Before publishing or commercializing fan fiction and derivative creations, secure official licensing from the original author, or replace borrowed character names and relationships with original elements

Publishing and commercializing fan fiction that borrows character names, personality profiles, and interpersonal dynamics from established literature can constitute copyright infringement and unfair competition. In the landmark case regarding Jiang Nan's college-parody novel There They Were (borrowing over 60 characters from Louis Cha's / Jin Yong's martial arts novels), the appellate court ordered 1.68 million RMB in damages plus 200,000 RMB in legal fees. After a 9-year legal battle, the parties settled with the author agreeing never to reprint the novel in its original form. Free online fanfiction shared for non-commercial hobbies is evaluated under different fair-use standards.

Zero direct cost. Negotiate formal adaptation licensing before monetizing derivative works or publishing print editions. If licensing cannot be obtained, thoroughly replace character names, distinct personalities, and relationship dynamics with original creative expressions. Avoid referencing the original author or trademarks in titles, subtitles, or marketing copy.

In the landmark dispute Jin Yong v. Jiang Nan, author Jiang Nan published the campus novel There They Were using character names (Guo Jing, Huang Rong, Qiao Feng, Linghu Chong) and relationship configurations from Jin Yong's famous wuxia novels, marketing it with the subtitle "The University Days of the Condor Heroes." The book sold over one million copies across multiple editions. Jin Yong filed suit in 2016 seeking 5 million RMB in damages. The trial court found no copyright infringement on the basis that isolated character names and personality traits abstracted from specific plots did not constitute protected expression, but ruled the book constituted unfair competition by trading on Jin Yong's reputation, ordering 1.68 million RMB in damages (30% of 5.6 million RMB in cumulative royalties) plus 200,000 RMB in legal costs. On appeal, the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court reversed the copyright finding, ruling that an ensemble cast of 60+ characters with interconnected backstories and character arcs represented creative choices forming protected expression under copyright law, while the subtitle constituted unfair competition, affirming damages of 1.68 million RMB plus 200,000 RMB in expenses. In September 2025, the Guangdong Higher People's Court brokered a comprehensive judicial settlement: the author acknowledged lacking copyright knowledge and failing to obtain authorization, paid the damages, agreed never to reprint the work using Jin Yong's proprietary character names, and both parties settled the dispute without classifying the conduct as literal plagiarism. Similarly, in the Ghost Blows Out the Light litigation, original author Zhang Muye (Tianxia Bachang), having assigned all economic copyright to a production company in 2006, authored a new work titled The Tomb Robber using identical character names; courts ruled that while authors may write new independent stories, marketing materials deceptively referencing derivative movie posters constituted misleading false advertising, ordering 900,000 RMB in damages.

Primary beneficiary is yourself. Grade B is assigned because the legal boundaries of non-commercial online fan works remain an evolving area of judicial doctrine. The 9-year litigation ended in a mediated settlement that vacated earlier formal judgments and bound only the immediate parties. Judicial guidance establishes a three-step analytical test: 1) Does the similarity involve abstract ideas/tropes or concrete protected expression? 2) Is that expression original to the creator? 3) Does the use qualify under statutory fair-use exemptions? Borrowing a high-level genre trope carries minimal legal risk, whereas commercializing an entire proprietary character ensemble triggers significant liability. Furthermore, when original authors assign comprehensive copyrights to publishers or film studios, writing unauthorized sequels can expose even the creator to contractual and commercial claims. Reasonable litigation expenses (including attorney fees) are recoverable by the prevailing copyright owner under statutory law. Unauthorized translation and digital distribution risks are covered in Chapter 9, Rule 24. Benefit magnitude is categorized as High based on avoiding multi-million RMB copyright and commercial damages. Primary beneficiary is yourself.

广州知识产权法院 (2023). 金庸诉江南「同人作品第一案」有何深意（转载《法制与新闻》2023 年 7 月上期）. https://www.gipc.gov.cn/front/content.action?id=7b7cb9a7b2cc45f286199fd427fc6b1f；广东省高级人民法院 (2025). 「金庸诉江南」著作权及不正当竞争纠纷案在粤达成和解. https://www.gdcourts.gov.cn/xwzx/fayuanxinmeiti/content/post_1843458.html；国家版权局 (2020). 2019 年度上海十大版权典型案件发布（上海市版权局发布，案例六：「鬼吹灯」著作权侵权及不正当竞争纠纷案）. https://www.ncac.gov.cn/xxfb/ywxx/202004/t20200430_47269.html；全国人大常委会 (2020). 著作权法（2020 年修正，第三条，第十条第一款第十四项，第五十二条第六项，第五十四条）. http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/c2/c30834/202011/t20201119_308796.html