Recently, the second-instance verdict of the “Minecraft” v. “Mini World” (hereinafter “the Mini World Case”) was announced. The second-instance judgment (hereinafter “Judgment No. 1035”), which affirmed a substantial compensation of RMB 50 million, has drawn widespread industry attention and once again brought the issue of protecting game rules and mechanics into public focus.

Part. 1

Clarifying the Source—Judgment No. 1035 makes clear that the protection of audiovisual works should not extend to non-visual content, and game rules and mechanics cannot be automatically covered within the scope of audiovisual work protection. This corrects many previous game “skin replacement” judgments and has a clarifying effect.

In several influential game “skin replacement” lawsuits, such as the Miracle MU case, the Tai Chi Panda case, and the Overwatch case (first-instance judgment), the courts first recognized the overall game graphics as a film-like work (later, an audiovisual work), and after comparing the game rules and mechanics at issue and finding them substantially similar, concluded that the overall game constituted infringement through adaptation. After years of debate and exploration, this protection model has been inherited and continued in multiple precedents, seemingly becoming the mainstream model for overall protection of online games. However, it has also faced continuous controversy and质疑. This is manifested in two aspects: First, there is controversy over the connotation and extension of film-like works (audiovisual works), including whether online game graphics meet the fixation requirement for film-like works and whether they are “produced” by filming. Second, there is controversy over whether the scope of protection for film-like works (audiovisual works) can extend to the content carried by the graphics—i.e., whether by recognizing game graphics as film-like works, protection can be achieved for game rules and mechanics (the script).

Regarding the first controversy

, many judgments consider that: whether the overall game graphics are composed of a series of original images with or without accompanying sound is key to determining whether they can constitute a film-like work[1]. According to the Berne Convention’s description of film-like works, the essence of a film-like work lies in the form of expression rather than the method of creation. The production method of a game should not be an obstacle to characterizing the work[2]. Although game graphics may appear random, they are still constrained by the预设 scenarios and materials designed by the game developer when designing the game. Even if the presentation of game graphics may differ due to different players’ interactive operations, at the moment the game graphics are generated, they are already fixed[3]. Therefore, overall game graphics meet the constituent elements of a film-like work and can be recognized as such.

Regarding the second controversy

, in recent years, many calls have been made in theory and practice, arguing that the object of protection for audiovisual works is continuous dynamic images and cannot extend to the content of the images. For example, Professor Cui Guobin believes: “Since existing work types under copyright law already cover non-continuous image content, the new audiovisual work type naturally only needs to protect continuous images; otherwise, the boundaries between audiovisual works and many other work types would overlap.” He further points out that “treating game rules as protected content contained in audiovisual works and providing protection under the name of audiovisual work copyright would actually extend the protection of audiovisual works to non-visual elements, which is unacceptable.”[4] Professor Zhang Weijun also points out that “game rules and game plots are indeed reflected in game graphics, but these are two different things that cannot be conflated—just as a film script and film images are two different things that cannot be conflated. This is because the creation of a film script (storyline) and the creation of a film work (continuous images) are two different types of creation and two different original expressions. Protecting the copyright of a film work is not equivalent to protecting the copyright of a film script (story or plot). Similarly, even if game graphics can be protected as film-like works or audiovisual works, this does not mean it is protection of game rules or plots.”[5] Professor Wang Qian, in a keynote speech at the “2021 Annual Review of Online Game Litigation and Seminar on Game Litigation Practice” organized by the Yanshang Game Legal Team, also proposed: “Since games are to be protected as audiovisual works, the protection logic must fully follow the logic of protecting audiovisual works. The essence of audiovisual works is continuous dynamic images. Therefore, when protecting a game, what we discuss is not protecting the underlying code-ordered instruction sequences, but protecting the outer-layer continuous images. Thus, when determining that a game as a whole constitutes an audiovisual work, the visual effects of the plaintiff’s game and the allegedly infringing game must be compared. Only substantial similarity in visual effects can establish infringement of the audiovisual work copyright. Comparing anything beyond the game’s visuals, such as game rules, is meaningless. Only when the images themselves are substantially similar can infringement of audiovisual work copyright be established.”

In this regard, Judge Chen Jinchuan from practice also believes: “Recognizing online game graphics as audiovisual works while using the audiovisual work as the basis to provide protection for game rules, game plots, text, artistic images, etc., seems inconsistent with the nature of audiovisual works and confuses the relationship between different work types and their copyright ownership. This should be approached with caution.”[6] Judge Li Zizhu points out: “The originality of film and television works should be reflected in the images and their composition, rather than in the content narrated by the images. Specifically, originality should be reflected in the process of filming, arranging, editing, and processing images related to the final image formation. Therefore, the scope of protection for film and television works should be the images themselves.”[7]

At the judicial practice level, in the case of the movie “Ne Zha: Birth of the Demon Child” suing the game “Dream Tower Defense” for copyright infringement and unfair competition, heard by the Hangzhou Internet Court, it was clearly stated: “Protection of a film work is protection of the original expression in the formation of continuous images. Therefore, what needs to be examined in infringement determination is whether the defendant has used or copied the original expression of the continuous images of the plaintiff’s film work, not whether the storylines behind the images are consistent—this is a matter of protection of the film script. Secondly, the original expression of a film work is reflected in the filming of continuous images, not in the film’s storyline. Although a film work certainly fixes the film storyline or story, the film’s storyline still belongs to the original expression of the film script, not the original expression of the film work itself. When determining whether film images infringe the copyright of a film work, what should be compared is whether the two films’ images are the same, not whether the two film storylines are the same.”[8]

In fact, when the Yanshang Game Legal Team represented the “Overwatch” game skin-replacement case in the second-instance litigation in 2019, they also clearly proposed that film-like works can only protect the images themselves and cannot extend to game rules and mechanics. The first-instance judgment in that case, while finding that the two games’ images were different, concluded that the film-like works were substantially similar, thereby achieving protection of game rules and mechanics—essentially protecting “the substance of game rules and mechanics design” under the name of “film-like work images.” The adjudicative logic was not self-consistent. Considering the legal obstacles and risks of this protection model, the team, in subsequent game skin-replacement litigation cases such as “Gold Coin Rich Man” and “Honor of Kings,” carefully designed layered claims and arguments to ensure that the relevant claims were legally consistent and reasonable.

In response to the above controversies, Judgment No. 1035, while recognizing game graphics as audiovisual works, clearly states: “Although from a pragmatic perspective of overall game protection, overall game graphics can be recognized as film-like works, subsequent evaluation should also be conducted based on the infringement comparison method corresponding to film-like works. This absolutely does not mean that non-visual content can indiscriminately obtain copyright protection as a result.” “In other words, determining whether audiovisual works are substantially similar must be based on the similarities and differences in the visual expression of the audiovisual works and must exclude interference from non-visual content. … If visual expression and non-visual content are simply and generally merged into one, this in substance replaces different types of original expressions within the same work category, exceeding the scope of copyright protection for game graphics.”

Clearly, Judgment No. 1035 supports the view that the protection of audiovisual works should adopt a content-and-image dichotomy, actively responding to years of calls from the industry. It plays an exemplary role in clarifying the source in overall online game protection and will have a profound impact on subsequent overall game rights enforcement.

Part. 2

The Aftermath—Since recognizing overall game graphics as audiovisual works cannot extend to the protection of non-visual content such as game rules and mechanics, should game rules and mechanics be protected under Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law?

In the Mini World case, the plaintiff NetEase’s claims included: requesting Mini World to cease copyright infringement of the overall game graphics of Minecraft (including immediately ceasing all adaptation and information network dissemination of Minecraft graphics, deleting all copyright-infringing content in Mini World, and ceasing operation of all versions of Mini World); and requesting Mini World to cease unfair competition against the plaintiff (including immediately ceasing the overall plagiarism of core elements of Minecraft and immediately deleting all infringing elements in Mini World). The first-instance court found that the overall dynamic graphics of Minecraft constituted a film-like work and, based on the substantial similarity of 267 basic core elements, found that the overall graphics of the two games were substantially similar.

Judgment No. 1035 affirmed that the overall dynamic graphics of Minecraft constituted an audiovisual work. However, it held that determining whether audiovisual works are substantially similar must be based on the similarities and differences in audiovisual expression and must exclude interference from non-visual content. It pointed out that similarity of game elements cannot directly lead to the推定 that the game’s audiovisual graphics are substantially similar. The determination should focus on the audiovisual expression of the game to judge whether the overall game graphics are substantially similar. Ultimately, it found that the overall graphics of the two games were not substantially similar, correcting the first-instance court’s erroneous finding and not supporting NetEase’s claim regarding Mini World’s infringement of the copyright of Minecraft’s overall game graphics.

At the same time, Judgment No. 1035 specifically noted that because NetEase did not claim that the game elements and their combinations constituted works seeking copyright protection in this case, it did not conduct further analysis on this issue. Instead, based on NetEase’s claims, it relied on Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law to achieve protection of Minecraft’s game rules and mechanics.

This raises a pending question: Since recognizing overall game graphics as audiovisual works cannot extend to the protection of non-visual content such as game rules and mechanics, should and can game rules and mechanics only be protected under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law (Article 2)?

Constrained by the limitations of the plaintiff’s claims in the Mini World case, Judgment No. 1035 could not answer this question. However, the author believes that under the new Copyright Law framework, game rules and mechanics can be protected through the “other intellectual creations meeting the characteristics of works” work type, without needing to seek protection under unfair competition law.

1. Including game rules and mechanics under “other intellectual creations meeting the characteristics of works” for protection aligns with the legislative intent and application rules of copyright law.

In an article providing an overview of the background, process, key content, and value considerations of the third revision of the Copyright Law, Deputy Director Shi Hong of the Civil Law Office of the Legislative Affairs Commission of the National People’s Congress Standing Committee mentioned that with the development of culture and science, especially the rapid development of new technologies, new work types may continue to emerge. The stability of law makes it difficult to enumerate all intellectual creations that meet the characteristics of works, and there will inevitably be omissions. Space needs to be left for practical development. The revised provision adopts an open attitude toward work types, leaving room for new work types that may emerge in the future, which is conducive to better adapting the scope of copyright protection to economic and social development[9].

Online games are precisely the new work type emerging from the rapid development of new technologies, which is the real pain point that the open work type aims to address. Based on the original comprehensive expression forms of game rules and mechanics design, where a single existing work type cannot effectively provide protection, recognizing the game as a whole as an “other intellectual creation meeting the characteristics of works” is precisely a model of applying the law in accordance with legislative intent.

2. “Other intellectual creations meeting the characteristics of works” can accommodate more diverse forms of original expression and will not face the dilemma of audiovisual works being unable to extend to visual content. Through this category, comprehensive protection of various types of original expression in online games can be achieved without logical obstacles.

The scope of copyright protection is limited to the original expression of a work. For named work types, due to their specified forms of expression, original expression is also relatively fixed. For example, literary works are expressed in text; musical works without lyrics use melody and rhythm as their basic means of expression; artistic works are expressed through lines, colors, etc. Unlike the aforementioned named work types, “other intellectual creations meeting the characteristics of works” have no fixed form of expression requirements. The original expression of this type of work can be of multiple types and forms. Under this work type, originality in various forms of expression can be compared. The original expression of game rules and mechanics may be simultaneously embodied in text, art, graphics, music, audiovisuals, and other aspects. Only “other intellectual creations meeting the characteristics of works” can accommodate such diverse forms of original expression and achieve overall protection of game rules and mechanics.

3. Including game rules and mechanics under “other intellectual creations meeting the characteristics of works” for protection will not cause damage to the copyright law system.

Compared with protection through audiovisual works, protection through “other intellectual creations meeting the characteristics of works” neither expands nor narrows the original scope of protection. It merely adjusts the reasoning aspect and clearly will not damage the copyright law protection system.

Looking back at the history of overall online game protection, although the recognition of film-like works was an innovation in overall protection, it was value-oriented toward pragmatism, sacrificing the stability of the law to some extent. While innovating, it also crossed boundaries, causing significant damage.

As mentioned earlier, under the old Copyright Law framework, the element of “fixed on a tangible medium by means of recording” was one of the main controversies and obstacles to recognizing game graphics as film-like works. There are three different approaches to understanding “fixed on a tangible medium by means of recording.” For example, in the “Dungeon & Fighter” skin-replacement case, the Changsha Intermediate Court found that game graphics did not meet the constitutive elements of film-like works and ultimately provided protection through unfair competition law. In the “Blue Moon Legend” case, the Hangzhou Intermediate Court also found that game graphics did not meet the constitutive elements of film-like works but, based on the similarity between film works and game graphics, determined that the rules for protecting film works could be applied by analogy to protect game graphics. Additionally, in many cases where game graphics were recognized as film-like works, the judges did not strictly follow the original meaning of “recording” in interpreting the constitutive elements of film-like works. Instead, they proceeded from the legal principles of copyright law (e.g., technology neutrality, focusing on protecting the form of expression rather than the means of expression), selectively ignoring the recording element or expanding the interpretation of “recording.” Before the revision of the Copyright Law, under the background of statutory work types and relatively closed work types, although these judgments upheld substantive justice in individual cases to a certain extent, they objectively manifested as “judge-made law,” also damaging the stability of the law to some extent. By comparison, the Hangzhou Intermediate Court’s “Blue Moon Legend” case adhered to the principle of statutory copyright while finding that game graphics did not constitute film-like works. Based on the similarity between games and films and the basic legal principle of equal protection under copyright law, it applied the protection rules for film-like works mutatis mutandis to protect game graphics. This approach is logically consistent and reasonable, achieving a better balance among various adjudicative value choices.

Including game rules and mechanics under “other intellectual creations meeting the characteristics of works” for protection must also consider the above value choices. As mentioned earlier, including the overall game under “other intellectual creations meeting the characteristics of works” for protection neither involves judge-made law nor leads to the困境 of inability to achieve case-specific justice. It achieves unity and balance between the two, representing both significant judicial innovation and the adjudicator’s高超 adjudicative skills.

4. Including game rules and mechanics under “other intellectual creations meeting the characteristics of works” for protection is conducive to unifying judicial adjudication standards and maintaining legal stability.

Looking back at the history of overall online game protection, there have been at least two paths—copyright protection and unfair competition protection—and eight different controversial views[10]. Although the types of games involved in individual cases differ, and the “pragmatic expediency” of adjudication can be invoked as an explanation, the objective fact is that judgments from different courts conflict with each other. The “chaotic situation” of overall online game protection has long been an undisputed fact. From the first domestic overall game protection case (the “QQ Tang” case) to the present, the “bullet” has been flying for 16 years. The game industry urgently needs judicial practice to produce unified, authoritative, and stable protection standards for game rules and mechanics. Including game rules and mechanics under “other intellectual creations meeting the characteristics of works” for protection is conducive to unifying judicial adjudication standards, maintaining legal stability, and better guiding and regulating the behavioral boundaries of the game industry.

5. Some scholars have also explicitly suggested protecting the specific expression of game rules and mechanics by recognizing games as “other intellectual creations meeting the characteristics of works.”

Professor Li Yang points out: “Based on the个性化 characteristics of online games, under the current Copyright Law, rather than protecting online games as audiovisual works, it would be better to understand them as ‘other intellectual creations meeting the characteristics of works’ under Article 3(9) of the Copyright Law. According to this understanding and approach, regardless of whether the defendant’s game and the plaintiff’s game are substantially similar in terms of continuous image graphics, or substantially similar in terms of ‘online game rules,’ art, music, and other elements, or substantially similar in terms of both continuous image graphics and ‘online game rules,’ art, music, and other elements, all would constitute infringement of the plaintiff’s online game work copyright. This would avoid the criticism of the above views in terms of infringement comparison.”[11]

In summary, the author believes that protecting online game rules and mechanics—which contain various forms of work expression—through “other intellectual creations meeting the characteristics of works” has a sufficient factual basis and fully complies with legislative intent. It represents a rigorous and pragmatic judicial innovation under the premise of seeking truth from facts, achieving a win-win situation in terms of legal effect, protection effect, and social effect.

It should be specifically noted that the overall protection of a game needs to be determined on a case-by-case basis based on the content and form of expression of the specific game’s rules and mechanics. Recognizing a relatively complex game as “other intellectual creations meeting the characteristics of works” does not mean that all games need to be protected through this path.

The vast differences in game types lead to substantial differences in the specific expression of game rules and mechanics. Some game rules and mechanics are entirely expressed in text and can naturally be protected as literary works, such as in the “Three Kingdoms Kill” case. In the “Strongest Brain” game infringement case handled by the Yanshang Game Legal Team, overall protection was achieved by recognizing the game as a compilation work. In short, if, based on the game type and individual case circumstances, protection can be directly provided through a named work type for the specific design of game rules and mechanics, there is no need to resort to “other intellectual creations meeting the characteristics of works” for protection.

In fact, from multiple discussions and determinations in Judgment No. 1035, it is evident that the judgment also reflects a tendency to include game rules and mechanics within copyright law protection. It simply did not further analyze this issue “because NetEase did not claim in this case that the game elements and their combination designs constituted works seeking copyright law protection.” Clearly, Judgment No. 1035 does not explicitly negate the possibility of protecting game rules and mechanics through copyright. In other cases, protecting game rules and mechanics through “other intellectual creations meeting the characteristics of works” or other named work types is feasible.

Part. 03

Pending but Unresolved—The Procedural Dilemma Faced by Judgment No. 1035

Although NetEase did not claim that the game elements and their combinations constituted works seeking protection in the Mini World case, whether Judgment No. 1035 could adjudicate the issue of plagiarism of the above game elements and their combinations under Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law (AUCL) is still worth discussing.

In fact, Judgment No. 1035 also noted that, according to Article 1 of the Supreme People’s Court’s “Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law,” only when an operator disrupts market competition order, harms the lawful rights and interests of other operators or consumers, and the conduct falls outside the circumstances stipulated in Chapter 2 of the AUCL and outside the Patent Law, Trademark Law, Copyright Law, etc., can the people’s court apply Article 2 of the AUCL. Regarding the conditions for applying Article 2 of the AUCL, the head of the Third Civil Division of the Supreme People’s Court explicitly stated in a press Q&A on the AUCL judicial interpretation that “the above provision clarifies the relationship between the general clause and specific behavioral clauses, as well as specialized intellectual property laws, and also clarifies the catch-all application status of the general clause in relation to the AUCL and other specialized intellectual property laws such as the Trademark Law.”[12] That is, according to this provision, the Copyright Law should take precedence. If the plagiarism issue of the game elements and their combinations can be determined under the Copyright Law, Article 2 of the AUCL should not be applied; otherwise, it would create a parallel application of specialized intellectual property laws and Article 2 of the AUCL, contradicting the spirit and principles established by the above judicial interpretation. Based on the relevant content of this judgment, the author believes that there is a possibility of determining the plagiarism of the involved game elements and their combinations through copyright in this case.

First, Judgment No. 1035 explicitly finds that the game elements and their combination designs involved in this case belong to a specific form of presentation of game rules and mechanics[13].

Second, Judgment No. 1035 also emphasizes that the Copyright Law does not protect game rules and mechanics themselves but the specific expression of game rules and mechanics. In this case, this can be manifested as the original expression part of the game elements and their combination designs[14].

Third, Judgment No. 1035 also finds that the above game elements and their combination designs, as intellectual creations presenting game rules and mechanics, are not entirely excluded by copyright law from protection as ideas[15].

Based on the above opinions in Judgment No. 1035, the judgment actually recognizes that the involved game elements and their combination designs are intellectual creations with original expression, meeting the general constitutive elements of works. The judgment chose to protect through Article 2 of the AUCL because, according to the 2010 revised Copyright Law, they could not be categorized into an appropriate work type, and protection through game graphic copyright was deemed inappropriate.

However, according to Article 29 of the “Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Copyright Civil Dispute Cases (2020 Revision)” concerning the application of the revised Copyright Law to civil acts occurring before but continuing after the revision of the Copyright Law, Judgment No. 1035 ordered the defendant to cease infringement, indicating that the defendant’s infringement continued after the new Copyright Law took effect. Therefore, this second-instance case should apply the revised Copyright Law, i.e., the “Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China (2020 Revision).”

According to the Copyright Law (2020 Revision), the work type has been changed from relatively closed to relatively open. Based on this, the author believes that where the involved game elements and their combination designs are recognized as intellectual creations with original expression, they can be protected under copyright law as “other intellectual creations meeting the characteristics of works,” without needing to seek protection under Article 2 of the AUCL when the relevant expression meets the characteristics of works.

Admittedly, constrained by the limitations of NetEase’s claims, which only sought protection for the involved game elements and their combinations through unfair competition law, this is a situation where the legal relationship nature claimed by the party differs from the determination made by the court based on the case facts. In practice, some courts will directly dismiss the plaintiff’s claims[16], while others will explain the issue to the parties and dismiss the claims if the parties do not adjust their claims[17].

In fact, regarding the above situation, Article 53 of the “Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Evidence in Civil Proceedings (2019 Revision)” provides: “During litigation, if the nature of the legal relationship claimed by the party or the validity of the civil act is inconsistent with the determination made by the people’s court based on the case facts, the people’s court shall conduct trial on the nature of the legal relationship or the validity of the civil act as a focal issue. Where the preceding paragraph applies and the party changes its claims based on the court trial, the people’s court shall permit it and may重新 designate the period for举证 based on the specific circumstances of the case.” However, NetEase’s claims had been fixed at the first-instance stage. Even if Article 53 of the above evidence provisions can apply to the second-instance procedure, by reference to the spirit of Article 326 of the “Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law,” concerning the addition of claims at second instance, it appears that the second-instance court can only conduct mediation on the changed claims and cannot directly render a judgment based on the changed claims. Clearly, constrained by NetEase’s first-instance claims, the second-instance court fell into a procedural dilemma, making it difficult to directly evaluate the copyright protection of online game rules.

On the other hand, in this case, the first-instance judgment, having recognized the overall game graphics as film-like works for protection and having found that the acts of unfair competition claimed by NetEase were identical to the copyright infringement acts, did not apply the AUCL for重复 evaluation of the involved conduct. Based on the first-instance judgment’s holdings, it actually dismissed NetEase’s claims regarding unfair competition. According to the grounds of appeal disclosed in Judgment No. 1035, NetEase did not appeal the dismissal of its unfair competition claims at first instance, again placing the second-instance court in a procedural dilemma. If the court did not hear and evaluate NetEase’s unfair competition claims, it would seem somewhat unfair to NetEase, as part of the reason for NetEase’s “negligence” in appeal might stem from the first-instance court’s support of its copyright infringement claims and refusal to重复 evaluate unfair competition. However, if Judgment No. 1035 conducted trial based on NetEase’s first-instance claims rather than its appeal requests, it would contravene the legal provision that “the second-instance people’s court shall conduct trial围绕 the appeal requests of the parties.”

The author believes

that, given that the first-instance judgment did not substantively hear NetEase’s unfair competition claims, by reference to Article 324 of the “Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law (2022 Revision)“—which provides that “where a party has made a claim in the first-instance proceedings but the original trial people’s court did not hear or adjudicate it, the second-instance people’s court may conduct mediation based on the principle of voluntariness; if mediation fails, the case shall be remanded for retrial”—the second-instance court in this case could organize mediation between the parties. If mediation fails, remanding the case to the first-instance court for retrial would seem more consistent with procedural justice. Of course, such handling would also contravene the efficiency principle of resolving disputes in a single proceeding, and the second-instance court would once again face a value choice dilemma.

It should be noted that the above dilemma has occurred multiple times in similar game skin-replacement lawsuits, such as the “Overwatch” second-instance proceeding in which the Yanshang Game Legal Team participated, where the plaintiff faced almost the same problem at second instance. The reasons include not only the plaintiff’s claims and inappropriate appeal strategy but also, more fundamentally, the inconsistency in judicial protection standards for game rules and mechanics, which induced plaintiffs to adopt “speculative” litigation strategies seeking “both” copyright and unfair competition protection—reflecting the urgent practical need to unify judicial protection standards for game rules and mechanics.

Looking at Judgment No. 1035 as a whole, although constrained by the specific case circumstances and unable to engage in detailed analysis of the copyright protection of online game rules and mechanics, the judgment provides solid and thorough论证 and analysis on fundamental issues of online game protection, including the analysis of game rules and mechanics, the relationship between game graphics and game rules and mechanics, the protection content of audiovisual works, and the standard for determining substantial similarity. It demonstrates the court’s courage and confidence in facing history and controversy, and also offers a glimpse of the arduous efforts behind the adjudicator’s work. Looking back at the history of overall online game protection in judicial practice, Judgment No. 1035 will undoubtedly become a landmark judgment that cannot be ignored.

At the same time, Judgment No. 1035 also reminds right holders that claiming overall game graphics as audiovisual works is no longer sufficient to achieve protection of game rules and mechanics. In litigation, comprehensively归纳 the specific expression of game rules and mechanics, and accurately determine and claim the characterization of such content, is the basic paradigm for future game skin-replacement lawsuits. Following this case, game skin-replacement litigation has entered and should enter a new era.

References

[1] See the “Overwatch” case (2017) Hu 0115 Min Chu No. 77945

[2] See the “Tai Chi Panda” case (2015) Su Zhong Zhi Min Chu Zi No. 00201

[3] See the “Mini World” case (2019) Yue 03 Min Chu No. 2157

[4] See Professor Cui Guobin’s article “The Dichotomy of Audiovisual Work Images and Content”

[5] See Professor Zhang Weijun’s article “Game Rules Presented in Audiovisual Works Are Still Ideas Rather Than Expression — Commentary on Several Game Copyright Infringement Dispute Judgments”

[6] See Judge Chen Jinchuan’s article “Does Game Plot and Other Content Fall Within the Scope of Copyright Protection of Audiovisual Works? — Starting from the Movie ‘Ne Zha: Birth of the Demon Child’ Case”

[7] See Judge Li Zizhu’s article “Two Situations of Infringement Determination for Film and Television Works in Judicial Practice”

[8] See (2020) Zhe 0192 Min Chu No. 9817

[9] See Shi Hong’s article “Important Content and Value Considerations of the Third Revision of the Copyright Law”

[10] See Yanshang Game Law’s article “The Two-Eight Method for Cracking Online Game Disguises”

[11] See Li Yang’s article “Take Seriously the Legal Protection of ‘Online Game Rules’”

[12] See the Q&A by the head of the Third Civil Division of the Supreme People’s Court on the AUCL Judicial Interpretation

[13] See Judgment No. 1035, p. 100

[14] See Judgment No. 1035, p. 102

[15] See Judgment No. 1035, p. 101

[16] See (2021) Zui Gao Fa Min Shen No. 4512 Civil Ruling

[17] See (2021) Zui Gao Fa Min Shen No. 5624 Civil Ruling