Introduction: Infringement dispute between "My Loulan" and "Above the Snowline"

By the end of September 2025, a song called 'Above the Snowline' will quickly become popular on major music and short video platforms, with over one billion views in a short period of time. Subsequently, after comparing with netizens, it was found that the song was actually a re written work, and its melody completely followed the classic song "My Loulan". This incident has sparked strong dissatisfaction from the original lyricist, publicly accusing the creative team of "Above the Snowline" of unauthorized adaptation and stating that legal proceedings have been initiated to prepare for litigation. This controversy has once again pushed the issue of music copyright into the focus of public opinion, and also exposed the insufficient awareness of the legal rules of music copyright among the public and even professional creators. As one of the objects protected by copyright law, music works have complex and multifaceted rights, involving the intertwined rights of multiple parties such as lyricists, composers, singers, and recording producers.

This article will take the incident of "My Loulan" being re written as the starting point, analyze the classification and content of music copyright, explore the legal characterization of re writing behavior, clarify the boundaries of music works' rights and authorization mechanisms, in order to provide legal ideas for resolving similar disputes.

From a legal perspective, the core points of dispute in this case mainly focus on the following aspects: firstly, whether the act of rewriting the lyrics violates the copyright of the original author; Secondly, as a complete musical work, is the copyright of 'My Loulan' indivisible; Thirdly, if a work needs to be legally adapted, which rights holders' authorization should be obtained.

The answers to these questions not only relate to the fairness of individual cases, but also have a profound impact on the creative ecology and copyright order of the music industry. In recent years, similar disputes have been common, from the early "Peony Song" case to the Alan Studio rights protection incident, the legal boundary of music adaptation has always been a difficult issue in the field of intellectual property. With the comprehensive arrival of the digital music era, music dissemination and adaptation have become more convenient. How to find a balance between protecting originality and promoting cultural dissemination has become an urgent legal issue to be solved.

▼

Classification and Ownership of Music Copyright

Music copyright refers to the exclusive rights enjoyed by the creators of music works in accordance with the law, and is an important component of the copyright law system. According to China's Copyright Law and relevant international conventions, music copyright can be divided into two categories: personal rights (spiritual rights) and property rights (economic rights). There are essential differences between the two in terms of the nature of rights, protection period, and transfer rules. Understanding this classification is the fundamental framework for analyzing music copyright disputes.

2.1 Content and Characteristics of Copyright Rights

Copyright is the right of the author to enjoy personal interests based on the work, which is non transferable and permanent. According to Article 10 of the Copyright Law, the personal rights of authors mainly include the following four items:

(1) Publication right: The right to decide whether a work should be made public or not. Authors of lyrics and music have the right to decide for themselves when, where, and in what way their works will be first publicly released. In the case of 'My Loulan', the original lyricist exercised this right by publishing their work through legal channels.

(2) Signature right: refers to the right to indicate the author's identity and sign their name on the work. This right guarantees the identity confirmation of the songwriter's creative achievements and prohibits others from impersonating or deleting the original author's name without authorization.

(3) Modification right: refers to the right of the author to modify or authorize others to modify the work themselves. The right of modification guarantees the author's freedom to adjust the content of the work according to changes in will or objective needs, and any unauthorized substantial modification may constitute infringement.

(4) The right to protect the integrity of a work: that is, the right to protect a work from distortion or tampering. This right aims to maintain the integrity of the expression form and ideological content of the work, and prevent others from making changes to the work that damage the author's reputation.

The personal rights of authors have the characteristics of non transferability and permanent protection. Even if the author transfers all the intellectual property rights of their work, they still retain these moral rights. In terms of protection period, except for the right of publication, the protection period of the right of attribution, the right of modification, and the right to protect the integrity of the work are not limited, and are protected by the heir or the national copyright authority after the author's death.

2.2 Content and Protection Period of Copyright

Copyright is the right of the copyright owner to obtain economic benefits in accordance with the law, which can be licensed to others for use or fully transferred. The property rights involved in music works mainly include:

(1) Reproduction right: The right to make one or more copies of a musical work by printing, copying, recording, or transcribing it. In the digital environment, the act of digitizing and storing music works also falls within the scope of reproduction rights.

(2) Distribution right: The right to provide the original or copies of a work to the public through sale or gift. Both physical record sales and digital downloads involve the exercise of distribution rights.

(3) Performance right: The right to publicly perform works (such as concerts) and to publicly broadcast the performance of works through various means (such as playing background music in public places).

(4) Broadcasting right: The right to publicly broadcast or disseminate works through wireless or wired means. Radio and television stations need to obtain this authorization to play music.

(5) Information network dissemination right: the right to provide works to the public through wired or wireless means, so that the public can obtain the works at a time and place of their own choice. This is one of the most important rights in the digital music era.

(6) Adaptation right: The right to change a work and create a new work with originality. Rewriting, arranging, and other activities require authorization for adaptation rights.

In China, the protection period of music copyright is the lifetime of the author and fifty years after their death, ending on December 31 of the fiftieth year after their death. Collaborative works are calculated based on the last deceased author. After the expiration of the protection period, the work enters the public domain and can be freely used by others, but the author's rights to attribution, modification, and protection of the integrity of the work must still be respected.

Table: Classification and Content of Music Copyright

image.png

2.3 Division of Rights Subjects for Music Works

The rights holders of music works exhibit diversified characteristics, and a complete music work usually involves multiple rights holders:

(1) Lyricist: As the creator of written works, they have independent copyright over the lyrics. In 'My Loulan', the original lyricist has exclusive rights to the lyrics they create.

(2) Songwriter: As the creator of a musical work, enjoys copyright over musical elements such as melody and harmony structure. Even without lyrics, sheet music can still be protected as an independent work.

(3) Singer: As a performer, they have adjacent rights (performer rights) over their performance activities, including the right to identify themselves as performers, protect their performance image from distortion, and license others to record audio and video recordings.

(4) Recording producer: has the right to copy, distribute, rent, and disseminate information on the recorded music version (recording product).

It should be noted that when a singer participates in both songwriting and songwriting (i.e. a creative singer), they enjoy both the copyright of the songwriter and the performer's rights. But in the case of 'My Loulan', if the singer is not the songwriter, they do not have copyright over the song itself, only the performer's rights.

▼

The boundary of rights between the three word composer and the singer

The creation and dissemination of music works involve multiple parties, and the clarity of the rights boundaries of each party directly affects the legality of the use of the works and the determination of infringement. In the event of "My Loulan" being rewritten with lyrics, clarifying the scope of rights of the lyricist, composer, and singer is a prerequisite for determining whether "Above the Snow Line" constitutes infringement.

3.1 Scope and Limitations of Author's Rights

As creators of written works, lyricists have complete copyright over the lyrics they create. In 'My Loulan', the rights of the original lyricist are mainly reflected in the following aspects:

(1) Exclusive rights to textual expression: Authors have exclusive rights to the creative expression of lyrics, including the choice of language, sentence structure, and rhythm arrangement. Anyone who uses identical or substantially similar written expressions without permission may constitute infringement. In the case of 'Above the Snowline', if the new lyrics do not use the original lyrics but still use the core structure, imagery combination, and expression of the original lyrics, it may still constitute an infringement of the right to copy or adapt.

(2) Adaptation control: The lyricist has the right to prohibit others from modifying their lyrics or creating derivative works based on the original lyrics without authorization. According to Article 10 of the Copyright Law, the right of adaptation is the right to change a work and create a new work with originality. The act of rewriting lyrics is essentially a textual recreation based on the original song, and in principle belongs to the scope of adaptation rights control. In the "Alan Studio Rights Protection Incident", many netizens have rewritten Alan's songs without permission and spread them online, which is considered a violation of adaptation rights.

(3) Protecting the integrity of the work: Authors have the right to oppose any distortion or tampering that damages their reputation. If the content after rewriting contradicts the original author's creative intention or leads to public misunderstanding of the original work, it may violate this right. Professor Wang Qian from East China University of Political Science and Law pointed out that "the act of re filling lyrics and publicly utilizing them may also constitute an infringement of the right to adaptation and the right to protect the integrity of the work, depending on the situation.

3.2 Scope and Limitations of the Author's Rights

As the creator of a musical work, the composer has exclusive rights to musical elements such as melody, rhythm, and harmony. In the event of the lyrics being rewritten for 'My Loulan', the rights of the composer also need to be respected:

(1) Melody Exclusive Rights: The composer has exclusive rights to the melody they create. Even if new lyrics are used in the rewritten work, as long as the original melody structure is used, permission from the composer is required. In the "Peony Song" case, the court explicitly stated that the act of only using the original score without using the lyrics ("filling lyrics to the song") also requires authorization from the composer.

(2) Adaptation license: The composer has the right to license or prohibit others from adapting their score. Although rewriting the lyrics does not change the melody, it still requires authorization from the composer for adaptation rights as it forms a new musical expression (overall song). In collaborative works, the exercise of adaptation rights by the composer alone shall not harm the overall copyright of the collaborative work.

(3) Performance authorization: Public performance of music works (including revised versions with lyrics) requires the permission of the composer's performance rights.

3.3 Nature and Scope of Singer's Rights

As disseminators of musical works, the rights of singers are different from those of songwriters. According to Article 39 of the Copyright Law, performers have the following rights to their performances:

(1) Indicate performer identity: Similar to the author's right of attribution, performers have the right to demand that their identity be indicated when using their performance.

(2) Protecting the performance image from distortion: protecting the artistic image of performers from being improperly altered or damaged.

(3) Authorize others to record audio and video and receive compensation: Control the recording of audio and video of their live performances.

(4) Authorize others to copy and distribute audio and video recordings of their performances and receive compensation: control the use of performance recordings.

(5) Allowing others to spread their performances through information networks and receive compensation: controlling the dissemination of performances in cyberspace.

The rights of singers belong to the category of adjacent rights, and the protection period is different from copyright, which is 50 years after the performance. In the case of 'My Loulan', although the singer does not enjoy the copyright of the lyrics and music, if 'Above the Snowline' directly uses the original singer's recorded version, it may infringe on their performer's rights. If a new work is re recorded and performed, it generally does not involve infringement of the rights of the original singer.

▼

Infringement determination of refilling behavior

As a form of music creation, there are different understandings in academic and practical circles regarding the legal nature of lyric rewriting. Whether the act of rewriting lyrics for "My Loulan" in "Above the Snow Line" constitutes infringement needs to be analyzed from multiple dimensions based on specific facts.

4.1 Application of the principle of "contact+substantial similarity"

The determination of copyright infringement usually adopts the standard of "contact+substantial similarity", which also applies to the judgment of music works infringement. In the controversy between "My Loulan" and "Above the Snow Line":

(1) Identification of contact requirements: Contact refers to the defendant having the opportunity to hear, see, or understand the plaintiff's work. Given that 'My Loulan' is a well-known work that has been publicly released, it can be inferred that the lyricist has had contact with the work. Proof of contact is relatively easy, as long as the copyrighted work has been distributed through publicly available channels, it is considered to meet the contact requirements.

(2) The determination of substantial similarity: This is the core difficulty in determining infringement. The substantial similarity of musical works needs to be analyzed from multiple dimensions such as melody, rhythm, and harmonic structure

Melody similarity: If 'Above the Snowline' completely adopts the melodic structure of 'My Loulan', then the substantial similarity at the melodic level is established. Even if the lyrics are rewritten, as long as the melody remains consistent, it constitutes an infringement of the copyright of the composer.

Lyrical similarity: It is necessary to analyze the degree of similarity between the new lyrics and the original lyrics in terms of theme, structure, imagery, and expression. If it is only a similarity in ideological level (such as both describing Western customs), it generally does not constitute infringement; But if there are substantial similarities in specific expressions (such as unique metaphorical combinations, sentence structures), it may infringe on the author's right to copy or adapt.

Overall perceived similarity: Whether the general audience's overall perception of two works is similar. In the "Song of the Five Rings" case, the court held that although the melody is the same, the lyrics and theme ideas are completely different, forming a new work as a whole, which does not constitute an infringement of the original work's integrity rights.

It is worth noting that if new lyrics are created using only the melody of the original song, it mainly involves infringement of the rights of the composer; If there is substantial similarity between the new lyrics and the original lyrics, it also violates the rights of the lyricist. In the Alan Studio rights protection incident, experts pointed out that "if re writing lyrics to the original song is a completely new creation rather than an adaptation of the original lyrics, it does not involve infringement of the copyright of the lyrics, but the use of the original song and accompanying music involves infringement of the copyright of the song and the production rights of the recording product.

4.2 Conflict between adaptation rights and protection of the integrity of works

The act of rewriting lyrics is essentially an adaptation of the original music work, which inevitably involves the legal boundary between the right of adaptation and the right to protect the integrity of the work:

(1) The legal boundary of adaptation right: Adaptation right is a type of copyright property right, which refers to the right to change a work and create a new one. In the case of "Song of Peony", the court pointed out that "adaptation in the sense of copyright law refers to the formation of a new work by changing the original work while retaining the basic expression of the original work". Therefore, if 'Above the Snow Line' retains the basic melodic expression of 'My Loulan', it is considered an adaptation and requires authorization from the composer.

(2) The application of the right to protect the integrity of a work: This right protects the work from distortion and tampering, and maintains the author's creative intent and the integrity of the work. If rewriting leads to misinterpretation of the theme, ideas, or emotions of the work, it may infringe upon this right.

(3) Reasonable use of defense space: According to Article 24 of the Copyright Law, in certain special circumstances, adaptation may constitute reasonable use. However, in practice, commercial and publicly disseminated re wording is difficult to meet the conditions for reasonable use. Professor Wang Qian clearly pointed out that "if it is a small-scale use for personal interests, attention should be paid to using the original work within a limited scope and not publicly disseminating it, in order to avoid damaging the legitimate rights and interests of the original rights holder.

In the case of 'Above the Snowline', if a new work completely changes the original creative theme (such as adapting the nostalgic song 'My Loulan' into a commercial advertisement song), even if the adaptation rights are granted, it may still infringe on the right to protect the integrity of the work by damaging the author's reputation. This infringement determination is independent of the infringement of adaptation rights, and even if authorized for adaptation, one may still be held responsible for distortion and tampering.

4.3 Individual authorization issues in collaborative works

Music works are often the product of collaborative creation, and 'My Loulan' is a collaborative work created by the songwriters and composers. The copyright exercise rules of collaborative works have a significant impact on the authorization of re writing:

(1) The legal characteristics of divisible collaborative works: According to Article 14 of the Copyright Law, collaborative works can be divided into two categories: divisible use and indivisible use. Songs are usually regarded as separable collaborative works, and the lyrics and music can be used separately as written works and musical works. In the case of "The Peony Song", the court clearly stated that "The Peony Song" is a collaborative work that can be divided and used. While the lyricists and composers jointly enjoy the rights to the song, the lyricists have separate rights to the lyrics and the composers have separate rights to the music they create.

(2) Limitations on exercising individual rights: The author of a collaborative work shall not infringe upon the overall copyright of the collaborative work when exercising individual rights. In the scenario of rewriting lyrics, the composer may authorize others to use the score alone, but if this authorization damages the rights of the composer (such as causing improper division of the lyrics and music combination), it may constitute an infringement of the overall copyright of the collaborative work.

(3) Integrity requirements for authorization chain: When adapting divisible collaborative works, corresponding authorization must be obtained based on the adaptation content:

Only using sheet music to rewrite lyrics: requires authorization from the composer for adaptation rights;

Using the original lyrics to modify the melody: requires authorization from the lyricist for adaptation rights;

Simultaneously using lyrics and music but making modifications: requires joint or separate authorization from the authors of the lyrics and music.

In the case of 'Above the Snow Line', if the work only uses the score of 'My Loulan' and creates new words, it only needs to obtain authorization from the composer. However, in practice, it should be noted that as a collaborative work, the commercial value of the song as a whole may be higher than that of a standalone score. Therefore, when the composer authorizes the rewriting of lyrics separately, they should avoid damaging the overall value of the collaborative work.

▼

The criteria for determining the divisibility of five musical works

Is the copyright of 'My Loulan' an indivisible piece of music? This issue is directly related to the scope of authorization and responsibility determination for the act of rewriting words. The separability judgment of music works needs to be comprehensively analyzed in combination with legal norms and industry practices.

5.1 Legal norms for divisible collaborative works

Article 14 of China's Copyright Law provides clear provisions on collaborative works: "For works created jointly by two or more persons, the copyright shall be jointly enjoyed by the collaborating authors; those who did not participate in the creation shall not become collaborating authors. If a collaborative work can be divided and used separately, the authors may separately enjoy the copyright of each self created part, but exercising the copyright shall not infringe on the overall copyright of the collaborative work.

(1) The recognition criteria for divisible collaborative works:

Willingness to co create: The co authors subjectively know that they are creating for the purpose of co creation;

Creative contribution: All parties have made substantial contributions to the completion of the work;

Separability: Each part can exist independently without losing the integrity of the work.

In the "Peony Song" case, the court held that the songwriters "subjectively knew that they had created songs for the movie" Red Peony ", and each created them to form a complete song", thus constituting a collaborative work; At the same time, as lyrics and music can be used separately as written works and musical works, they belong to separable collaborative works.

(2) The characteristic of inseparable collaborative works: each creative part is highly integrated and cannot be used separately. Such as paintings completed by multiple painters, songs created simultaneously with lyrics and music that cannot distinguish contributions, etc. For indivisible collaborative works, the exercise of any rights requires the unanimous agreement of all authors.

5.2 Judicial determination of separability of music works

In judicial practice, songs are usually recognized as separable collaborative works, and this recognition has a direct impact on the authorization rules for re lyric behavior:

(1) The principle of independent copyright for lyrics and music: In "My Loulan", the lyricist enjoys the copyright of written works for the lyrics, and the composer enjoys the copyright of musical works for the melody. In the scenario of "filling lyrics with music", the new work only uses the original melody, so only the authorization of the composer is required, without the permission of the lyricist. In the "Song of the Five Rings" case, the court held that "Zhongde Company only obtained corresponding authorization from the lyricist, without obtaining the corresponding authorization from the composer, and cannot independently claim the relevant rights of the song work and the overall song in its own name," which confirmed the independent copyright status of the music score from the opposite side.

(2) The relationship between overall copyright and partial copyright: As a collaborative work, the song as a whole has its independent copyright value, but this overall copyright does not negate the separate copyright of the lyrics and music. In the scenario of rewriting words:

If the new work only uses the original melody, it only involves music score copyright;

If the new work uses specific arrangements, accompaniments, and other elements from the original song, it may involve the overall copyright of the song;

If the new work directly uses the original recording version, it also involves the rights of the recording creator and performer.

(3) The influence of industry conventions: In the music industry, lyrics and music copyrights are usually managed separately. Collective management organizations such as the Music Copyright Association also manage the rights to lyrics and music separately, and in practice, allow for individual authorization to use music scores. This industry practice reinforces the divisibility feature of music works.

5.3 International Conventions and Comparative Law Perspectives

There is also a consensus at the international level regarding the separability of music works. Article 2 of the Bern Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works defines musical works as "compositions with or without lyrics", implying the independence of lyrics and music. From a comparative perspective:

US copyright law: Clearly categorizes lyrics as "written works" and music scores as "musical works", allowing for separate registration and licensing.

The EU Copyright Directive recognizes the separability of lyrics and music in musical works, but emphasizes the overall protection of collaborative works.

The Japanese Copyright Law stipulates that each author of a collaborative work may exercise their rights independently, but must consider the interests of other authors.

International practice has shown that the recognition of separability in music works is the mainstream trend, which is conducive to the multidimensional utilization and copyright circulation of works. In the case of 'My Loulan', the use of divisibility determination is not only in line with legal principles, but also in line with industry practice, which helps balance the rights and interests of all parties.

▼

Authorization mechanism and infringement prevention for six music works

It is crucial to establish a sound music works authorization mechanism to avoid copyright disputes caused by rewriting lyrics. The controversy from 'My Loulan' to 'Above the Snow Line' highlights the loopholes in the music copyright authorization system and the necessity of risk prevention.

6.1 Authorization acquisition channels and processes

The authorization of music works can be obtained through various channels, each with its own characteristics:

(1) Direct authorization: Negotiate directly with the copyright owner of the lyrics and music to obtain authorization. This method has flexible authorization conditions, but the cost of finding the rights holder is high, and it requires contacting the songwriter and composer separately. For well-known music works, direct authorization is the most authoritative way, but the efficiency is relatively low.

(2) Collective management organization: Obtain authorization through collective management organizations such as the Music Copyright Association. The Music Copyright Association manages over 14 million music works of more than 8900 members in China, and can provide a package of licenses such as performance rights and broadcasting rights. According to data in 2023, the annual licensing revenue of the Music Copyright Association exceeded 400 million yuan, and it handled over 500 lawsuits for rights protection. Collective management is suitable for standardized authorization needs, but customized authorization still requires direct negotiation.

(3) Commercial music platform: Obtain pre authorized music through professional copyright music platforms. These platforms offer a massive library of licensed music and support on-demand purchases. Platforms usually provide clear authorization scope (such as advertising and self media), duration, and price, suitable for quick authorization needs.

(4) Special authorization mechanism:

Statutory license: According to the Copyright Law, sound recording creators who use music works that have been legally recorded as sound recordings by others to produce sound recordings may do so without permission but are required to pay remuneration. But this license does not apply to adaptations such as rewriting words.

Public version music usage: For music works (such as classical music) whose copyright protection period has expired, the score can be freely used. However, it should be noted that modern adaptations may still have copyright protection.

It is recommended to follow the principle of "authorization before use" when rewriting lyrics. The specific process should be: determining the status of the original work rights → identifying the ownership of rights → obtaining the authorization for adaptation rights → obtaining other authorizations based on the usage method after the creation is completed (such as performance rights, information network dissemination rights, etc.).

6.2 Design of Key Terms in Authorization Contracts

To prevent infringement risks, music works authorization contracts should clearly stipulate the following key terms:

Nature of authorization: Distinguish between exclusive license, exclusive license, or general license. Rewriting words usually requires obtaining exclusive or exclusive adaptation rights authorization to avoid duplicate authorization conflicts.

Scope of authorization: Clearly limit the usage methods (such as recording, performance, broadcasting), geographical scope, time limit, dissemination channels, etc.

Derivative rights allocation: Agree on the copyright ownership of the newly created part. Usually, the rewriter holds the copyright for the new lyrics, but the original composer may request to share the profits from the derivative works.

Attribution method: Clearly define the attribution requirements of the original songwriter to avoid infringing on the right of attribution. For example, 'Song: XXX (original author) Word: XXX (new author)'.

Compensation mechanism: Design a reasonable prepayment+sharing structure that reflects the commercial value of the work. According to industry data in 2023, the licensing fee for the adaptation rights of well-known songs is usually in the range of 50000 to 500000 yuan, plus streaming media sharing (5% -15%).

Guarantee clause: The licensor is required to ensure that they have complete rights to the authorized content, avoiding the issue of rights defects in the "Song of the Five Rings" case.

In the context of the controversy surrounding 'My Loulan', a sound authorization contract can effectively prevent infringement disputes, protect the rights and interests of creators, and promote the healthy development of the music industry.

▼

Concluding remarks

The copyright dispute over "My Loulan" being rewritten as "Above the Snowline" reveals the difficult balance between copyright protection and creative freedom faced by the music industry in the digital age. This article draws the following conclusions through analysis:

(1) Rewriting involves complex copyright relationships. Music copyright is complex, with independent copyright enjoyed by songwriters and composers, and adjacent rights enjoyed by performers. When rewriting lyrics, attention should be paid to both the protection of the adaptation rights of the original composer and the respect for the integrity rights of the original lyricist's work. In the case of 'Above the Snowline', if the new work completely uses new words but uses the original song, it mainly involves the adaptation rights of the composer; If there is substantial similarity between the new word and the original word, it also infringes on the author's right to copy; If the adaptation causes damage to the reputation of the original work, it may also infringe on the right to protect the integrity of the work.

(2) The song belongs to a divisible collaborative work. Lyrics and music can be protected separately as written works and musical works, and the composer can authorize others to use the score alone. The authorization rule established in the "Song of Peony" case states that only using the original score requires authorization from the composer, and does not require permission from the lyricist. However, exercising individual rights shall not harm the overall interests of the collaborative work.

(3) A complete authorization chain needs to be established for legal refilling of words. The core is to obtain the adaptation rights authorization from the composer and synchronously obtain mechanical reproduction rights, performance rights, and other licenses based on the usage method. Authorization efficiency can be improved through channels such as music copyright associations and copyright platforms, but it is necessary to ensure that the scope of authorization covers actual usage scenarios.

The protection of music copyright is the institutional cornerstone that inspires creativity and promotes cultural prosperity. The controversy between "My Loulan" and "Above the Snowline" reminds us that only by building a music copyright ecosystem that respects originality, licensing standards, and orderly dissemination can we achieve a virtuous cycle of cultural innovation and dissemination. In today's rapidly advancing digital technology, continuously improving the copyright system and balancing the interests of all parties is the only way to promote the prosperity and development of socialist culture.