On August 18, 2025, the Beijing Internet Court announced a decision that the digital avatars are works of art and qualify for copyright protection. Avatars A and B were jointly produced by four entities, including plaintiff Ju XX Company and plaintiff Yuan XX Company. Plaintiff Ju XX Company is the copyright holder, while plaintiff Yuan XX Company is responsible for operations. Avatar A has over 4.4 million followers across various platforms and was named one of the eight hottest events of the year in the cultural and tourism industries in 2022. The two plaintiffs argued that the images of the avatars constitute works of art, with Avatar A first published in a short play and avatar B first published on a Weibo account. After resigning, Sun XX, an employee of one of the defendant’s co-creation units, unauthorizedly sold the models of the avatars on a computer-general model website operated by defendant Xi XX Company, infringing the two plaintiffs’ rights to reproduce and disseminate the avatar images through information networks. Defendant Xi XX Company, as the platform provider, failed to fulfill its supervisory responsibilities and should bear joint and several liability with defendant Sun.

Defendant Sun argued that the second plaintiff claimed copyright only for the head model, but the model Sun uploaded was a full-body CG character model. The similarity between the two models was low, insufficient to meet the statutory standards, and therefore did not constitute infringement. The second plaintiff’s evidence appears to have been tampered with, and their creative process differed from industry practices. Furthermore, defendant Xi Company has a vested interest in the plaintiff and may be suspected of fabricating evidence. Therefore, the court is requested to dismiss the second plaintiff’s lawsuit.

The second defendant, Xi Company, argued that the two plaintiffs failed to provide advance notice and could not prove that Xi Company was aware of the infringement. As an internet service provider, Xi Company has implemented reasonable measures to prevent copyright infringement, including upload review, regular screening, keyword blocking, and user agreement reminders. It also has a convenient infringement complaint channel and promptly handles complaints upon receipt. Furthermore, the avatars involved in the case are relatively unknown and lack distinctive features, making it difficult for Xi Company to proactively identify infringement. Xi Company has fulfilled its duty of reasonable care and should not bear liability for infringement. The defendant requested the court dismiss the two plaintiffs’ claims.

The Court held that the full-body image of avatar A and the head image of avatar B are not directly derived from real people, but are produced by the production team. They possess distinct artistic creation effects, reflecting the production team’s unique aesthetic choices and judgment regarding line, color, and specific image design. They meet the requirements of originality and constitute works of art. The second plaintiffs’ claim to the full-body image of avatar A is based on a short video. Although some footage was shot with a real-life body during the production of the video, the  image reflects the design of avatar A rather than the natural physical features of a real person. Therefore, it is a work of  art expressed in the form of an image of a real-life body. Therefore, this does not affect the second plaintiffs’ claim that the full-body image of avatar A constitutes a work of art.

The images of avatars A and B were created by plaintiff Ju Company and published through all of its platform accounts. With its authorization, plaintiff Yuan Company enjoys all copyrights to the images of avatars A and B, except for the right of publication and the right of attribution, and has the right to jointly or independently pursue rights-related matters with plaintiff Ju Company. Therefore, the court determined that plaintiff Ju Company, as the copyright owner of the works in question, and plaintiff Yuan Company, as the exclusive licensee of the works in question, are entitled to bring this lawsuit.

Defendant Sun published the allegedly infringing model on the CG Model website. The model’s facial features, hairstyle, hair accessories, clothing design, and overall style, particularly the combination of elements that are original to the copyrighted work, are identical or similar to the avatars A and B in the works at issue. This constitutes substantial similarity and infringes upon the plaintiffs’ right to disseminate the works on the information network. Taking into account factors such as the specific type of service provided by defendant Xi Company, the degree of interference with the accused content, whether it directly benefited from the infringement, the fame of the copyrighted work, and the popularity of the accused content, defendant Xi Company, as an internet service provider, did not jointly infringement.

Avatars carry multiple rights and interests. In this case, only the rights and interests of the artwork are determined. The amount of economic compensation in this case is determined by comprehensively considering the type of rights requested for protection, the market value, the subjective fault of the infringer, the nature and scale of the infringement, and the severity of the damage.

The court ordered the first defendant, Sun, to compensate the second plaintiff for economic losses of RMB 15,000 (of which the compensation amount for Avatar A was RMB 10,000 and the compensation amount for Avater B was RMB 5,000).

The full text of the announcement is available here (Chinese only).