Case summary

The plaintiffs, Company J and Company Y, jointly produced the virtual digital humans "A" and "B" in collaboration with other entities. Company J owns the copyright, while Company Y is responsible for operation. Virtual digital human A has gained over 4.4 million followers across various online platforms.

The plaintiffs argued that the images of A and B constitute works of fine art. Specifically, A was first released in a short drama, while B debuted on social media. After leaving a joint creative unit, Defendant 1, surnamed Sun, sold unauthorized models of A and B on a CG (computer graphics) model website operated by Defendant 2, Company X. The plaintiffs claimed this infringed their reproduction right and their right of communication through information network in respect of the images. They further argued that Company X, as the platform operator, failed to fulfill its duty of supervision and should bear joint liability with Sun.

Defendant 1, Sun, contended that the plaintiffs only held copyrights over head models, whereas his uploads were full-body CG models, which had  low similarity to the original images and thus did not constitute infringement. He also questioned the authenticity of the plaintiffs’ evidence, pointed to inconsistencies with industry practice, and alleged conflicts of interest between Company X and the plaintiffs.

Defendant 2, Company X, argued that it had not been notified in advance and had no prior knowledge of infringement. As a network service provider, Company X maintained that it had implemented reasonable preventive measures, including upload review, routine inspections, keyword filtering, user agreements, and a complaint channel for  promptly handling infringement reports. Company X further argued that A and B were not widely known and had indistinct features, making proactive detection unreasonable, and that it had fulfilled its duty of care.

Details of the judgment

Beijing Internet Court(BIC) held that A's full-body image and B's head image were not derived directly from real persons but were created by the production team. These images embodied clear artistic effects and reflected unique aesthetic choices in terms of lines, colors, and design, thereby meeting the originality requirement for artistic works under copyright law.

Although parts of the short drama depicting A used footage of real person in costume, such footage expressed the designed image of A rather than natural features of real individual. This represented an artistic work in the form of costumed portrayal and did not affect the recognition of A's full-body image as an artistic work.

The evidence established that Company J created and published the images of A and B through its official platforms, and that Company Y, by exclusive license, held all rights except publication and attribution. Both thus had standing to bring the lawsuit.

The BIC found Sun's uploaded models substantially similar in facial features, hairstyle, ornaments, clothing, and overall style—especially in the combination of original elements—to the protected works. This constituted substantial similarity and infringed the plaintiffs' right of communication through information network.

Considering the nature of Company X's services, its limited control over content, lack of direct profit from the infringing models, and the relatively low recognition of the works, the court held that Company X did not constitute a joint infringer.

The court emphasized that virtual digital humans may involve multiple rights, but this case only concerned the rights in artistic works. In assessing damages, the court considered the type of right claimed, the market value of the works, the infringer's fault, the nature and scale of the infringement, and the actual damage, and awarded reasonable compensation.

Significance

The virtual human industry is rapidly expanding, with applications in e-commerce, media, culture and tourism, and finance. According to the 2024 China Digital Human Development Report by the Internet Society of China, the country's core digital human market is expected to exceed 40 billion yuan in 2025, driving an industry scale of over 600 billion yuan. Clarifying the legal attributes of virtual digital humans and defining the boundaries of related conduct are crucial to healthy growth and the advancement of new quality productive forces.

Multiple rights involved

Virtual digital humans are complex objects of rights, comprising digital appearances and anthropomorphic functions. On the expressive level, if derived from real persons, they may involve the protection of personal rights such as portrait and voice. If original, they may be protected as artistic works under copyright law. On the technical level, underlying codes may be protected as computer software, while algorithms and data with secrecy and commercial value may qualify as trade secrets. In practice, protection paths must therefore be determined through case by case analysis, based on the claim and the circumstances.

In this case, the plaintiffs argued that A and B should be recognized as works of fine art. Rather than being based on real people, the images were created by a production team, showcasing distinctive artistic effects and unique aesthetic choices in lines, colors, and design. With both originality and artistic value, they meet the criteria for protection as artistic works.

Ownership of rights

The creation and interaction of virtual digital human images involve multiple parties and significant inputs of labor, technology, and capital, including technology providers, commissioning entities, and performers ("real persons behind the virtual characters"). According to the Copyright Law, the ownership of commissioned works shall be determined by contract; absent clear provisions, rights belong to the commissioned party. In practice, contracts typically clarify the ownership of copyright, trademark rights, and related IP. For collaborations, ownership and rights distribution must follow cooperation agreements. Where derived from real individuals, the person concerned enjoys rights over their likeness and voice. For "real-person-driven" virtual digital humans, performers may hold performer's rights under copyright law. At the same time, the individual must reach clear agreements with operators on authorization scope, profit-sharing, and related matters.

In this case, Company J commissioned its subsidiary to develop A and B, which created scanning models, 3D models, costumes, and head assets, and signed contracts with third parties specifying that all rights belonged to Company J. Company J then granted Company Y an exclusive license for all rights other than publication and attribution, along with enforcement rights. Both thus had standing to sue.

Damages for infringement

Virtual digital human images carry significant commercial value, widely applied in brand promotion and marketing in the digital era. In practice, licensing fees are often used to calculate damages, but such fees typically combine copyright license fees with derivative services such as copywriting, video production, and advertising. When the form of infringement differs from the agreed use, such fees may not be directly comparable. Given that virtual digital humans embody multiple rights, when damages are sought for a single right, losses should be assessed holistically, considering their composite value.

In this case, the plaintiffs asserted rights in A and B as artistic works. The BIC assessed damages by considering standards for art-related copyright infringement, the multiple rights involved, market value, the infringer's fault, the nature and scale of infringement, and the severity of damages, before awarding compensation.