China's copyright law gives producers default rights over dramas

What was announced or recorded

China's Copyright Law carries a header note recording its own amendment history: adopted 7 September 1990, then amended three times, most recently by a decision the Standing Committee of the 13th National People's Congress passed at its 23rd session on 11 November 2020. The consolidated text, republished on China's central government portal and sourced to the National People's Congress, lists nine categories of protected work in Article 3, with 'audiovisual works' (视听作品) as category six. Its Article 65, a transitional provision, fixes 1 June 2021 as the date the amendment's terms are measured against, which is how this text itself anchors the third amendment's effect, even though the older Article 67 still carries the original 1991 commencement line unchanged.

What the documents establish

Article 17 sets a default: copyright in a 'film work' or 'television drama work' belongs to the producer, while the screenwriter, director, cinematographer, lyricist and composer keep attribution and a contractual right to be paid. For any other audiovisual work, ownership follows what the parties agree, defaulting to the producer if they never say. A script or piece of music inside the work stays separately exploitable by its own author. A second document, NRTA Order No. 16, the Measures for the Development and Administration of Micro-Dramas signed 30 July 2026 and effective 1 September 2026, shows a sector rule sitting on this default: Article 3 requires production to 'respect originality and protect copyright', and Article 10 directs the industry to build a copyright-protection system, without restating who owns what.

Announced versus delivered

The amendment delivers a default rule, not a record of how often contracts displace it or how disputes over a silent one are resolved. Because much vertical drama adapts an existing web novel, the open question is which party counts as 'producer' of the finished drama against 'author' of the underlying script, a distinction Article 17's carve-out anticipates but does not settle case by case. Order No. 16, barely six weeks old as of this dossier, states a general duty to protect micro-drama IP without yet a reportable enforcement record.

What to watch

An editorial test rather than one either document states: whether a production's own contract with its writer or director names who holds copyright in the finished work, since Article 17 only supplies a default a clear contract can override either way.

• Does the production contract state who owns copyright in the finished drama, or does silence leave Article 17's default to apply?
• Is a screenwriter's or director's attribution and payment right documented separately from the producer's ownership, as the law distinguishes?
• Does a sector rule like Order No. 16 add an enforcement mechanism specific to copyright, or only restate the general law's existing duty?

Read together, the two documents show a civil-law default sitting under a newer, sector-specific licensing regime that invokes copyright protection without adjudicating it, leaving the contract between platform, producer and credited writer as where the ownership question actually gets settled.