Regulations concerning Some Issues of Applicable Law in Hearing Civil Dispute Cases on Infringement of the Right to Dissemination through Information Networks

Posted on Updated on

(FS (2012)20, passed at the 1561st meeting of the Supreme People’s Court Trial Committee on 26 November 2012

Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China Announcement

The “Supreme People’s Court Regulations concerning Some Issues of Applicable Law in Hearing Civil Dispute Cases on Infringement of the Right to Dissemination through Information Networks” have been passed at the 1561st of the Supreme People’s Court Trial Committee on 26 November 2011, are hereby promulgated and take effect on 1 January 2013.

Supreme People’s Court

17 December 2012.

In order to correctly hear civil dispute cases on infringement of the right to dissemination through information networks, protect the right to dissemination through information networks according to the law, stimulate the healthy development of the information network industry, and safeguard the public interest, on the basis of the “General Principles of the Civil Code 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 regulations, in integration with the reality of adjudication, these Regulations are formulated.

Article 1: People’s Courts shall, when hearing civil dispute cases on infringement of the right of dissemination through information networks and exercising their power of consideration according to the law, comprehensively consider the rights and interests of rights holders, network service providers and the social public.

Article 2: Information networks as named in these Regulations, include computer networks, radio and television networks, fixed telecommunications networks, mobile telecommunications networks and other telecommunications networks with computers, television sets, fixed telephones, mobile telephones and other electronic equipment as terminal, as well as local area networks that are open to the public.

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

Putting works, performances or audiovisual works on information networks through uploading to a network server, setting up shared files or using file sharing websites, or other methods, that enables the public to download, browse or obtain them in other manners at an individually-chosen time and place, shall be considered by the People’s Court to constitute an act of provision as provided in the previous Paragraph.

Article 4: Where there is evidence or proof that network service providers have provided works, performances or audiovisual works jointly with other people through work division and cooperation methods, etc., and it constitutes an act of joint infringement, the People’s Courts shall judge that they bear joint liability. Where network service providers  are able to prove that they only provided automatic access, automatic transmission, information storage space, search, linkage, file sharing technology and other network services, and hold that this does not constitute joint liability fro infringement, the People’s Courts shall uphold this.

Article 5: Where network service providers substantially replace other network service providers’ providing related works to the public through website screenshots, abridged images and other means, the People’s Courts shall find that this constitutes an act of provision.

The act of provision provided in the previous Paragraph does not influence the regular use of related works, and where it does not unreasonably damage the lawful rights and interests of rights holders over the work in question, and network service providers hold that this does not infringe the right to dissemination through information networks, the People’s Courts shall uphold this.

Article 6: Where plaintiffs have preliminary evidence or prove that network service providers have provided relevant works, performances or audiovisual works, but the network service provider is able to prove that it only provided network service, and did not commit a fault, the People’s Courts shall not find that this constitutes infringement.

Article 7: Where network service providers abet or assist network users in committing acts infringing the right of dissemination through information networks when providing network services, the People’s Courts shall judge that they bear responsibility for the infringement.

Where network service providers induce or encourage network users to commit acts infringing the right of dissemination through information networks through language, introducing technological support, reward points or other methods, the People’s Courts shall judge that this constitutes an act of abetting infringement.

Where network service providers clearly know or should clearly know that network users user network services to infringe the right of dissemination through information networks, and do not adopt deletion, screening, linkage disconnection or other necessary measures, or provide technological support or other acts or assistance, the People’s Courts shall judge that this constitutes an act of assisting infringement.

Article 8: The people’s court shall, on the basis of the fault of the network service provider, determine whether or hot it bears liability for abetting or assisting infringement. Network service providers’ faults include whether they knew of or should have known of the network user’s acts of infringement of the right of dissemination through information networks.

Where network service providers do not actively investigate network users’ acts infringing the right of dissemination through information networks, the People’s Courts shall not judge on the basis of this that they are at fault.

Where network service providers are able to prove that they have already adopted reasonable and effective technological means, and it was still difficult to discover network users’ acts infringing the right of dissemination through information networks, the People’s Courts shall find that they are not at fault.

Article 9: The People’s Courts shall, on the basis of whether or not the concrete facts of network users’ infringement of the right of dissemination through information network is clear, comprehensively consider the following factors, to determine whether or not these facts constitute something that the network service provider should have known:

(1) based on the nature, method and the extent of the probability of causing infringement of the service provided by the network service provider, and the capacity to manage information that it should have;

(2) the category and degree of celebrity of the disseminated work, performance or audiovisual product, and the degree to which the infringing information is clear;

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

(4) whether or not network service providers actively adopted reasonable measures to prevent infringement;

(5) whether or not network service providers have set up convenient procedures to receive notification of infringement and timely provide reasonable reaction to notification of infringement;

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

(7) other related factors.

Article 10: Where network providers, when providing network services, recommend popular film or television works, etc., by setting up lists, directories, searches, descriptive sections, content synopses and other methods, and the public can directly download, browse or obtain it in other ways on the webpage, the People’s Courts may find that they should have known about network users’ infringement of the right of dissemination through information networks.

Article 11: Where network service providers directly gain economic interest from works, performances or audiovisual products provided by network users, the People’s Courts shall find that they bear a relatively high duty of care concerning the acts of infringement of the right of dissemination through information networks of the said network users.

Network service providers who insert advertising into specific works, performances or audiovisual products and gain profit, or who gain economic interest from other specific connections with the works, performances or audiovisual works they disseminate, shall be found to directly gain economic interest as provided in the previous Paragraph. Network service providers that collect normal advertising fees or service fees, etc., through providing network services, do not fall under the circumstances provided in the previous Paragraph.

Article 12: Where one of the following circumstances is present, the People’s Courts may, on the basis of the concrete situation of the vase, find that network service providers providing information storage space services should have known about the network user’s infringement of the right of dissemination through information networks:

(1) where popular film or television works, etc., are placed on the front page or other major pages, or other places where the network service provider can clearly notice it;

(2) where the title or content of popular film or television works, etc., is subject to selection, editing, arrangement, recommendation or where special lists are set up for them;

(3) other circumstances where it can be clearly noticed that the corresponding work, performance or audiovisual product is provided without authorization, and no reasonable measures are adopted.

Article 13: Where network service providers receive notification submitted by rights holders in written, faxed, electronic mail or other forms, and do not timely adopt deletion, blocking, breaking links or other necessary measures, the Peoples Courts shall find that they clearly know of the corresponding act of infringement of the right of dissemination through information networks.

Article 14: When the People’s Courts are in the process of determining whether or not network service providers have adopted deletion, blocking, breaking links or other necessary measures, they shall comprehensively judge the matter on the basis of the circumstances in which the rights holder submitted notification, the level of accuracy of the notification, the degree of difficulty of adopting measures, the nature of the network service, the category, degree of celebrity and quantity of the work, performance or audiovisual product involved and other factors.

Article 15: Civil dispute cases on the infringement of the right of dissemination through information networks fall under the jurisdiction of the People’s Court of the locality of the infringing act or the locality of the defendant. The locality of the infringing act includes the locality of the network servers, computer terminals and other equipment that used in carrying out the contested act of infringement. Where the locality of the act of infringement and the locality of the defendant are both difficult to determine or are abroad, the locality of the computer terminal and other equipment on which the plaintiff discovered the infringing content may be considered as the locality of infringement.

Article 16: On the date these Regulations take effect, the “Supreme People’s Court Interpretation concerning Some Issues of Applicable Law in Hearing Dispute Cases involving the Right of Dissemination through Computer Networks” (FS No. (2006)11), are abolished.

Where civil dispute cases on the right of dissemination through information networks have not yet been finally adjudged after these Regulations take effect, these Regulations apply. Where there has been a final adjudication before these Regulations took effect, and the parties request a retrial, or a retrial is decided according to the 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

(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)
中华人民共和国最高人民法院公告

《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

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。

One thought on “Regulations concerning Some Issues of Applicable Law in Hearing Civil Dispute Cases on Infringement of the Right to Dissemination through Information Networks

    Latest Updates | China Copyright and Media said:
    April 27, 2013 at 10:34 am

    […] Regulations concerning Some Issues of Applicable Law in Hearing Civil Dispute Cases on Infringement … (2012) […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s