Rednote and a Foreign Artist’s
“Half Victory” in China’s Courts†
Table of Contents
Estimated Reading Time
- 7.4 min
Karen Arnold, Do Not Copy Stamp (Publicdomainpictures.net)
In early January, an appellate court in Beijing delivered a victory to a Belgian artist in a five-year-long legal battle, upholding an earlier ruling of the Beijing Intellectual Property Court (“BIPC”) that his paintings have been plagiarized for years by a Chinese artist and requiring the Chinese artist to apologize publicly and pay RMB 5 million as compensation.
A key step towards this victory was the Belgian artist’s success in keeping the case in the BIPC, whose jurisdiction was challenged by the Chinese artist. All artists around the world seeking to protect their copyrights should understand both the positive actions the BIPC took in this case and the confusion that remains as a result of the court’s decision, as well as why they should leverage platforms such as Rednote to avoid ordeals like the one experienced by the Belgian artist.
The Legal Battle
The legal battle began in 2019, when Christian Silvain, a Belgian artist whose paintings were not known in China at the time, sued YE Yongqing, a leading Chinese artist, for plagiarizing more than 100 of his paintings from 1993 to 2018. In 2023, the BIPC ruled in favor of Christian Silvain.
“[…], the [Beijing Intellectual Property Court] applied a test to determine whether plagiarism had occurred.”
After finding that Ye Yongqing had first encountered Christian Silvain’s paintings in the early 1990s, the BIPC applied a test to determine whether plagiarism had occurred. The test requires judges to consider from “the perspective of an ordinary observer” the visual characteristics of an original painting and those of an allegedly infringing painting. If, viewed in their entirety, the two paintings have only “subtle differences” that an ordinary observer likely ignores unless the observer deliberately looks for such differences, the two paintings can then be determined as “substantively similar”.
The BIPC examined the paintings at issue, including the two pieces shown in the following image, and concluded that plagiarism had occurred because Ye Yongqing’s allegedly infringing paintings are “substantively similar” to Christian Silvain’s paintings. This decision was recently upheld by the High People’s Court of Beijing Municipality. On January 23, 2025, following the judgment, Ye Yongqing published his apology to Christian Silvain on the Legal Daily.
The Jurisdictional Challenge
The road to Christian Silvain’s victory was a rocky one. One obstacle was Ye Yongqing’s disappearance at one point to avoid receiving documents formally served by the BIPC. A public notice was finally issued to request his attendance in court, or the court would conduct the trial in his absence.
“Had this obstacle not been removed, the outcome of this legal dispute could have been completely different.”
Another obstacle was Ye Yongqing’s challenge to the BIPC’s jurisdiction. Had this obstacle not been removed, the outcome of this legal dispute could have been completely different. According to the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China and related judicial interpretations, litigation arising from infringement shall be subject to the jurisdiction of a court at the place where the infringement occurred or where the defendant’s domicile is. If the place where the defendant’s domicile is and his “place of habitual residence” are different, the court located at his place of habitual residence shall have jurisdiction.
In China, a citizen’s domicile is located at the place where the citizen’s household is registered. During the relevant period for the case, Ye Yongqing’s household was registered in Beijing and his domicile, therefore, was located in the city—a fact that would lead to the conclusion that the BIPC had jurisdiction over his case. However, Ye Yongqing argued that he had long resided in Dali City, Yunnan Province, and that, as a result, the Intermediate People’s Court of Dali City, Yunnan Province, should have jurisdiction over his case. Ultimately, the High People’s Court of Beijing Municipality confirmed the BIPC’s jurisdiction, on the grounds that Ye Yongqing failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove that he had lived continuously in Dali City for at least one year—a requirement stated in a judicial interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law—from the time when he left Beijing to the time when this lawsuit began.
The recognition of the BIPC’s jurisdiction over this case may have allowed Christian Silvain to have a better chance to receive a fair trial, given that the BIPC is outside of Yunnan. In Yunnan, there might have been a risk that the judges could be more susceptible to local pressure to rule in favor of Ye Yongqing. Prior to this dispute, Ye Yongqing was a professor at the Sichuan Fine Arts Institute, the only higher art academy in Southwest China. His reputation and influence in the region led to his being named “Yunnan’s Chief of Modern Art”.
Another advantage of having the BIPC adjudicate this case was that its experience in handling significant intellectual property cases, including those involving foreign parties, could provide Christian Silvain with more assurance that the case would be handled competently. Established by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress in 2014, the BIPC is one of China’s four intellectual property courts. The other three courts of this type are in Guangzhou, Shanghai, and the Hainan Free Trade Port. The BIPC was established with a goal to help strengthen judicial protection of intellectual property rights. To this end, the BIPC is authorized to exercise jurisdiction over, inter alia, first-instance civil intellectual property cases involving “highly professional and technical matters” and to recruit more qualified and experienced judges.
In fact, as reported by a white paper, the BIPC finished handling nearly 200,000 intellectual property cases of different types from November 2014 to October 2024. A total number of 36,201 of these cases involved foreign parties from more than 100 different countries or regions. Seventy-five cases decided by the BIPC have won the recognition of the Supreme People’s Court and been re-issued as “Intellectual Property Protection Typical Cases”.
Preventive Measures
Despite the BIPC’s relative impartiality and competence, its judgment in this case, which, as mentioned above, was recently upheld by the High People’s Court of Beijing Municipality, has caused perplexity. Ye Yongqing was only required to pay Christian Silvain RMB 5 million as compensation, an amount far below what was stated in the Belgian artist’s claim: approximately RMB 60 million.
The Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China requires the amount of compensation in a copyright infringement case to be based on “the actual losses suffered by the right holder” or “the illegal gains of the infringer”. If such actual losses and illegal gains are difficult to calculate, the amount of compensation may be based on “the fees for using the right [at issue]”. If such fees are also difficult to calculate, the court is authorized to determine an amount of compensation ranging from RMB 500 to RMB 5 million by considering “the circumstances of the infringement”.
In this case, Ye Yongqing’s illegal gains included illegal proceeds directly obtained through public auction. All these proceeds should be able to be easily tracked and verified and, according to Christian Silvain’s claim, amounted to approximately RMB 50 million. While other illegal gains may be difficult to calculate, shouldn’t the BIPC have required Ye Yongqing to pay an amount of compensation that at least covers the illegal gains that were capable of being calculated?
In light of this uncertainty, it is wise for all artists around the world to take preventive measures by widely publicizing their works on popular Chinese platforms such as Rednote. Greater recognition of their works in China will help stop plagiarism in the first place, as infringers in China cannot easily benefit from the Chinese population’s unawareness of such foreign art. On Christian Silvain’s official website, it is written:
The case [made] a splash in China, where Ye Yongqing [was] accused of fraud by customers. […] the Belgian artist does not let himself be shaken by the case; he continues to produce in his […] studio […].
The Belgian artist’s admirable strength and persistence also send a cautionary note to all foreign artists: the risk of going through a long ordeal to only receive a small portion of the damages claimed suggests that prevention trumps litigation.
- The citation of this article is: Dr. Mei Gechlik, Rednote and a Foreign Artist’s “Half-Victory” in China’s Courts, SINOTALKS.COM®, In Brief No. 52, Jan. 29, 2025, https://sinotalks.com/inbrief/202501-english-copyright-art.
The original, English version of this article was edited by Nathan Harpainter. The information and views set out in this article are the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the work or views of SINOTALKS®. ↩︎
