Case Background: Copyright Dispute Arising from Supporting Textbooks Provided by Training Institutions

China ** Publishing House (hereinafter referred to as "the Publisher") is the exclusive publisher of official textbooks for national vocational qualification examinations. It has obtained the exclusive publishing right and the right of information network communication for 22 vocational textbooks including *** Human Resource Manager (Basic Knowledge) (3rd Edition)* through lawful authorization. The term of authorization runs from May 2018 to April 2026, and the Publisher independently enjoys the right to safeguard its legitimate rights in accordance with the law.

Evidence notarization and on-court comparison confirmed that the textbooks supplied by the Training School to trainees are pirated infringing reproductions. While the pirated books bear identical ISBN, edition and content as the genuine versions, they lack the exclusive anti-counterfeit labels of genuine textbooks and contain no official anti-piracy notices on the copyright page, showing obvious discrepancies from authentic textbooks.Fujian ** Vocational Training School (hereinafter referred to as "the Training School") mainly engages in vocational training for human resource managers. In its daily operations, the School provides the textbooks in question as supporting materials to enrolled trainees and collects training fees covering textbook charges from them.

During the rights protection proceedings, the Training School put forward its core defenses: it is not a book seller; the purchased textbooks are merely supporting materials for classroom teaching and fall under fair use for teaching purposes. In addition, the textbooks were purchased from third-party online platforms and thus qualify as goods with a lawful source, so the School shall not bear any infringement liability.

This case represents a highly representative dispute in the education and training sector and points out a legal blind spot where most training institutions are prone to violations. The core dispute does not lie in whether pirated textbooks are used, but in the nature of training institutions’ act of providing supporting textbooks and the criteria for recognizing the defense of lawful source.

Most institutions in the industry hold cognitive biases: they believe that so long as they do not sell books separately and only supply textbooks as training supporting materials, using pirated textbooks will not constitute copyright infringement. They also argue that procurement invoices and transfer records alone suffice to establish the defense of lawful source and exempt them from liability. This misconception led to diametrically opposed judgments between the first and second instances of this case, rendering the core issues of the dispute highly referential for the whole industry.

During the second-instance proceedings of this case, the court adopted the defenses raised by the training school. It held that the school merely used the textbooks for teaching purposes and was not a subject engaged in book sales and distribution. In addition, the school submitted evidence including procurement receipts, invoices and bank transfer records, on which basis the court recognized its defense of lawful source as valid. The court ultimately reversed the first-instance judgment and dismissed all claims filed by the publishing house.

Dissatisfied with the second-instance judgment, the publishing house entrusted the legal team of Shanghai Boxiang Law Firm to file an application for retrial with the Supreme People’s Court. Centering on the core disputes of the case, the team precisely dissected the flaws in the second-instance ruling and formulated targeted rights protection strategies, which ultimately secured a corrected judgment upon retrial.

1、Precisely Define the Nature of the Act: Supplying Supporting Textbooks Constitutes an Act of "Distribution" under the Copyright Law

The legal team’s core argument is that "distribution" as defined in the Copyright Law does not exclusively refer to business activities specializing in book sales. Instead, it means supplying reproductions of works to unspecified members of the public for consideration.

In this case, any member of the public could sign up for training courses and obtain the textbooks upon payment. By bundling textbook fees into training charges, the training school essentially sold pirated textbooks indirectly. Such conduct cannot be classified as personal use or fair use for classroom teaching. It practically replaced the market circulation channels for genuine books and directly eroded the right holder’s market share, fully satisfying the constitutive elements of an infringing distribution act. The second-instance court made an obvious error in its legal characterization of the "act of distribution".

2、Dismantle the Chain of Evidence Layer by Layer to Overturn the Defense of "Lawful Source"

The legal team of Shanghai Boxiang Law Firm cross-examined each procurement document submitted by the respondent one by one, thoroughly invalidating the authenticity and relevance of such evidence:First, the enterprise affixed with a seal on the procurement receipt has no industrial and commercial registration information, so its identity cannot be verified.Second, the procurement invoices did not specify the book titles, and there was a seven-month interval between the invoicing date and the purchase date, which could not match the pirated textbooks involved in the case.Third, the recipient of the WeChat transfer was unidentified, and there were no complete supporting transaction materials such as orders and delivery records, failing to prove that the disputed books were purchased from legal and formal channels.

Meanwhile, the team emphasized a core point: professional training institutions bear an elevated duty of reasonable care. They are obligated to verify the authenticity of textbooks and retain complete and compliant procurement documents. Since the respondent failed to fulfill its basic verification obligations, its defense of lawful source shall not entitle it to exemption from liability.

3、Clarify the Boundaries of Law Application: Rectify Errors in Law Application in the Second Instance

The team clearly distinguished the legal differences between the exclusive publishing right and the right to layout design, pointing out that the second-instance court cited erroneous legal provisions and confused the scope of protection and infringement determination criteria of the two rights. This constituted a fundamental defect in the application of law, laying a solid legal basis for the revised judgment upon retrial.

After hearing the case, the Supreme People’s Court fully adopted the arguments submitted by the legal team of Shanghai Boxiang Law Firm. It ultimately vacated the erroneous second-instance judgment and affirmed the valid first-instance judgment, clarifying four core adjudicative viewpoints as follows:

1.The right holder’s exclusive publishing right is legitimate and valid: Pursuant to a lawful authorization contract, the publishing house holds the exclusive publishing right to the textbooks at issue within the statutory term, qualifies as an independent subject entitled to protect its rights, and enjoys clear and legitimate ownership of such rights.

2.The books involved are confirmed infringing reproductions: Although the disputed books contain identical content to the genuine versions, they lack anti-counterfeit labels and copyright publicity information, which suffices to establish that they are pirated infringing books.

3.The training institution’s supply of supporting textbooks constitutes infringement by distribution: The training institution supplied pirated textbooks for consideration to unspecified enrolled trainees. Such conduct does not qualify as fair use for teaching purposes, but amounts to an act of distribution prohibited by the Copyright Law, thus infringing upon the exclusive publishing right.

4.The defense of lawful source shall not be upheld: The procurement evidence submitted by the respondent suffers from defects including unidentified suppliers, insufficient relevance and broken transaction chains. It fails to prove that the pirated textbooks were obtained from legitimate and formal supply channels, so the respondent shall bear infringement liability in accordance with the law.

Ultimately, the court ruled that the training school committed copyright infringement, ordering it to immediately cease the infringing acts and compensate the publishing house for economic losses as well as reasonable expenses incurred in

This case is included as a model case in the Annual Report on Intellectual Property Cases of the Supreme People’s Court (2022), and its full text is compiled in the book Annual Report on Intellectual Property Cases of the Supreme People’s Court (2022) — Guidance on Intellectual Property Trial Cases of the Supreme People’s Court (Volume 15) published by China Legal Publishing House. Its judicial impact extends to the trial of numerous similar cases in the future.As an officially collected annual IP model case released by the Supreme People’s Court, it unifies the adjudication standards for copyright infringement disputes arising in the national education and training industry, carries strong judicial demonstration effect and industrial guiding value, and establishes four core rules as follows:

Rule 1: Supplying textbooks as teaching supporting materials by training institutions does not qualify for exemption based on fair use.

Even if the textbooks are used in teaching scenarios, where an institution supplies pirated textbooks for consideration to unspecified trainees through disguised sales, such conduct constitutes commercial profit-making activity beyond the scope of "fair use for free teaching" prescribed by the Copyright Law and shall definitely amount to copyright.

Rule 2: The identification of an act of distribution does not take "specialized book sales business" as a prerequisite.

For the purpose of the Copyright Law, the core criterion for determining an act of distribution is "supplying reproductions of works to unspecified members of the public for consideration". Operators are not required to hold a book sales qualification. The profit-driven conduct of training institutions supplying supporting textbooks fully constitutes an infringing act of distribution.

Rule 3: The defense of lawful source requires a complete and closed-loop chain of transaction evidence.

Merely submitting receipts, invoices and transfer records is insufficient to establish the defense of lawful source. The respondent shall produce complete evidence including the qualification certificates of transaction parties, corresponding subject matter of transactions, order and logistics vouchers for cross-verification. Isolated and fragmented evidence cannot support exemption from liability.

Rule 4: Professional institutions bear an elevated duty of care in intellectual property matters.

As professional commercial entities, vocational training institutions are subject to a stricter obligation to verify the authenticity of publications and conduct compliant procurement compared with ordinary consumers. Where they purchase books of unknown origin at low prices, fault shall be presumed directly.

This case sounded a compliance alarm for the national education and training sector, putting an end to the long-standing industry misconception that "using pirated copies for teaching purposes incurs no liability". All vocational training institutions, academic tutoring institutions and adult education providers shall guard against four major risks in their use of teaching materials:

1.Refrain from purchasing low-priced pirated textbooks from unqualified and unidentified suppliers. All supporting teaching materials shall be purchased from official publishing houses and authorized formal channels.

2.Fully retain procurement contracts, formal invoices, logistics documents and supplier qualification certificates to form a closed-loop compliance evidence chain, and avoid fragmented supporting documents.

3.It is prohibited to engage in disguised sales of pirated teaching aids and textbooks under the pretext of "teaching supporting materials". Distinguish the boundary between fair use for teaching and profit-making commercial use.

4.Conduct regular self-inspections on intellectual property compliance, verify the authenticity of existing teaching books and internal teaching aids, and resolve potential infringement risks in advance.