Supreme People's Court 2026 New Regulations: Online Reprints Require Prior Authorization, Shenzhen Lawyer Interprets Three Major Changes and Compliance Key Points

Lead: On August 20, 2026, the Supreme People's Court issued the "Decision on AmendingThe Decision (hereinafter referred to as the "New Regulations") took effect on September 1. This revision focuses on everyday copyright pain points such as online reposting, exhibition photography, and the public recognition of works, and is regarded by the legal community as a precise "surgical operation" on copyright protection. As a practicing lawyer in Shenzhen, I believe the New Regulations not only change adjudication rules but also reshape the rules of the game in the content ecosystem. From a lawyer's practical perspective, this article will break down the three core changes of the New Regulations and provide compliance recommendations for creators and platforms.

I. Does "unauthorized publication" of a work count as "making it available to the public"? The burden of proof is significantly reduced.

The most notable change in the new regulation is the removal of the restriction in the original judicial interpretation that "making public" requires "permission from the copyright owner." In the past, if a work was stolen by hackers or uploaded by others without authorization, rights holders often found themselves in the awkward position of "not having made it public themselves, but the infringer already has"—whether this constituted "publication" was disputed, hindering the enforcement process.

After the new regulation takes effect, as long as a work is objectively disclosed to the unspecified public, it will be deemed as "made public to the public" regardless of whether it was disclosed voluntarily by the rights holder. This directly reduces the burden of proof on the rights holder. For example, if a photographer's unpublished work is stolen and posted on a social platform, they no longer need to prove that the disclosure was "involuntary" when suing for infringement; they can directly assert their rights based on the fact that the work has been made public.

Under Article 10, Paragraph 1, Item (1) of the Copyright Law, the "right of publication" is the right to decide whether a work is made available to the public. The adjustment in the new regulations actually strengthens substantive protection for the exercise of the right of publication—unauthorized disclosure is not deprived of legal evaluation merely because it constitutes an act by a non-rights holder. For the numerous cultural and technology enterprises in Shenzhen, this means a clearer path for rights enforcement in scenarios where trade secrets and copyright intersect.

2. The "fair use" scope for taking photos at exhibitions has been expanded, but "pixel-level replication" still crosses the red line.

The new regulation expands the scope of "fair use" from "outdoor public places" to "public places," removing the word "outdoor." This means that artworks displayed in indoor exhibitions, such as art galleries and museums, are now also included in the scope where the public can freely photograph and copy them. Ordinary visitors taking photos for check-ins or posting on social media fall under the fair use provision of "for personal study, research, or appreciation" as stipulated in Article 24 of the Copyright Law, and do not require authorization.

However, the new regulations simultaneously introduce a "red line": it is prohibited to "reproduce, display, or publicly disseminate" others' works through copying. Simply put, printing high-resolution photos from an art exhibition to hold a paid exhibition or create commercial posters constitutes infringement. This balances the public's cultural needs with the economic interests of creators.

As the City of Design, Shenzhen is home to numerous designers and illustrators who rely on income from exhibitions and licensing. With the new regulations clarifying the boundaries of "fair use," creators can more effectively prevent others from "free-riding" commercial exploitation. Lawyers suggest that exhibition organizers clearly display photography rules at entrances, while commercial users should obtain authorization in advance to avoid crossing the line.

III. For online reposting, "use only after authorization" applies; statutory licensing is limited to digital versions of traditional media.

The most important change in the new regulations is the clarification that reprinting in the online environment no longer falls under "statutory licensing." The original Article 33, Paragraph 2 of the Copyright Law allowed newspapers and periodicals to reprint or excerpt works, but the new regulations strictly limit this to "digital versions of traditional newspapers and periodicals" (such as electronic newspapers). This means that republishing articles among WeChat official accounts, news websites, and self-media platforms must obtain prior permission from the copyright holder and pay remuneration; otherwise, it constitutes infringement.

In practice, many platforms have used "statutory licensing" as a shield, republishing content first and paying fees later, or even not paying at all. The new regulations completely sever this "free-riding" path. For the many new media enterprises in Shenzhen, it is imperative to immediately establish an authorization review mechanism: verify ownership of rights before republishing, sign written licenses, and retain authorization records. Otherwise, once sued, they will face legal liabilities such as cessation of infringement and compensation for damages.

Under Article 53 of the Copyright Law, unauthorized reprinting may incur liabilities such as cessation of infringement, elimination of adverse effects, apology, and compensation for losses. The new regulations further clarify that when determining infringement, courts will no longer dwell on "whether it falls under statutory licensing" but will directly examine "whether authorization exists." This significantly improves the efficiency of rights enforcement.

IV. Practical Legal Advice for Lawyers: How Creators and Platforms Should Respond to the New Regulations

In response to the new regulations, creators should strengthen their awareness of rights: mark copyright statements when publishing works, keep original drafts and first-publication records; when infringement is discovered, promptly notarize or use blockchain evidence storage to secure proof. Platforms, on the other hand, need to upgrade their content review processes: implement "authorization slip" management for reposted articles, establish a blacklist system, and clean up existing unauthorized content.

Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm has深耕 the field of intellectual property for many years, offering enterprises professional services such as copyright compliance review, infringement litigation, and contract drafting. With the new regulations set to take effect soon, it is recommended that relevant parties adjust their business models promptly and avoid sticking to old practices.

The life of law lies in its implementation. The new regulations not only refine existing rules but also respond to the creative ecosystem of the digital era. Whether individual creators or internet platforms, only by respecting the rules can they achieve sustainable development on the track of the rule of law.