1. Core SPC Legal Position on Braille Publishing & Royalties

Under Chinese copyright law, Braille conversion is generally treated as:

• A statutory exception (public welfare use) for visually impaired persons
• But not an absolute exemption from copyright protection
• Royalty liability depends on:
  • Purpose (public welfare vs commercial distribution)
  • Scale of dissemination
  • Whether digital/derivative formats go beyond Braille conversion

📌 Key principle:
Braille conversion is allowed, but commercial exploitation or mass digital distribution may trigger royalties or infringement liability.

2. Case Law 1 — Braille CD-ROM Copyright Infringement (China Braille Press)

Facts:
China Braille Press produced a copyrighted book in CD-ROM Braille format and distributed it without authorization.

Holding:

• Court found copyright infringement
• Ordered compensation to rights holder

Legal principle:

• Braille adaptation ≠ free commercial reproduction
• If format goes beyond “reasonable accommodation,” royalties apply

📌 Importance:
Establishes that Braille conversion can still require licensing in non-exempt contexts.

3. Case Law 2 — “I Am Not Madame Bovary” Accessible Format Dispute (2021)

Facts:
An online accessibility platform created accessible versions for disabled users without proper licensing.

Holding:

• Court rejected fair use defense
• Held that exemption did not automatically extend to film/expanded formats

Legal principle:

• Accessibility exceptions are narrowly interpreted
• Not all media qualify for Braille/fair use extension

📌 Importance:
Shows SPC’s restrictive approach to non-textual adaptations and royalty avoidance claims.

4. Case Law 3 — SPC Interpretation on Publication Liability (Reasonable Care Rule)

Facts:
Disputes involving publishers distributing infringing works.

Holding:

• Publishers must prove authorization or reasonable care
• Otherwise liable for damages and royalties

Legal principle:

• Publishing entities bear burden of proof
• Applies equally to Braille publishers and accessible format producers

📌 Importance:
Braille publishers cannot rely on disability purpose alone—must show legal authorization or statutory exemption compliance.

5. Case Law 4 — Guiding Case No. 80 (Originality & Derivative Works Standard)

Facts:
Dispute over copyright in derivative cultural works.

Holding:

• Original expressive elements in derivative works are protected
• Independent creativity is required for copyright ownership

Legal principle:

• Even adaptations (including Braille transcription formatting systems) may carry:
  • Separate copyright in formatting
  • But not in original underlying text

📌 Importance:
Helps determine whether Braille publishers can claim royalties for formatting work vs paying royalties for original text.

6. Case Law 5 — SPC Software & Digital Distribution Copyright Case (Guiding Case 48)

Facts:
Unauthorized reproduction and distribution of software content.

Holding:

• Digital replication = infringement unless licensed

Legal principle:

• Format conversion (including Braille digital tools) is still “reproduction”

📌 Importance:
Applies directly to Braille e-books, CD-ROM Braille, and screen-reader formats requiring licensing/royalties.

7. Case Law 6 — SPC Substantial Similarity Doctrine (MSZ No. 1049)

Facts:
Copyright dispute involving adapted works based on historical content.

Holding:

• Courts compare expression, not ideas
• Similar expressive structure → infringement

Legal principle:

• Braille translation must not alter expression unlawfully
• Unauthorized reproduction remains infringing even if format changes

📌 Importance:
Supports royalty claims when Braille version reproduces protected expressive structure.

8. Case Law 7 — Outdoor Publication Reasonable Use Standard (WIPO SPC Interpretation)

Holding:

• “Reasonable use” exceptions are narrow
• Burden of proof lies on publisher

📌 Importance:
Braille publishers invoking “public benefit” must still meet strict statutory requirements; otherwise royalties apply.

9. Consolidated SPC Rule on Braille Publishing Royalties

From the combined jurisprudence above, SPC doctrine can be summarized as:

A. No royalty required when:

• Pure Braille transcription for private/educational use
• Within statutory accessibility exceptions
• Non-commercial distribution to visually impaired users

B. Royalties or liability required when:

• Commercial Braille publishing (CD-ROM, digital platforms)
• Large-scale distribution without licensing
• Multimedia adaptation beyond text transcription
• Failure to prove authorization

C. Burden rule:

• Publisher must prove legal authorization or statutory exemption

10. Key Legal Takeaway

The Supreme People’s Court approach is balanced but strict:

• ✔ Protects disability access rights (Braille exemption exists)
• ❌ But does NOT create a blanket royalty-free zone
• ✔ Copyright owners retain enforceable royalty rights when exploitation becomes commercial or scaled