catalogue 

I. Introduction

II. Copyright protection dilemma of intangible cultural heritage

1) High threshold of rights confirmation

2) Lack of exercise link

3) It is extremely difficult to safeguard rights

III. Causes of difficulties in copyright protection of intangible cultural heritage

1) Legislative lag caused by value conflict

2) Limited support from judicial decisions

1. The requirements for the determination of originality are high

2. Whether it constitutes a work is strictly determined

3. Determination of substantial similarity is strict

3) Insufficiency of capacity for copyright legal rights

IV. Improvement and choice of legal protection path for intangible cultural heritage

1) Strengthening the interpretation and application of laws

2) Strengthening judicial protection

3) ion of multiple relief methods

reference documentation  

Reference cases

 author ：

Shanghai Tianyu (Beijing) Law Firm Lawyer Guo Yongying

Shanghai Tianyu Law Firm Liu Xijing

Abstract: This paper focuses on copyright protection for intangible cultural heritage (ICH), delving the challenges, root causes, and solutions. The research highlights three key difficulties: First, the fundamental differences between ICH and copyright protection lead to ambiguities in rights confirmation, enforcement, and litigation. Second, the high threshold for rights confirmation and unclear legal provisions regarding rights enforcement create procedural gaps. Third, the unique characteristics of ICH creative materials raise doubts about originality and result in low compensation awards. The root causes include legislative delays due to value conflicts, limited judicial support, stringent requirements for originality and work recognition, and inadequate legal remedies. To address these, we propose: strengthening legal interpretation and application; improving copyright systems with specialized management agencies; enhancing judicial protection through clear adjudication standards and increased compensation awards; and adopting diversified remedies trademark registration and anti-unfair competition laws. In conclusion, ICH copyright protection remains complex due to legislative and judicial delays, necessitating a comprehensive protection framework through diversified approaches.

Key words: intangible cultural heritage; copyright; copyright protection of intangible cultural heritage.

I. Introduction

Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH), as opposed to "tangible cultural heritage," refers to various traditional cultural expressions passed down through generations by ethnic groups and recognized as integral components of their cultural legacy, along with related physical objects and venues. The Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (hereinafter referred to as the "Convention"), adopted by UNESCO in 2003, first proposed and formally defined ICH. Chinas Intangible Cultural Heritage Law (hereinafter referred to as the "ICH Law") aligns with the Conventions definition, while Article 2 of the ICH Law enumerates its forms: "(1) Traditional oral literature and its linguistic carriers; (2) Traditional arts, calligraphy, music, dance, drama, quyi (Chinese folk storytelling), and acrobatics; (3) Traditional craftsmanship, medicine, and calendars; (4) Traditional rituals, festivals, and other folk customs; (5) Traditional sports and recreational activities; (6) Other forms of intangible cultural heritage."

Intangible cultural heritage (ICH) holds immense value for human society. In the agricultural economy era, it primarily manifested as "practical utility," while the industrial economy era saw its evolution "economic value." As we enter the knowledge economy era, ICH has developed a dual nature of "cultural and practical value," establishing a legal foundation for property rights protection. Although debates persist regarding whether ICH property rights should be protected by public authority or a combination of public and private authorities, intellectual property rights—particularly copyright—have become increasingly common in judicial practice as an effective means to protect ICHs economic interests. Works created through original ICH techniques now fall under copyright protection, generally classified as "folk literary and artistic works" under Article 6 of the Copyright Law of the Peoples Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the "Copyright Law"). With the gradual internalization of intellectual property protection the self-regulatory practices of cultural heritage inheritors, copyright protection plays a more prominent role in preserving ICH. However, challenges remain in confirming rights holders entitlements, exercising rights, and enforcing legal claims regarding these protected interests.

Starting from the difficulties faced by the protection of intangible cultural heritage copyright, this paper analyzes the causes and practical manifestations of the difficulties, and finally seeks appropriate paths for the realization of rights from the perspectives of legislation and justice.

II. Copyright protection dilemma of intangible heritage

(1) The threshold of rights confirmation is high

As previously mentioned, copyright protection has become a mainstream approach for intangible cultural heritage preservation within the broader context of contemporary cultural conservation. However, closer examination reveals that due to the inherent characteristics of intangible cultural heritage, the established scope of copyright protection, and the current legal framework design, not all heritage items can be effectively incorporated copyright protection. This reality manifests in various aspects.

First, there exists an essential difference in the objectives of intangible cultural heritage protection and copyright protection. From the perspective of intangible cultural heritage preservation, its purpose is explicitly defined as "inheriting and promoting" Chinas outstanding traditional culture, while strengthening the "protection and preservation" of intangible cultural heritage. As stipulated in Article 1 of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Law: "This law is enacted to inherit and promote Chinas outstanding traditional culture, advance socialist spiritual civilization construction, and strengthen the protection and preservation of intangible cultural heritage." This clearly indicates that the focus of intangible cultural heritage protection lies in conducting in-depth research and excavation of historical culture, striving to prevent the extinction or loss of intangible cultural heritage. Its core mission is to safeguard the inheritance of public historical culture, aiming at the long-term development and continuity of national culture. In contrast, copyright protection has entirely different priorities. It primarily aims to protect "the copyright of authors of literary, artistic, and scientific works," emphasizing strong private rights attributes and focusing on protecting individual creators interests. By granting creators exclusive rights within a certain period, it incentivizes creative activities and promotes innovation and dissemination of culture and knowledge. This fundamental difference in objectives creates a fundamental conceptual conflict when seeking copyright protection for intangible cultural heritage.

Secondly, there are significant differences between the protection of intangible cultural heritage (ICH) and copyright. The scope of ICH protection is remarkably broad, encompassing not only legally defined "works" or "performances" under copyright law but also unique domains such as "crafts, medicine, calendars, and folk customs." Take traditional crafts as an example: many ICH techniques have been passed down through generations, developing distinctive production methods and craftsmanship. Works or performances created through these techniques can only be protected under copyright if they demonstrate originality. However, ICH techniques themselves and traditional knowledge in the public domain, due to their long history and diverse origins, often fail to meet copyright laws originality requirements. Consequently, a substantial amount of ICH content remains excluded from copyright protection, creating content limitations when seeking legal safeguards for ICH.

Furthermore, there are significant differences in the approaches to protecting intangible cultural heritage (ICH) and copyright. The preservation of ICH involves more public authority measures such as "identification, documentation, and archiving." Government departments play a leading role in ICH protection by organizing expert reviews, recognizing ICH projects, conducting detailed documentation and archiving, and organizing various conservation activities to ensure its inheritance and development. In contrast, copyright protection primarily relies on the exclusive rights granted to authors by law, which are realized through either the author exercising their rights independently or granting others permission to use the works. This difference in protective mechanisms makes it challenging to find a compatible operational model when applying copyright protection to ICH.

Finally, the duration of protection for intangible cultural heritage (ICH) and copyright differs fundamentally. Copyrights have fixed expiration dates, granting authors exclusive rights within legally defined periods. Once these terms conclude, works enter the public domain anyone can freely use them. In contrast, ICH aims to preserve public historical culture permanently. As repositories of a nations collective memory and wisdom, ICH constitutes invaluable assets of human civilization that require sustained transmission and development. This inherent difference in timeframes creates compatibility challenges when seeking copyright protection for ICH, as the protection periods do not align with copyright mechanisms.

Due to these multifaceted differences, the range of intangible cultural heritage (ICH) forms protected by copyright remains remarkably limited. In key rights confirmation processes—including copyright registration, publication of works, and contractual agreements—ICH creations often face ambiguity. For instance, copyright registration proves challenging because ICH is typically created by communities through oral transmission, making it difficult to identify specific creators. Furthermore, inconsistent standards for recognizing inheritors, applying for official registry lists, and implementing support policies across regions result in many ICH works not receiving dedicated legal protection. These systemic challenges create significant obstacles for enforcing and defending the rights of ICH creations.

(2) Lack of exercise link

The difficulty in rights confirmation stands as a key factor contributing to the absence of enforcement mechanisms for intangible cultural heritage (ICH). Given the persistent challenges in rights confirmation, rights holders such as ICH inheritors often struggle to exercise their rights proactively or authorize third parties to use ICH works. Under Chinas current legal framework, the primary responsibility for ICH protection rests with the state, government, and cultural authorities at all levels. While laws mandate support and development obligations for these entities to promote ICH preservation and advancement, they fail to specify how rights holders should exercise their rights or whether establishing dedicated management organizations is necessary. This legal ambiguity leaves ICH rights holders without clear legal guidance when confronting commercialization activities, resulting in a lack of direct legal basis and operational direction.

For instance, some intangible cultural heritage (ICH) inheritors possess unique skills and creations, hoping to commercialize these traditions through corporate partnerships to expand their reach. However, the absence of clear legal frameworks often leads to disputes when signing agreements with businesses regarding rights attribution, authorization scope, and profit distribution. If not properly resolved, these issues could dampen inheritors enthusiasm and hinder the commercialization of ICH. Furthermore, the lack of dedicated regulatory bodies makes it difficult for rights holders to form effective collective action against infringement, resulting in delayed enforcement and inadequate punishment of such acts.

(3) It is extremely difficult to safeguard rights

Intangible cultural heritage (ICH) creations, rooted in traditional historical and cultural elements, face significant challenges in rights protection. Since most materials for ICH works originate from public domain knowledge and cultural elements, their originality often comes under scrutiny during legal proceedings. Infringement parties frequently challenge creators rights by claiming the works lack originality, substantially increasing the risks for rights holders. For instance, when traditional folk tales are adapted film or television productions, original storytellers and creators often encounter defenses from infringers claiming the stories derive from public domain sources. This creates substantial obstacles in safeguarding intellectual property rights.

Furthermore, the current judicial practice of intellectual property case compensation standards has adversely impacted the protection of intangible cultural heritage rights. Even when creators successfully defend their rights, the compensation received often fails to match both their economic losses and legal defense costs. In some infringement cases involving intangible cultural heritage, infringers reap substantial profits through unauthorized use of protected works, while creators receive only meager compensation. This flawed compensation mechanism discourages rights holders from defending their interests, leading to rampant violations. Unscrupulous actors exploit the challenges and risks in protecting intangible cultural heritage rights, emboldening them to recklessly infringe upon legitimate rights holders interests.

III. Causes of difficulties in copyright protection of intangible cultural heritage

(1) Legislative lag caused by value conflict

The fundamental contradiction between copyright protection and intangible cultural heritage (ICH) preservation lies in three key aspects. First, while copyright safeguards private rights, ICH inherently possesses public attributes. The historical and cultural elements embedded in ICH works have entered the public domain, unrestricted access not only exists for all but also facilitates broader dissemination and cultural continuity. Encompassing public domain content within copyright frameworks fundamentally violates legal principles. Second, ICH represents collective intellectual achievements that often lack identifiable creators, rendering copyright protection inapplicable. Third, ICH transmission relies on broad participation. Although copyright law regulates commercial exploitation, it inevitably restricts free circulation of related content. These inherent contradictions have made Chinas ICH-related copyright legislation particularly cautious. Despite explicitly recognizing "folk literary and artistic works" under specialized legal provisions since 1990, detailed implementation rules remain absent. Both the ICH Protection Law (effective June 1, 2011) and the Traditional Arts and Crafts Protection Regulations (revised July 18,2013) primarily emphasize administrative enforcement mechanisms. The "Regulations on Copyright Protection of Folk Literature and Art Works (Draft for Public Comment)" provides detailed provisions regarding the rights scope, authorization mechanisms, adaptation rights, and benefit distribution of intangible cultural heritage (ICH) folk art works. However, since its public consultation on September 2, 2014, the draft has sparked extensive debates over several key issues: whether ICH works qualify for copyright protection, identification of rights holders, safeguarding moral rights, protecting economic interests, and establishing fair access to public domain works. These unresolved controversies have delayed the drafts official enactment. Consequently, ICH works currently lack clear copyright protection frameworks, making rights confirmation and enforcement particularly challenging. Rights holders are compelled to seek post-facto remedies under the Copyright Laws basic provisions. Moreover, existing laws fail to adequately address the conflict between protecting ICH inheritors interests and safeguarding the economic benefits of original works—a critical gap requiring urgent academic exploration.

(2) Limited support from judicial decisions

The lack of specific legal basis further creates the tight measure of judicial judgment, and it is quite difficult to apply the evidence of copyright protection, and it is difficult to protect rights.

1. The requirements for originality are high

As a component of public cultural content, the attribute of intangible cultural heritage (ICH) has led to persistent doubts about the "independent creation" aspect in its originality assessment. There exists an objective gap between ICH artists understanding of the "creativity" of their works and the requirements of copyright law. Therefore, whether ICH works possess originality under copyright law constitutes a fundamental challenge in every rights protection case. In the copyright infringement dispute between Hong Fuyuan and Deng Chunxiang against Guizhou Wufu Fang Food Co., Ltd. and Guizhou Jincai Ethnic Culture R&D Co., Ltd., both parties disputed whether the involved works possessed originality. The defendant argued that the bird patterns, ruyi patterns, and bronze drum patterns in the works originated from the "original forms" of Huangping Gejia batik in Guizhou, and that the bird pattern motifs in the plaintiffs works also derived from traditional Guizhou batik. These elements were all traditional ICH components, and thus the plaintiffs works lacked originality. The court ascertained through trial that plaintiff Hong Fuyuan had been engaged in batik art design for many years and had been honored by the Ministry of Culture with titles such as "Chinas Top Ten Folk Artists" and "Outstanding Individual in Intangible Cultural Heritage Protection." His work "Harmony Coexistence XII," completed in August 2009, was published in the book "Fuyuan Batik Art" by Guizhou Peoples Publishing House. The work drew on the natural and geometric patterns of traditional batik art, predominantly using indigo as its color scheme to depict a harmonious scene of coexisting flowers and birds. While drawing inspiration from traditional motifs, this artwork enhances the birds form by refining its eye and beak details with richer lines. The artist infuses personal creativity the neck structure and plumage, creating a more vivid depiction. The central bronze drum pattern incorporates original designs distinct from conventional batik art, demonstrating unique innovation that qualifies as a copyrigh work under intellectual property law.

2. Whether it constitutes a strict determination of the work

Beyond originality, intangible cultural heritage elements must possess concrete carriers and forms of expression to qualify as protected works. This challenge is rarely encountered in copyright cases outside those involving such heritage-related creations. In successful copyright infringement cases, the involved works typically have physical carriers publications or videos, with some even attempting to establish rights foundations through applications for design patents or copyright registrations. However, expressions of traditional knowledge such as folk customs, sports, and traditional dramas cannot be recognized as works under copyright law.

The "First Case of Chinas Intangible Cultural Heritage Protection", namely the dispute over authorship rights between the Anshun Municipal Bureau of Culture and directors Zhang Yimou, producer Zhang Weiping, and production company Beijing New Picture Film Co., Ltd., exemplifies the difficulties in recognizing intangible cultural heritage works. The case originated from the film "A Thousand Miles on Foot" directed by Zhang Yimou, which erroneously labeled Anshuns unique intangible cultural heritage "Anshun Ground Opera" as "Yunnan Mask Play" without explicitly disclosing its true identity in the film or public settings, sparking dissatisfaction and litigation from the Anshun Municipal Bureau of Culture. As a folk drama with over 600 years of history, Anshun Ground Opera is hailed as a "living fossil of Chinese drama" and included in Chinas first national list of intangible cultural heritage protection. In 2005, the film "A Thousand Miles on Foot" gained popularity, with its narrative consistently revolving around "Yunnan Mask Play". However, the performance content, actors, and masks of this "Mask Play" were actually derived from Anshun Ground Opera. Eight local opera performers including Zhan Xueyan from Zhanjiatun Village in Anshun were invited to participate in the films production, yet the true identity of Anshun Ground Opera was not clearly marked after its release. The core issue of this case lies in whether Anshun Ground Opera enjoys authorship rights and whether the film "A Thousand Miles on Foot" infringed upon these rights. During the trial, the court held that authorship rights refer to an authors right to indicate their identity and name their work. As a theatrical genre classification rather than an expression of specific ideas, Anshun Ground Opera does not constitute a protected work under the Copyright Law and therefore lacks authorship rights. After a trial spanning 1 year and 4 months, the Xicheng District Peoples Court of Beijing issued its first-instance judgment in May 2011, dismissing all claims by the plaintiff Anshun Municipal Bureau of Culture. The court ruled that while Anshun Ground Opera—a nationally recognized intangible cultural heritage—deserves legal protection, the film "A Thousand Miles on Foot" used this traditional art form as creative material without causing legally prohibited distortions, denigrations, misleading associations, or negative impacts. Furthermore, the defendant demonstrated no intentional infringement or negligence regarding the cultural heritage. Consequently, the court ruled against the plaintiff.

In the copyright ownership and infringement dispute case between Qiu Moumou and Li Moumou, the plaintiff created Jian Zhan (Jian-style tea bowls) using the intangible cultural heritage technique "side-fired" technique. Not only did they publish the work through video content, but also registered the copyright and applied for a design patent. This traditional handicraft, through innovative techniques, demonstrates original expression with aesthetic significance and artistic merit comparable to fine art, thus qualifying for copyright protection as a work of fine art. In another copyright dispute between Liang Jilan and Longkou Citys Beima Wangkun Department Store, the plaintiff developed numerous round fan patterns based on traditional intangible cultural elements and published them as a book. Although the defendant argued that similar patterns had existed since ancient times, the court ultimately ruled that these round fan patterns could be protected as artistic works, as the book served as their medium.

3. Strict determination of substantial similarity

Most of the judgments reflect the extremely high requirements for comparison of works. Only when all aspects are "basically consistent" and "completely consistent" can "substantial similarity" be constituted and infringement be determined.

The copyright infringement dispute between Nanjing Yunjin Research Institute Co., Ltd. and Nanjing Yigongfang Yunjin Weaving Factory exemplifies this rigorous standard. In the case, plaintiff Nanjing Yunjin Research Institute (hereinafter "Nanjing Yunjin") submitted a 1977 July "Peony Sketch Materials" document identifying Zhu as the creator of the "Myriad Colors" artwork, who was an employee of the institute. Nanjing Yunjin claimed ownership of the disputed work, asserting that Yigongfang Weaving Factory (hereinafter "Yigongfang") had infringed copyright by producing and selling the alleged infringing piece without authorization. Yigongfang provided the "Peony Series" works of Su Zuo Dengzi-2013-F-00017896 to prove its copyright ownership. The court noted that the "Myriad Colors" artwork had been produced as a gift brocade, sold as a textile product, exhibited, and awarded before the alleged infringement was registered. Through comparison, the court found that while minor differences existed in partial colors and specific petal/radiant designs, the overall expression and content remained substantially identical. The production techniques used, such as the "Jinbaodi" weaving process, replicated the artistic representation. Yigongfang infringed Nanjing Yunjins rights including reproduction rights, remuneration rights, and related moral rights. The production process of brocade primarily involves five stages: pattern design, embroidery binding, loom construction, material preparation, and weaving. In the creation process of Yunjin embroidery, the artistic achievements at various stages—including white-line sketches, colored works, and products crafted using techniques "Jinbaodi" (a traditional embroidery technique)—are protected under copyright law. As a distinctive intangible cultural heritage of Nanjing, Yunjin embroidery embodies a dynamic process of inheritance and innovation. While designers may appropriately draw inspiration from existing works, their creations must demonstrate original artistic expression to qualify for copyright protection. Furthermore, only when an original work and an infringing product exhibit "substantial similarity" in production techniques, overall presentation, and content can infringement be conclusively established.

In another copyright infringement case between Nanjing Yunjin Research Institute Co., Ltd. and Nanjing Yigongfang Yunjin Weaving Factory, the court conducted a thorough examination of substantial similarity. Through meticulous comparison of elements relative proportions, spatial positioning, layout arrangement, overall form, visual effects, and color treatments, it ultimately ruled that Yigongfang Weaving Factory had infringed upon Nanjing Yunjin Companys rights including reproduction rights, remuneration rights, and related moral rights regarding the disputed works.

As for the more common situation in the market, the infringing works plagiarize the original works and basically do not achieve visual consistency, so they cannot be supported by judicial judgment.

(3) Insufficiency of legal capacity for copyright law

Judicial precedents demonstrate that the unique nature of intangible cultural heritage (ICH) poses significant challenges for copyright protection. Current judicial standards rigorously assess four key elements: originality of content, existence of a literary or artistic expression, the use of public domain elements, and similarity in their expression. Given these constraints, many cases ultimately rely on native legal frameworks for protection.

For instance, protection under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the Peoples Republic of China. In a case Wang Zengshi, an intangible cultural heritage inheritor, sued a shopping platform and store owner Wen for portrait rights infringement and unfair competition, the defendant was found guilty of infringing upon his image and influence through promotional activities. The plaintiff, Wang Zengshi, holds the honorary title of "National Intangible Cultural Heritage Inheritor of Miao Medicine (Bone Injury and Snake Injury Therapy)" and serves as the spokesperson for Miao Medicine—a nationally recognized intangible cultural heritage project in Leishan County. In 2022, Wang discovered that a store selling "Ancestral Secret Formula Hair Growth Liquid" on a major e-commerce platform had extensively used his portrait in product details, accompanied by images of him giving interviews and demonstrating medical techniques. The product description featured slogans "Family medicine, century-old tradition" and "Ancestral anti-hair loss and hair growth formula." The plaintiff never authorized anyone to produce or sell products other than the Bone Injury and Snake Injury Miao Medicine under his name. Ultimately, the court ruled that the defendants actions violated the plaintiffs right to his ness and constituted unfair competition.

Furthermore, the practice of trademark registration for intangible cultural heritage symbols has become widespread. These symbols often carry profound historical, cultural, and ethnic significance. Registering them as trademarks not only provides legal protection for intangible cultural heritage projects but also facilitates their dissemination and development. Through trademark registration, these heritage items can establish unique brand identities, enhance market competitiveness, and prevent unauthorized use or appropriation of cultural symbols, thereby safeguarding their legitimate rights. For instance, Xiangxi in Hunan Province has registered the production techniques of "Guzhang Maojian" as an intangible cultural heritage and obtained a geographical indication trademark.

IV. Improvement and choice of legal protection path for intangible cultural heritage

(1) Strengthening legal interpretation and application

Within the legal framework for intangible cultural heritage protection, copyright safeguards play a vital role. However, current judicial enforcement in this field remains inadequate due to insufficient legal provisions, failing to fully realize its intended effectiveness. This situation underscores the urgent need to strengthen the development of detailed implementation guidelines.

In order to improve the copyright legal system, we can start from the two key aspects of narrow copyright and adjacent rights respectively and comprehensively promote the development of related work.

First, regarding the narrow definition of copyright. The promulgation of the Regulations on Folk Literary and Artistic Works holds significant importance for improving the legal system for protecting intangible cultural heritage (ICH) copyrights. As a vital component of ICH, folk literary and artistic works have been explicitly stipulated in the Copyright Law. It is imperative to expedite research on contentious issues and accelerate the enactment of these Regulations to clarify key aspects such as copyright ownership, rights scope, and protection periods for folk literary and artistic works. Simultaneously, establishing a specialized agency designated by the State Councils copyright administrative department to manage property interest distribution is crucial. These works often involve numerous creators and inheritors, making property interest distribution particularly complex. Without such specialized management, disputes over interests could arise, hindering the inheritance and development of folk literary and artistic works. By creating this agency and establishing a scientific property interest distribution mechanism, we can ensure fair, equi, and reasonable benefit allocation while motivating creators and inheritors. Additionally, enhancing provisions linking spiritual rights protection with copyright law is vital for fully safeguarding the spiritual value of ICH. Beyond economic significance, ICH carries profound cultural and spiritual values. In some cases, enterprises have misinterpreted and exploited ICH elements for commercial promotion, damaging the cultural essence and ethnic sentiments embedded in these heritage items. Therefore, adding relevant provisions on the protection of spiritual rights in the copyright law and clarifying the spiritual rights such as the right of authorship and the right to protect the integrity of works of intangible cultural heritage owners can better protect the spiritual value of intangible cultural heritage.

Secondly, regarding the neighboring rights component. From the perspective of intangible cultural heritages interpretative nature, treating established forms of folk literary and artistic expressions as subjects of neighboring rights under copyright law presents a viable protection strategy. At the legislative level, a new neighboring right could be established within copyright laws neighboring rights framework, specifically designed to regulate the copyright content and exercise rules for intangible cultural heritage, particularly folk literary and artistic works. The subjects of neighboring rights should be clearly defined as inheritors, as the living preservation of intangible cultural heritage relies on their efforts. Their artistic practices combine inheritance with innovation, with inheritors perpetuating and developing these cultural treasures through performances, exhibitions, and other forms. By establishing neighboring rights to recognize and protect inheritors artistic practices, we can create a favorable legal environment for the transmission and development of intangible cultural heritage.

Given the crucial role cultural disseminators play in promoting and utilizing cultural works, it is essential to grant them rights to protect their interests and facilitate the widespread dissemination of folk literature and art. For instance, cultural communication companies often organize intangible cultural heritage exhibitions and performances to expand the reach of these artistic creations, helping more people understand and appreciate them. Without proper protection of their rights, cultural disseminators enthusiasm would be dampened, ultimately hindering the promotion and dissemination of folk literature and art.

Furthermore, it is essential to strengthen the coordination between administrative regulations such as the Intangible Cultural Heritage Law and copyright systems, thereby establishing a more comprehensive legal protection framework. While the Intangible Cultural Heritage Law primarily focuses on administrative management for heritage preservation, copyright law emphasizes civil rights-based protection. Although these two approaches have distinct priorities in safeguarding intangible cultural heritage, they also exhibit certain overlaps and complementarity. By enhancing their integration, we can achieve all-round, multi-tiered protection that ensures effective legal safeguards across various jurisdictions.

(2) Strengthening judicial protection

The current legal challenges in protecting intangible cultural heritage (ICH) have significantly hindered its legal safeguards. Therefore, strengthening judicial protection has become imperative. As the final safeguard for ICH preservation, effective judicial protection plays a crucial role in protecting the legitimate rights of ICH rights holders and combating infringement activities.

Judicial authorities should establish clear adjudication standards and formulate unified judicial guidelines to provide definitive basis for handling cases involving intangible cultural heritage (ICH). In ICH infringement disputes, the absence of standardized criteria has led to significant discrepancies in rulings across different regions and courts regarding similar cases. This not only undermines judicial fairness and authority but also leaves ICH rights holders confused during legal proceedings. For instance, the lack of clear criteria for determining "substantial similarity" in assessing copyright infringement often results in inadequate punishment for violations. To address this, judicial bodies should issue guiding precedents and formulate judicial interpretations to clarify adjudication standards and unify legal benchmarks, thereby providing clear guidance for resolving ICH-related cases.

To enhance the severity of compensation rulings, authorities must impose severe penalties for violations of intangible cultural heritage rights. By increasing the cost of infringement, we can effectively curb such acts. In many cases involving infringement of intangible cultural heritage rights, compensation amounts are often disproportionately low compared to the infringers profits, allowing wrongdoers to repeatedly violate legitimate rights without substantial consequences. Therefore, judicial authorities should determine appropriate compensation levels based on the nature, circumstances, and consequences of each infringement. This approach will raise the cost of violations and ensure offenders face appropriate repercussions. For example, intentional or repeated infringements should warrant significantly increased compensation to serve as a deterrent.

Furthermore, judicial authorities should enhance collaboration with other departments to establish a united front in protecting intangible cultural heritage (ICH). In ICH conservation efforts, courts should work with cultural, heritage, and market regulation agencies to create mechanisms for information sharing, case referrals, and t enforcement actions against violations. For instance, when cultural departments identify ICH infringement clues, they should promptly transfer relevant information to judicial authorities for legal investigation. Similarly, market regulators must swiftly address infringing products during routine inspections and refer cases to judicial authorities. Through strengthened interdepartmental coordination, a robust synergy can be formed to effectively safeguard the legitimate rights of ICH.

(3) ing multiple relief methods

In safeguarding intangible cultural heritage rights, rights holders should strategically employ legal tools such as trademark protection and unfair competition remedies to ensure effective rights protection. Since relying solely on legal measures often falls short of meeting practical conservation needs, adopting diversified approaches can expand the legal framework for heritage preservation, thereby providing comprehensive and robust safeguards for cultural rights holders.

Trademark registration serves as a safeguard for the distinctive elements of intangible cultural heritage (ICH), preventing malicious trademark squatting and infringement. These elements—including names, patterns, and symbols of traditional crafts—carry significant commercial and cultural value. When such elements are fraudulently registered as trademarks, they can hinder the preservation and development of ICH. For instance, when names of local specialty snacks or traditional handicrafts get hijacked by others, it prevents heritage bearers from using them legitimately in their businesses. Therefore, ICH rights holders should promptly register these elements to secure exclusive trademark rights and prevent unauthorized use. However, its worth noting that ICH products often prioritize cultural continuity and craftsmanship over commercial branding. Many consumers prefer authentic handicrafts without added logos to appreciate their collectible value or unique charm. The author suggests strategically placing distinctive elements in inconspicuous locations, which can serve as proof of origin during disputes and help prevent infringement claims.

When confronting unfair competition practices, it is crucial to uphold the legal standing and interests of intangible cultural heritage (ICH) in market competition through the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Some enterprises resort to deceptive tactics counterfeiting ICH products and making false claims to gain improper advantages, thereby infringing upon the legitimate rights of ICH rights holders. For instance, certain companies mislead consumers by falsely labeling their products as authentic ICH items through deceptive packaging. According to the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, ICH rights holders can take legal action against such practices to protect the heritages rightful position and interests in market competition.

In conclusion, the improvement and ion of legal protection pathways for intangible cultural heritage (ICH) constitutes a systematic project. This requires comprehensive efforts in multiple dimensions: enhancing legal interpretation and application, strengthening judicial safeguards, and adopting diversified relief mechanisms. Only through such coordinated measures can we effectively preserve and promote ICH, enabling it to thrive anew in modern society with renewed vitality and dynamism.

 reference documentation

1. Li Zhiheng: Trademarks, Intangible Heritage and Intellectual Property —— A Folklore Discussion Starting from Contemporary Judicial Practice", published in The Forum of Folk Culture, No.1, 2024.

2. Nie Xin: Research on the Protection and Boundary of Intellectual Property Rights of Intangible Cultural Heritage, Cultural Heritage, No.3, 2023.

3. Nie Xin: Research on the Protection of Property Rights of Intangible Cultural Heritage under Institutional Rationality, Cultural Heritage, No.4, 2021.

4. Luo Zongkui: The Practice, Problems and Countermeasures of Trademark Protection for Intangible Cultural Heritage, Cultural Heritage, No.2, 2020.

5. Shi Aidong: "The Inherent Contradiction between the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage and the Protection of Copyright of Folk Art Works", Journal of Renmin University of China, 2018, No.8.

6. Huang Yuye: "On the Protection of Private Rights in Intangible Cultural Heritage", China Law, No.5, 2008.

Reference cases

1. Li Zhuoqian, Liu Guobin, and Chen Lina: "Guiding the Path of Intangible Cultural Heritage Protection with Legal Principles: The Leishan Practice in Judicial Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage", published on the "Democracy and Rule of Law" WeChat Official Account on January 23,2025. Visit link: https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?src=11×tamp=1738343214&ver=5784&signature=KlYYJ2yA17lvgU2GQW*vBJhWYKWjsxojV0IVCgqcRP3A0Ivx2CXEiEe0qsYcrGRkdiPsckdXApqnXytqiwqeY1MyTg36BnwQCZvIpjd8J4noCFSp57-WF6RAL60FLBRH&new=1. Last accessed: January 23,2025.

2. Fujian High Court: "The Top Ten Cases of Intellectual Property Judicial Protection in Fujian Courts in 2023, No.8", published on the "Fujian High Court" public account on April 29,2024, access link: http://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzAwODMyOTQ2Mw==&mid=2653375546&idx=2&sn=965c368e59f06d48326b7a55cfe61a3b&scene=0, last visit date: February 1, 2025.

3. Nanjing Intermediate Peoples Court: "Release | Typical Cases of Intellectual Property Judicial Protection in the Field of Traditional Chinese Culture in Nanjing Courts", published on the WeChat account of "Nanjing Intermediate Peoples Court" on July 10,2023. The last visit link is https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/aUlN5CNL8iOgfvi3aLZ1Pg, and the last visit date is February 1, 2025.

4. Beijing Internet Court Civil Judgment (2020) Jing 0491 Min Chu No.1886

5. Civil Judgment (2015) Zhu Zhi Min Chu No.17 of Guiyang Intermediate Peoples Court, Guizhou Province