted assignment.

In a hypothetical seasonal packaging commission, permission to use an illustration for the agreed packaging should not be treated automatically as ownership supporting unrelated merchandise, sublicensing to another brand or every future campaign. Preserve the brief and negotiations: they may help establish what the parties commissioned and authorised.

Check who actually created the work

Under Article 18, an employee's task-related creation does not automatically make the employer the copyright owner. The default gives the author copyright and the employer priority use within its business; specified statutory or contractual categories allocate rights differently. Article 11 separately addresses works attributable to an organisation. These are distinct legal routes, not interchangeable descriptions.

For an agency commission, map each contributor to a document. Was the illustrator an employee, a freelancer or a subcontractor? Did a photographer supply an image? Did another studio create an earlier version? Obtain the documents supporting the agency's authority to make the promised grant. A warranty can provide contractual recourse but cannot itself demonstrate that an upstream creator transferred a right.

Keep the inquiry proportionate. A simple illustration may require only the creator's agreement and version history. A composite campaign may need a schedule covering photographs, fonts, stock elements and subcontracted artwork. Record exclusions clearly so the brand can decide whether to replace a component or obtain broader permission.

Define the commercial grant precisely

An assignment transfers specified economic rights; a licence authorises use on agreed terms. Copyright Law Articles 26–27 address these agreements, while Article 29 reserves rights not expressly licensed or transferred. Article 27 requires a written assignment contract. The 2026 Interpretation's Article 20 also requires courts to examine non-written arrangements under Civil Code Article 490; missing writing is a reason to investigate and regularise the position, not to announce automatic invalidity.

A practical rights schedule should answer:

• Which work and version? Attach identifiable deliverables and specify how revisions are added.
• Which uses? Address packaging, product manufacture, advertising, online availability, adaptations and localisation as applicable.
• Which users and markets? Address territory, duration, group companies, manufacturers, distributors and any sublicensing authority.
• When does the grant operate? Clarify whether creation, acceptance or payment triggers the agreed rights, and what happens to disputed or unpaid work.
• What cooperation is needed? Allocate responsibility for source files, creator identification, evidence production, registrations and enforcement assistance.

The transferable rights listed in Article 10(1)(5)–(17) do not encompass every personal right. Address attribution, editing and approvals expressly; a broad economic-rights assignment should not be described as erasing the author's personal rights.

Separate protected expression from the design idea

Copyright Law Article 3 requires original intellectual expression. The 2026 Interpretation's Article 13 recognises independently created expression on the same subject. A complaint should identify the actual illustration, composition or other protectable expression allegedly copied, rather than claiming exclusive ownership of a theme, style or general commercial idea.

Retain drafts, layered files, dated correspondence and publication records alongside the contract. Article 6 of the current Interpretation identifies drafts, originals, publications, registration certificates and acquisition contracts among possible evidence. Registration can assist the evidence file; it does not cure a missing grant or prevent contrary ownership evidence from being considered.

Resolve the cross-border questions before enforcement

Under Articles 48–49 of the Law on the Laws Applicable to Foreign-Related Civil Relations, ownership and content of IP rights follow the law of the place where protection is sought, while transfer and licensing have separate choice-of-law rules. A foreign governing-law clause therefore does not answer every ownership question arising in China.

Before sending a platform notice or threatening litigation, reconcile the named claimant, actual artwork and chain of rights. A takedown is a platform measure; a disputed title may still require judicial determination. For a China copyright enforcement review, assemble the commission documents, creator records and disputed use, then contact Pan Jianxing with the specific outcome the brand needs.

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