To enhance and standardize legal reasoning in judicial documents and promote the uniform application of law, the Beijing court system organized its 11th Outstanding Judicial Document Selection. After preliminary, secondary, and final evaluations, 100 documents were awarded, including 10 first prizes, 20 second prizes, 30 third prizes, and 40 excellence awards. The first-prize document featured today is the copyright infringement dispute between Xi and Ye, presided over by Judge Li Zhifeng of the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.

Judge Li Zhifeng reflected that since engaging in intellectual property adjudication, drafting judicial documents has been a core subject of continuous exploration and refinement. Each complex case trial represents comprehensive training in fact organization, legal application, and reasoning expression. The handling and document drafting of this case provided deeper insights into conducting solid case trials and producing high-quality judicial documents.

**Case Review** Case Name: Xi v. Ye Copyright Infringement Dispute Case Number: (2019) Jing 73 Min Chu No. 1376 Adjudicating Court: Beijing Intellectual Property Court Presiding Judge: Li Zhifeng Case Type: Intellectual Property

**Basic Facts** In March 1990, Xi's 13 copyrighted paintings were first published at the Central Gallery in Paris, France. In 2019, Xi filed a lawsuit claiming that defendant Ye, over 25 years starting from 1993, created 176 paintings that plagiarized Xi's 13 copyrighted works. The alleged infringements included both complete copying of the 13 works and partial infringement of elements. Xi requested the court to order Ye to cease infringement, issue a formal apology, and compensate for economic losses.

Ye argued having created only 124 paintings, denying copyright infringement. Regarding 7 similar paintings, Ye claimed independent creation, stating that some similar elements and compositional techniques were not protected by copyright law. The remaining 117 paintings were argued not to constitute substantial similarity.

**Key Excerpts** **(II) Distinguishing Ideas from Expression in Artistic Works** Copyright law protects the original expression within works - the manifestation of ideas or emotions - rather than the underlying ideas or emotions themselves. Generally, ideas encompass concepts, terminology, principles, objective facts, creativity, discoveries, etc. Expression refers to various forms of conveying ideas, such as through文字, musical notes, numbers, lines, colors, shapes, or physical movements. In this sense, expression constitutes the protected work.

Regarding distinguishing ideas from expression in artistic works: First, consideration should follow artistic creation patterns. Artists typically gather materials, develop artistic conceptions, and finally execute artistic expression. Material collection involves life experience and observation. Artistic conception represents active mental imagery formation culminating in stable aesthetic mental images. Artistic expression uses media and techniques to solidify initially vague aesthetic images into definitive artistic creations. Therefore, elements like the artist's emotions, artistic conception, and material collection generally belong to the idea category under copyright law, while the final artistic creation, including outcomes from various creative stages, constitutes protected expression.

Second, artistic works' characteristics must be considered. As visual artworks, their artistic images possess visual characteristics differing from other works like literary texts, featuring intuitiveness, definitiveness, and visibility. Artistic expression lies in the objective artistic presentation formed by organic integration of composition, lines, colors, and forms - this constitutes copyright-protected content. Themes, styles, and material selection represent ideas unprotected by copyright law. Compared to literary works protected for their expressive content rather than form, artistic works receive protection for their external manifestation rather than depicted content. Overly simple line-color combinations or common patterns generally don't qualify for protection.

The court held that artists' internal emotions are ultimately presented through specific expressions formed by integrated composition, lines, colors, and forms. Copyright law protects artistic expression rather than underlying ideas. Therefore, determining similarity between artworks should rely on comparing external artistic manifestations in visual appearance. Ye's defense regarding different ideas constituting non-infringement lacked legal basis and was rejected.

**(III) Substantial Similarity Standards for Reproduction Right Infringement** When assessing substantial similarity, comparisons should examine whether the author's choices, arrangements, and designs in expression are identical or similar. Copyright protection grants rights holders exclusive control over specific acts. Under Copyright Law Article 10(1)(5), reproduction rights cover making single or multiple copies through printing, photocopying, tracing, recording, videotaping, or other means. Reproduction need not constitute identical copying. From a content perspective, reproduction includes both verbatim copying and copying retaining essential content with only non-substantial modifications. Reproduction merely replicates the original work or preserves its basic expression without involving original labor.

For artistic works, their value lies in the overall visual aesthetic impact and enjoyment provided through original expression. Overall original expression and aesthetic quality form fundamental attributes. Consequently, substantial similarity determination should adopt an ordinary observer perspective, considering visual characteristics to holistically assess artistic expression through constituent elements, presentation forms, and overall visual effect. Assessment requires comprehensive perception of whether artworks are substantially similar overall, rather than isolating individual elements for separate comparison. If overall visual impressions differ completely, subsequent works may be deemed non-infringing. Conversely, if only minor differences exist that ordinary observers would tend to overlook unless deliberately sought, substantial similarity may be established, indicating potential infringement.

**Expert Commentary** Wang Yuehong, current President of Beijing Public Legal Service Promotion Association and Director of its Expert Advisory Committee, Director of the People's Mediation Committee for Petitions at Beijing Complaints Office, Senior Partner at Beijing Shengshi Qingfeng Law Firm, and former Associate Dean (Acting Dean) of Social Legal Work Department at Beijing College of Political Science and Law, commented:

This judgment accurately addresses legal challenges regarding "blurred creative boundaries" in art, providing judicial guidance for industry development driven by original creation. Confronted with the core factual difficulty of verifying nearly 200 disputed paintings, the court maintained rigorous judicial attitude by organizing逐幅comparison and verification to accurately determine the actual number of contested works, establishing solid factual foundation for fair adjudication.

The ruling strictly followed the core copyright infringement determination rule of "access + substantial similarity," deeply explaining and clearly defining the idea-expression dichotomy in light of artistic works' characteristics. It established an assessment method combining ordinary observer perspective with visual feature analysis, balancing artistic freedom against infringement regulation through overall visual comparison and core element examination. Regarding defenses like "other sources" and "reasonable borrowing," the court strictly reviewed factual and legal bases, clearly distinguishing legitimate borrowing from plagiarism to define legal创作boundaries.

This judgment provides clear behavioral guidance for creators through precise legal standards while demonstrating China's firm stance on IP protection through侵权punishment, communicating the professionalism and authority of China's IP judicial protection internationally. It sets benchmark significance in factual determination, legal application, and value orientation, aligning with copyright law's legislative purpose while offering referential思路for similar cases, representing a high-quality judicial document.

**Judge's Reflections** Li Zhifeng, Deputy Chief Judge of the Adjudication Supervision Division at Beijing Intellectual Property Court, Level 3 Senior Judge, and Master of Laws, shared:

Since engaging in IP adjudication, judicial document drafting has remained a core subject of continuous exploration. Each complex case trial represents comprehensive training in fact organization, legal application, and reasoning expression. This case's handling and document drafting provided deeper insights into conducting solid trials and producing quality documents.

First, grounding in case facts through meticulous examination to establish legal truths. This case featured both parties being professional artists with strong subjective views on artistic expression boundaries. Additionally, alleged infringements spanned 25 years involving over 100 works. To clarify facts, the collegial panel conducted逐幅inspection of visual elements and design details, performing over 300 comparisons to determine contested works and substantial similarity. The resulting lengthy document reflected case necessities rather than deliberate verbosity - comparison conclusions for hundreds of works, differentiation of multiple infringement types, and responses to various defenses required clear, complete presentation. Each element represented natural outcomes of thorough verification, reinforcing that facts form judicial foundations requiring meticulous attention.

Second, focusing on trial essentials through comprehensive listening to identify dispute焦点. Trials constitute core case handling phases, while document drafting involves organizing trial information and提炼dispute焦点. This experience highlighted that case adjudication cannot rely on single perspectives - only comprehensive listening and incorporating diverse opinions can accurately identify core issues. During trials, carefully hearing both parties' statements, particularly artists' explanations of creative concepts and processes, helped capture key information fromdebate. Valuing collegial panel members' views enabled idea exchange and direction calibration to avoid cognitive bias. This process allowed precise identification of core issues like "idea-expression distinction" and "reasonable borrowing versus substantial plagiarism," demonstrating that embracing all opinions and collective wisdom provides proper direction for adjudication and document drafting.

Third, adhering to legal logic through反复polishing to perfect reasoning expression. Involving multiple legal disputes, document drafting required continuous legal application refinement and reasoning expression polishing. This experience deepened understanding of "rigor" - trustworthy judicial documents require not only clear facts but also严密logic and full reasoning. Drafting must consistently follow legal frameworks, progressively analyzing each issue围绕the "access + substantial similarity" infringement determination rule. After initial drafting,反复verifying fact-evidence correspondence, modifying ambiguous expressions, and deleting redundant content ensured every reasoning point had basis and every conclusion withstanded scrutiny. This polishing process permits no perfunctoriness, profoundly illustrating that quality case handling and document production demand rigorous attitudes - only meticulous refinement enables documents to effectively address disputes, convey justice, and truly achieve dispute resolution.