Interpretation concerning Some Questions on Concretely Applicable Law in Hearing Civil Dispute Cases of Infringement of the Right to Dissemination Through Information Networks

The “Supreme People’s Court Interpretation concerning Some Questions on Concretely Applicable Law in Hearing Civil Dispute Cases of Infringement of the Right of Dissemination Through Information Networks” has been passed on 26 January 2012 by the 1561st meeting of the Supreme People’s Court Trial Committee, is hereby promulgated, and will take effect on 1 January 2013.

Supreme People’s Court

17 December 2012

Supreme People’s Court Interpretation concerning Some Questions on Concretely Applicable Law in Hearing Civil Dispute Cases of Infringement of the Right of Dissemination Through Information Networks

(FS No. (2012)20, passed on 26 January 2012 by the 1561st meeting of the Supreme People’s Court Trial Committee)

In order to correctly hear civil dispute cases of infringement of the right of dissemination through information networks, protect the right of dissemination through information networks according to the law, stimulate the healthy development of the information network industry, safeguard the public interest, on the basis of the provisions of the “General Principles of Civil Law of the People’s Republic of China”, the “Tort Liability Law of the People’s Republic of China”, the “Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China”, the “Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China” and other relevant laws, and integrating judicial practice, these Regulations are formulated.

Article 1: When People’s Courts hear civil dispute cases of infringement of the right of dissemination through information networks, and exercise their power of consideration according to the law, they shall concurrently deal with the interests of rights holders, network service providers and the social public.

Article 2: Information networks as named in these Regulations, includes computer Internet, radio and television networks, fixed telecommunications networks, mobile communications networks and other information networks with computers, television sets, fixed telephones, mobile telephones and other electronic equipment as terminals, as well as local area networks open to the public.

Article 3: Where network users and network service providers, without permission, provide works, performances, audio or video products of which the rights holder enjoys the right of dissemination through information networks, through information networks, apart from where laws and administrative regulations provide otherwise, People’s Courts shall find that this constitutes and act of infringement of the right of dissemination through information networks.

Where works, performances, audio or video products are placed on information networks through uploading to network servers, establishing shared files, using file-sharing software or other methods, enabling the public to download, browse or otherwise acquire them at an individually chosen time and place, People’s Courts shall find that this is conducting an act of provision as provided in the previous Paragraph.

Article 4: Where there is evidence to prove that network service providers jointly provide works, performances, audio or video products by cooperation with other persons and other methods, constituting an act of joint infringement, People’s Courts shall find impose the verdict that they must bear joint liability. Where network service providers are able to prove that they provided automatic access, automatic transmission, information storage, search, linkage, file sharing and other network technology, and advocate that this does not constitute an act of joint infringement, People’s Courts shall support this.

Article 5: Where network service providers, through providing webpage quick-views, thumbnails and other methods, substantially substitute related works that other network service providers provide to the public, People’s Courts shall find this constitutes an act of provision.

Where act of provision provided in the previous Paragraph does not influence the regular use of corresponding works, and does not unreasonably harm the rights holders’ lawful rights and interests over the work concerned, and network service providers advocate that this does not constitute and infringement of right of dissemination through internet networks, People’s Courts shall support this.

Article 6: Where the plaintiff has preliminary evidence proving that network service providers provide related works, performances, audio or video products, but the network service provider is able to prove that it only provided network services and there is no fault, People’s Courts shall not find this to be an act of infringement.

Article 7: Where network service providers, when providing network services, instigate or assist network users to conduct acts infringing tin, People’s Courts shall impose the verdict that they bear joint liability for infringement.

Where network service providers encourage network users to carry out acts infringing the right of dissemination through internet networks through language, recommending technological support, awards, points or other methods, People’s Courts shall find this constitutes an act of instigating infringement.

Where network service providers clearly know or should clearly know that network users use network services to infringe the right of dissemination through internet networks, and do not adopt necessary measures, such as deletion, blocking, breaking links, etc., or provide technological support or other acts of assistance, People’s Courts shall find this constitutes an act of assisting infringement.

Article 8: People’s Courts shall, on the basis of the fault of network service providers, find whether or not they bear liability for an act of instigating or assisting infringement. Network service providers’ faults include whether they clearly know or should know of network users’ acts of infringement of the right of dissemination through internet networks.

Where network service providers have not conducted inspection of acts of infringement of the right of dissemination through internet networks by network users, People’s Courts shall not find fault on this basis.

Where network service providers are able to prove that they have adopted reasonable and effective technological measures, and it is still difficult to discover acts of infringement of the right of dissemination through internet networks by network users, People’s Courts shall not find fault on this basis.

Article 9: People’s Courts shall, on the basis of whether or not the concrete facts of infringement of the right of dissemination through internet networks by network users are clear, comprehensively consider the following factors, to find whether or not network service providers should have known about it:

(1) on the basis of the nature and methods of the network services provided by the network service provider and the extent of the possibility to initiate infringement, and the capacity to manage information it should have;

(2) the category, fame and clarity of the infringing information of the disseminated work, performance, audio or video work;

(3) whether or not network service providers have actively selected, edited, revised, recommended, etc. the work, performance, audio or video work;

(4) whether or not the network service provider has vigorously adopted reasonable measures to prevent infringement;

(5) whether or not network service providers have installed convenient procedures to receive notification of infringement and has responded timely and reasonably to notifications of infringement;

(6) whether or not network service providers have adopted corresponding reasonable measures towards repeated acts of infringement by the same network user;

(7) other related factors.

Article 10: When network service providers provide network services, and recommend hit film or television works, etc., by setting up name lists, directories, indexes, descriptive paragraphs, content synopses and other methods, and the public may directly obtain them through download, browsing or other methods on network service providers’ webpages, People’s Courts may find they should know of network users’ infringement of the right of dissemination through internet networks.

Article 11: Where network service providers directly obtain economic benefit from works, performances, audio and video works provided by network users, People’s Courts shall find they have a relatively high duty of care concerning the acts of infringement of the right of dissemination through internet networks by network users.

Where network service providers obtain income by inserting advertising aimed at specific works, performances, audio and video works, or obtain economic benefit from other specific connections to the works, performances, audio and video works they disseminate, it shall be found that this is directly obtaining economic benefit as provided in the previous Paragraph. Where network service providers collect normal advertising fees, service fees, etc., for providing network services, this does not fall under the circumstances provided in this Paragraph.

Article 12: Where one of the following circumstances is present, People’s Courts may, on the basis of the concrete circumstances of the case, find that the network service provider providing information storage space should clearly know about the acts of infringement of the right of dissemination through internet networks by network users:

(1) where hit film or television works, etc., are placed on the main page or other important pages and other position that enable network service providers to clearly perceive them;

(2) where active selection, editing, arrangement or recommendation of the titles or content hit film or television works is conducted, or special name rankings are made for these;

(3) other circumstances in which it can be clearly known that relevant works, performances, audio or video works are provided without permission, and no reasonable measures have been adopted.

Article 13: Where network service providers receive a notification from a rights holder through letter, fax, e-mail or other means, and do not timely adopt deletion, blocking, breaking of links and other necessary measures, People’s Courts shall find they clearly know about the corresponding act of infringement of the right of dissemination through internet networks.

Article 14: For People’s Courts to find whether or not deletion, blocking, breaking of links and other necessary measures by network service providers are timely, they shall make a comprehensive judgement on the basis of the form of the notification submitted by the rights holder, the extent to which the notification is accurate, the extent of the difficulty to adopt measures, the nature of the network service, the category, fame and quantity of the involved works, performances, audio or video works and other factors.

Article 15: Civil disputes about the infringement of the right of dissemination through internet networks are under the jurisdiction of the People’s Court of the location of the infringing act or the location of residence of the defendant. The location of the infringing act includes the location where the network servers, computer terminals and other technical equipment used in implementing the infringing act at issue are located. Where the location of the infringing act and the location of residence of the defendant are hard to determine or are abroad, the location of the computer terminal on which the plaintiff discovered the infringing content and other equipment may be considered as the location of the infringing act.

Article 16: From the date on which these Regulations take effect, the “Supreme People’s Court Interpretation Concerning Some Issues Concerning Applicable Law in Cases Involving Computer Network Copyright Disputes” (FS No. (2006)11) is simultaneously abolished.

These Regulations apply to civil dispute cases on infringement of the right of dissemination through internet networks that have not been finally adjudicated when these Regulations take effect. Where final adjudication has taken place before these Regulations take effect, and the parties concerned apply for retrial or a retrial is decided according to judicial supervision procedure, these Regulations do not apply.

 

《最高人民法院关于审理侵害信息网络传播权民事纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的规定》已于2012年11月26日由最高人民法院审判委员会第1561次会议通过，现予公布，自2013年1月1日起施行。

最高人民法院

2012年12月17日

最高人民法院关于审理侵害信息网络传播权民事纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的规定

（法释〔2012〕20号，2012年11月26日最高人民法院审判委员会第1561次会议通过）

为正确审理侵害信息网络传播权民事纠纷案件，依法保护信息网络传播权，促进信息网络产业健康发展，维护公共利益，根据《中华人民共和国民法通则》《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》《中华人民共和国著作权法》《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》等有关法律规定，结合审判实际，制定本规定。

第一条 人民法院审理侵害信息网络传播权民事纠纷案件，在依法行使裁量权时，应当兼顾权利人、网络服务提供者和社会公众的利益。

第二条 本规定所称信息网络，包括以计算机、电视机、固定电话机、移动电话机等电子设备为终端的计算机互联网、广播电视网、固定通信网、移动通信网等信息网络，以及向公众开放的局域网络。

第三条 网络用户、网络服务提供者未经许可，通过信息网络提供权利人享有信息网络传播权的作品、表演、录音录像制品，除法律、行政法规另有规定外，人民法院应当认定其构成侵害信息网络传播权行为。

通过上传到网络服务器、设置共享文件或者利用文件分享软件等方式，将作品、表演、录音录像制品置于信息网络中，使公众能够在个人选定的时间和地点以下载、浏览或者其他方式获得的，人民法院应当认定其实施了前款规定的提供行为。

第四条 有证据证明网络服务提供者与他人以分工合作等方式共同提供作品、表演、录音录像制品，构成共同侵权行为的，人民法院应当判令其承担连带责任。网络服务提供者能够证明其仅提供自动接入、自动传输、信息存储空间、搜索、链接、文件分享技术等网络服务，主张其不构成共同侵权行为的，人民法院应予支持。

第五条 网络服务提供者以提供网页快照、缩略图等方式实质替代其他网络服务提供者向公众提供相关作品的，人民法院应当认定其构成提供行为。

前款规定的提供行为不影响相关作品的正常使用，且未不合理损害权利人对该作品的合法权益，网络服务提供者主张其未侵害信息网络传播权的，人民法院应予支持。

第六条 原告有初步证据证明网络服务提供者提供了相关作品、表演、录音录像制品，但网络服务提供者能够证明其仅提供网络服务，且无过错的，人民法院不应认定为构成侵权。

第七条 网络服务提供者在提供网络服务时教唆或者帮助网络用户实施侵害信息网络传播权行为的，人民法院应当判令其承担侵权责任。

网络服务提供者以言语、推介技术支持、奖励积分等方式诱导、鼓励网络用户实施侵害信息网络传播权行为的，人民法院应当认定其构成教唆侵权行为。

网络服务提供者明知或者应知网络用户利用网络服务侵害信息网络传播权，未采取删除、屏蔽、断开链接等必要措施，或者提供技术支持等帮助行为的，人民法院应当认定其构成帮助侵权行为。

第八条 人民法院应当根据网络服务提供者的过错，确定其是否承担教唆、帮助侵权责任。网络服务提供者的过错包括对于网络用户侵害信息网络传播权行为的明知或者应知。

网络服务提供者未对网络用户侵害信息网络传播权的行为主动进行审查的，人民法院不应据此认定其具有过错。

网络服务提供者能够证明已采取合理、有效的技术措施，仍难以发现网络用户侵害信息网络传播权行为的，人民法院应当认定其不具有过错。

第九条 人民法院应当根据网络用户侵害信息网络传播权的具体事实是否明显，综合考虑以下因素，认定网络服务提供者是否构成应知：

（一）基于网络服务提供者提供服务的性质、方式及其引发侵权的可能性大小，应当具备的管理信息的能力；

（二）传播的作品、表演、录音录像制品的类型、知名度及侵权信息的明显程度；

（三）网络服务提供者是否主动对作品、表演、录音录像制品进行了选择、编辑、修改、推荐等；

（四）网络服务提供者是否积极采取了预防侵权的合理措施；

（五）网络服务提供者是否设置便捷程序接收侵权通知并及时对侵权通知作出合理的反应；

（六）网络服务提供者是否针对同一网络用户的重复侵权行为采取了相应的合理措施；

（七）其他相关因素。

第十条 网络服务提供者在提供网络服务时，对热播影视作品等以设置榜单、目录、索引、描述性段落、内容简介等方式进行推荐，且公众可以在其网页上直接以下载、浏览或者其他方式获得的，人民法院可以认定其应知网络用户侵害信息网络传播权。

第十一条 网络服务提供者从网络用户提供的作品、表演、录音录像制品中直接获得经济利益的，人民法院应当认定其对该网络用户侵害信息网络传播权的行为负有较高的注意义务。

网络服务提供者针对特定作品、表演、录音录像制品投放广告获取收益，或者获取与其传播的作品、表演、录音录像制品存在其他特定联系的经济利益，应当认定为前款规定的直接获得经济利益。网络服务提供者因提供网络服务而收取一般性广告费、服务费等，不属于本款规定的情形。

第十二条 有下列情形之一的，人民法院可以根据案件具体情况，认定提供信息存储空间服务的网络服务提供者应知网络用户侵害信息网络传播权：

（一）将热播影视作品等置于首页或者其他主要页面等能够为网络服务提供者明显感知的位置的；

（二）对热播影视作品等的主题、内容主动进行选择、编辑、整理、推荐，或者为其设立专门的排行榜的；

（三）其他可以明显感知相关作品、表演、录音录像制品为未经许可提供，仍未采取合理措施的情形。

第十三条 网络服务提供者接到权利人以书信、传真、电子邮件等方式提交的通知，未及时采取删除、屏蔽、断开链接等必要措施的，人民法院应当认定其明知相关侵害信息网络传播权行为。

第十四条 人民法院认定网络服务提供者采取的删除、屏蔽、断开链接等必要措施是否及时，应当根据权利人提交通知的形式，通知的准确程度，采取措施的难易程度，网络服务的性质，所涉作品、表演、录音录像制品的类型、知名度、数量等因素综合判断。

第十五条 侵害信息网络传播权民事纠纷案件由侵权行为地或者被告住所地人民法院管辖。侵权行为地包括实施被诉侵权行为的网络服务器、计算机终端等设备所在地。侵权行为地和被告住所地均难以确定或者在境外的，原告发现侵权内容的计算机终端等设备所在地可以视为侵权行为地。

第十六条 本规定施行之日起，《最高人民法院关于审理涉及计算机网络著作权纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释》（法释〔2006〕11号）同时废止。

本规定施行之后尚未终审的侵害信息网络传播权民事纠纷案件，适用本规定。本规定施行前已经终审，当事人申请再审或者按照审判监督程序决定再审的，不适用本规定。