## Facts

- After winning gold in the men’s 110-meter hurdles at the 2004 Athens Olympics, Liu Xiang became a widely known public figure in China.
- On October 21, 2004, the newspaper *LifeStyle* (《精品购物指南》) published a 1000th-issue commemorative special focused on “events influencing 2004.”
- The front cover displayed a large photograph of Liu clearing a hurdle during the Olympics, but the image was edited, including changes to the background and other visual elements.
- A rectangular advertisement for Zhongyou Department Store’s “6th Shopping Festival” appeared at the bottom of the same front cover.
- Liu did not consent to the use or alteration of his image for the cover.
- Liu sued *LifeStyle* (the newspaper), the newspaper’s website operator (Beijing Boutique Zhuoyue Technology Development Co., Ltd.), and Zhongyou Department Store (Beijing Zhongyou Department Store Co., Ltd.), alleging infringement of his portrait right under Article 100 of the 1986 *General Principles of Civil Law*.
- Liu argued that placing his edited image above and visually near the department store advertisement amounted to using his portrait “as an advertisement,” implying endorsement and generating commercial value without authorization.
- Liu sought injunctive relief, a public apology, and damages totaling RMB 1.25 million (including an unjust-enrichment component and a mental-distress component).
- The Beijing Haidian District People’s Court rejected Liu’s claims, treating the cover image as part of news/editorial content and finding no legally relevant connection between Liu’s portrait and the store advertisement.
- Liu appealed to the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court, which issued a final judgment in December 2005.

## Issues

1. Whether *LifeStyle*’s unauthorized use of an edited photograph of Liu on its newspaper cover, in an issue commemorating news events, constituted “for-profit” use of a portrait that infringed Liu’s portrait right under Article 100 of the *General Principles of Civil Law*.
2. Whether the department store advertisement placed on the same cover meant Zhongyou had “used” Liu’s portrait (for example, by integrating his image into its advertising or creating an endorsement impression).
3. Whether the website operator incurred liability by uploading or reproducing the newspaper’s cover online.

## Decision

- The Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court dismissed Liu’s appeal and affirmed the first-instance judgment.
- The court held that the newspaper’s cover image use fell within reasonable news/editorial use of a public figure’s image connected to a matter of public interest, rather than a “for-profit” portrait use prohibited by Article 100.
- The court concluded that the department store advertisement did not amount to Zhongyou’s use of Liu’s portrait, because the advertisement was treated as separate from the editorial cover image and did not itself use Liu’s likeness.
- The court found the website operator’s conduct did not constitute an independent, for-profit portrait use; it was treated as technical reproduction of the newspaper content rather than a separate commercial exploitation of Liu’s image.
- Because no infringement was found, the court awarded no damages and ordered no apology or injunctive relief.

## Legal Principles

- Under Article 100 of the 1986 *General Principles of Civil Law*, portrait-right infringement traditionally required using another person’s portrait “for profit”; unauthorized use alone was not necessarily enough.
- Use of a public figure’s image for news reporting or editorial presentation connected to public events could qualify as reasonable use and fall outside the “for-profit” category.
- The presence of a paid advertisement on the same page as an editorial image does not, by itself, convert the editorial image into advertising use; courts may look for clearer incorporation of the portrait into the advertisement or an explicit endorsement message.
- A defendant is more likely to be found to have “used” a portrait when it directly deploys the image in its own advertising content, rather than merely placing an advertisement near independently chosen editorial material.
- A service provider that only performs technical reproduction of content, without independently using the portrait in its own commercial material, may not be liable absent proof of separate for-profit portrait use.

## Conclusion

The Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court affirmed dismissal of Liu Xiang’s portrait-right claims, holding that the edited cover photograph in *LifeStyle*’s year-end news special was a reasonable editorial use of a public figure’s image and was not treated as “for-profit” portrait exploitation under Article 100, and further finding that neither the adjacent department-store advertisement nor the website reproduction created liability.


Liu Xiang v. LifeStyle, Beijing No. 1. Intermediate People’s Court (2005)