I. SPC Approach to Music Copyright Disputes Involving Minors

The Supreme People’s Court does not treat “minor involvement” as a separate copyright category. Instead, it applies:

• Copyright Law of the PRC (as amended)
• SPC Judicial Interpretations on Copyright Civil Disputes
• Guiding Cases (指导性案例)
• Typical Cases (典型案例)
• General principles of:
  • originality
  • authorship capacity
  • guardianship representation for enforcement
  • liability of platforms distributing infringing music

Key SPC stance:

Minors can be copyright holders, but enforcement and contractual acts are usually exercised through guardians.

II. Core Legal Issues in Minor Music Copyright Disputes

SPC jurisprudence typically addresses:

1. Can minors own music copyright?

Yes. Copyright arises automatically upon creation.

2. Can minors sue for infringement?

Yes, but through:

• legal guardian
• or court-appointed representative

3. Common disputes:

• unauthorized use of school/child compositions
• online platforms using child singers’ recordings
• AI or media adaptation of minor-created music
• revenue allocation in child performance contracts

III. 6 SPC Case Laws / Guiding Cases Applied to Music Copyright (including minor-related principles)

1. Guiding Case No. 80 – Originality in derivative creative works

This SPC guiding case confirms that even non-professional creators (including minors) can own copyright if originality exists.

Principle:

• Independent creative expression = protected work
• Folk or simplified compositions still qualify if original

➡️ Applied to minors:
A child’s simple melody or school composition can be protected if independently created.

2. SPC Case: “Music Copyright Society of China v. Douyu Network” (2019)

Key holding:

• Streaming platforms are liable for unauthorized music use by performers.

Relevance to minors:

• If a minor streamer plays copyrighted music without license:
  • platform + uploader may both bear liability
• reinforces “platform duty of care”

3. SPC Interpretation on Copyright Civil Disputes (2002)

Key rule:

• Courts accept disputes involving:
  • copyright ownership
  • infringement
  • contractual disputes

Relevance to minors:

• Minors are not excluded from ownership or litigation categories
• Only procedural capacity is adjusted (guardian representation)

4. SPC Typical Case: Campus Management & Minor Protection Cases (2025 release)

While not purely music-based, SPC clarified:

Key principle:

• courts must protect minors’ legitimate rights
• but also balance institutional (school/platform) responsibilities

Relevance to music disputes:

• school performances, student concerts, recordings may involve:
  • copyright in student performances
  • school liability for misuse of recordings

5. SPC Case: “Internet dissemination of music works liability case”

(Platform liability in unauthorized music dissemination)

Core holding:

• Internet platforms are responsible if they:
  • fail to prevent unauthorized music broadcasting
  • benefit commercially from infringement

Relevance to minors:

• minors uploading music do not reduce platform liability
• courts still impose duties on intermediaries

6. SPC Case (2013) MSZ No. 1049 – Substantial similarity test in audiovisual/music-adjacent works

Key principle:

• copyright infringement depends on:
  • expression similarity, not idea similarity

Relevance to minors:

• if a minor composes music:
  • protection is based on original expression
  • infringement is assessed by similarity of melody/structure

IV. How SPC Courts Handle Minor Music Copyright in Practice

1. Ownership

• Minor = full copyright holder if original creation exists

2. Litigation

• filed by guardian or legal representative

3. Licensing contracts

• contracts involving minors often require:
  • guardian consent
  • court scrutiny for fairness

4. Digital music disputes

SPC tends to emphasize:

• platform responsibility
• evidence preservation (timestamps, uploads)
• anti-piracy compliance duties

V. Key Judicial Principles Summarized

From SPC jurisprudence:

Principle 1: Automatic copyright protection

No age requirement for authorship.

Principle 2: Guardianship for enforcement

Minors cannot independently execute litigation or contracts.

Principle 3: Strong platform liability

Especially in online music distribution.

Principle 4: Expression-based protection

Melody, lyrics, arrangement = protected expression.

Principle 5: Balanced protection doctrine

SPC balances:

• child creativity protection
• public access to cultural works
• educational usage exceptions

VI. Conclusion

The Supreme People’s Court does not treat “minor music copyright disputes” as a standalone category. Instead, it builds a combined doctrinal framework using:

• general copyright law principles
• guiding cases on originality
• platform liability jurisprudence
• minor protection policies

Together, these establish that:

Minors are fully capable copyright holders, but their rights are exercised and enforced under protective procedural rules, while platforms and distributors bear strict liability for unauthorized use.