Newsletter
Court Rules: Copyright Holder Self-Selecting and Playing Songs for Evidence Collection Deemed "Authorized" and Does Not Constitute Infringement
In the practice of copyright infringement litigation (particularly disputes involving computer karaoke machines), a common method of evidence collection involves the following: the copyright holder or their delegated investigator enters the premises operated by the defendant, personally operates the karaoke machine installed on-site, and selects and plays specific songs or music videos for which the copyright holder owns the rights. They record this process as evidence and, based on this video or its screenshots, file a lawsuit claiming that the defendant reproduced, publicly transmitted, and publicly performed the musical works without authorization. However, the Intellectual Property and Commercial Court (hereinafter referred to as the IPCC) has repeatedly rejected the admissibility of this method of evidence collection.
In Judgment No. 2025-Min Zhu Su-10, rendered on July 31, 2025, the IPCC stated:
"The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant committed the aforementioned infringement of economic rights, citing screenshots from on-site recordings taken by the Plaintiff on October 23, 2024, and copies of dining invoices as evidence. However, said screenshots and invoices were obtained when the Plaintiff sent personnel to the Defendant's company to select and play the audiovisual works listed in the complaint. As this selection was made for the specific purpose of collecting evidence, the acts of public screening and public transmission performed by the evidence collection personnel had effectively obtained the Plaintiff's prior consent or authorization. Therefore, it is difficult to recognize the act of the Plaintiff's personnel selecting the audiovisual works listed in the complaint as an infringement of the Plaintiff's rights of public screening or public transmission."
Accordingly, while the court granted the Plaintiff's request to prevent future infringement (injunction), it dismissed the claim for damages.
Prior to the aforementioned judgment, the court had already adopted a similar stance in several judgments, such as 2021- Min Zhu Shang-28 and 2023-Min Zhu Shang Geng Yi-8. Copyright holders should pay special attention to these precedents before conducting evidence collection.