[Direct answer]Who owns the rights to the poster depends on whether it is classified as a work created by an employee in the course of their duties, a work created by a legal entity, or a commissioned work. The conclusions in these three cases are different. If an employee creates the poster primarily using the unit's material and technical conditions to fulfill their work duties and the unit assumes responsibility for it, it is typically treated as a special work created by an employee. The author retains the right to be named as the creator, while the unit owns all other rights. If it is a general work created by an employee, the copyright belongs to the author, and the unit has the priority right to use it within the scope of its business. If the author does not obtain the unit's consent to allow a third party to use the work in the same manner within two years after its completion, the author is not permitted to do so. If the poster is commissioned from an external designer and the contract does not specify the ownership, the copyright belongs to the contractor. If the legal entity supervises and creates the work on behalf of the legal entity and the legal entity assumes responsibility for it, the legal entity owns all rights to the work as a legal entity's work.

I. Problem background and typical scenarios

Poster ownership issues rarely surface on the day of creation, often only coming to light when an employee leaves the company, outsourcing projects are settled, or the poster is repurposed for secondary commercial use. Marketing department employees use company computers, purchased image libraries, and design software to create promotional posters as assigned by their supervisors. They deliver the exported images while keeping the layered source files in their personal folders. Years later, when the employee leaves the company and takes the same visual assets to their new employer or clients, the company realizes there are no written ownership agreements, and it's unclear how the tasks were assigned and accepted at the time. Another common scenario is outsourced design: companies pay advertising agencies to produce artwork, but the contracts only mention delivering finished products and payment, without addressing copyright ownership. When they later want to print the posters on nationwide store materials, authorize dealers to use them, or create derivative products, they discover the rights still belong to the contractors and require additional licensing. Disputes over hybrid creations are also common: posters incorporate photography, fonts, illustrations, and cartoon images from different suppliers, with employees only arranging the layout. In such cases, the rights to the overall compilation and each individual component must be considered separately, and any missing authorization for any component can jeopardize commercial use. The most likely hidden pitfalls include: labor contracts that only vaguely state that "all results belong to the company" without distinguishing between works created in the course of employment and non-work-related projects; projects assigned via instant messaging without written documentation; source files and material purchase receipts not archived with the project; handover of only finished products during employee departures without transferring layers and authorization documents; and failure to specify attribution methods and usage scope for outsourced results.

II. Key points of contention

One of the disputes is over the classification of works. Generally, there are different requirements for commissioned works, special commissioned works, corporate works, contracted works, and personal creative works: whether they belong to job responsibilities or tasks assigned by the employer, whether they primarily utilize the employer's material and technical conditions, whether the employer bears responsibility, and whether they reflect the corporate will will all lead to different conclusions. Once the classification changes, the ownership of the right of authorship, the right to modify, the right to reproduce, and the right to grant external licenses will be rearranged accordingly. The second dispute concerns whether the contractual provisions are clear and effective. Intellectual property clauses in labor contracts, project task books, contracted creation contracts, outsourcing framework agreements, acceptance certificates, and supplementary agreements may conflict with each other. The court will determine the validity based on the signing time, the specificity of the provisions, and the actual performance of the contract. A general clause stating that "the intellectual property belongs to the company" may not necessarily cover the employee's free creative works completed in their spare time using their own equipment. The third dispute relates to authorship and personal rights. Even if the property rights belong to the employer, the author typically still enjoys the right of authorship and the right to protect the integrity of the work. If the employer deletes or alters the authorship, significantly modifies the images, or authorizes third parties to adapt the work, disputes may arise. The fourth dispute concerns the chain of source materials. If the images, fonts, portraits, or trademarks in the poster come from third parties, it is necessary to verify whether the licenses cover the employer's use scope and subsequent authorizations. Even if the overall ownership is clear, it does not mean that all parts can be commercially used.

III. Professional analysis by Hengluo Lawyers

When handling disputes over poster ownership rights, Henglu Law Firm typically follows a four-step approach: first, align the four key factors—people, tasks, outcomes, and agreements—before determining the ownership path. For the "people" factor, we need to reconstruct the creator's status at the time of creation: labor contracts and job descriptions, social insurance and salary records, project bonus payment receipts, whether the creator was in a probationary period or working part-time, and whether the creation occurred during working hours and on company premises. This helps determine whether the work was performed during the employment period and whether it fell within the employee's job responsibilities. For the "tasks" factor, we must scrutinize key evidence: supervisor's task assignment emails or work group records, requirement documents and briefs, scheduling charts, weekly reports, review minutes, modification feedback, and acceptance confirmations. These documents help clarify the specific tasks assigned by the company. When oral arrangements exist, we often infer the task details through version history records and internal release channels. For the "outcomes" factor, we focus on the actual files themselves: hierarchical source files and layer naming, file creation and last modification dates, font and media embedding lists, export records, first-published public account or store materials, copyright registration applications, and work descriptions. When necessary, we verify the creative drafts and material procurement contracts. For the "agreements" factor, we review contract provisions line by line: intellectual property ownership clauses in labor contracts, confidentiality and non-compete agreements, whether the employee handbook was democratically approved and publicly disclosed, and whether commissioned creation contracts specify copyright ownership and usage rights, or whether outsourcing contracts include warranties on media legality and obligations to deliver source files. After aligning the four factors, the parties' arguments typically unfold as follows: - The company argues that the creation was a work-related activity, used company equipment and materials, and the outcomes have been continuously used as the company's commercial identifiers, thus granting the company ownership or at least priority usage rights within its business scope. - The employee or contractor argues that the creation was a personal freelance effort, did not use company resources, and the contract lacks ownership provisions, maintaining the author's right to attribution and modification. Courts typically follow this sequence: first categorizing the work type, then reviewing the contract provisions' validity and scope, followed by verifying whether evidence supports the creation process and material sources. Finally, they determine ownership rights, retention of attribution rights, and licensing scope. Oral agreements or materials unrelated to the case are generally disregarded.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

The citation standards must include the full name and indicate the sections: The Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on November 11, 2020 and implemented on June 1, 2021) stipulates the general rules of copyright ownership, the distribution of rights between works created in the course of employment and commissioned works, the non-transferability of personal rights such as the right of authorship, and the priority use of works by the employer within two years of completion, which are the main basis for disputes in this category; The Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on April 23, 2019 and implemented on November 1, 2019) applies when the poster contains a registered trademark, is used as a source identifier for goods, or involves conflicts with prior identifiers; The Patent Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on October 17, 2020 and implemented on June 1, 2021) is relevant only in rare cases where the layout contains design drawings; The Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on April 23, 2019) handles supplementary claims such as overall visual imitation and unauthorized use of influential decorations; The Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on December 24, 2021 and implemented on January 1, 2024) determines jurisdiction, evidence preservation, and evidence submission deadlines, and the case acceptance fees are cumulated according to the Methods for Payment of Litigation Costs (implemented on April 1, 2007). In terms of implementation, the process can be divided into six steps: First, specify the scope, ownership, authorship method, and reward mechanism of work results in labor contracts and employee handbooks, and the clauses must be democratically approved and publicly disclosed. Second, assign work through written project requirements, and retain records of review, modification, and acceptance. Third, when commissioning external design, clarify copyright ownership, usage scope, whether sub-licensing is allowed, and the delivery of source files and authorization documents for materials, as well as indemnity and recovery for infringement. Fourth, archive licenses for images, fonts, portraits, and logos item by item to ensure coverage of actual usage scope. Fifth, list source files, layers, accounts, material authorizations, and undisclosed proposals in the resignation handover list, and obtain written confirmation. Sixth, after a dispute arises, first preserve the creation time of source files, release pages, and in-use materials, then evaluate rights confirmation, supplementary signing, licensing, or litigation, and verify the three-year statute of limitations. For a complete institutional template, please refer to the following link: [Link to the complete institutional template]Intellectual property protection and corporate legal servicesThe page.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

The most important thing to do in advance is to put ownership in writing, rather than relying on verbal recollections after disputes arise. A general clause in the labor contract stating that the results belong to the company often fails to prevent employees from claiming ownership of their creative works done in their spare time. A more reliable approach is to clearly list the types of work results, the sources of creative tasks, the scope of material and technical conditions provided by the employer, the method of attribution and reward mechanisms, and have the clauses approved through democratic procedures and publicized before being signed by employees. Secondly, keep records of the process: requirement orders, work assignment records, revision iterations, and acceptance confirmations. These may seem like procedural documents, but they become the main basis for determining whether something is a work-related task when it comes to rights protection. Thirdly, don't just collect finished products but also source files and authorization certificates. Hierarchical documents, layer naming, font lists, material procurement contracts, and snapshot licenses of image libraries should all be archived with the project. Otherwise, even if the poster belongs to the company, it may not be able to be used commercially due to lapsed authorizations for a single image or font.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: If a designer completes a poster while employed, does the copyright belong to the employer or the individual designer?

We cannot simply focus on the term "employed", but need to judge the situation based on the type of work. According to the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on November 11, 2020 and implemented on June 1, 2021), for special duty works created by employees primarily using the material and technical conditions of their employers to fulfill their work tasks and for which the employers assume responsibility, the authors retain the right of authorship, while other rights belong to the employers. Posters, as artworks, are generally treated as ordinary duty works, with copyright belonging to the authors. The employers enjoy the priority right to use the works within their business scope. Within two years after the completion of the works, the authors shall not authorize third parties to use the works in the same manner as the employers without the employers' consent. If the posters are created under the direction of a legal person, on behalf of the legal person's will, and for which the legal person assumes responsibility, the legal person shall enjoy all rights to the works.

Q2: When identifying works produced in the course of employment, which clauses of the labor contract should be referred to for determining the ownership of the works?

The key points are four sets of clauses, which should be read in conjunction with the performance of evidence. First, the clause on intellectual property ownership: whether the scope of the job results, the ownership of various rights, the way of signing and the rewards are clearly defined; Second, the clause on job responsibilities and work tasks: whether the job description, assessment indicators and project task books can include posters in the scope of delivery; Third, the clause on confidentiality and non-competition: the obligation to hand over undisclosed plans, source files and material lists; Fourth, whether the employee handbook and rules and regulations have undergone democratic procedures, been publicized and signed by employees. The effectiveness of clauses that are vague or not publicized is easily questioned. In addition to the contract, it is also necessary to obtain work assignment records, demand orders, modification feedback, acceptance certificates, salary and project bonus certificates, the creation time of source files, and the unit's equipment and material procurement records. According to the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on December 24, 2021 and implemented on January 1, 2024), evidence must be submitted within the evidentiary period, and electronic data should retain the original carrier; if there are only ownership clauses but no evidence of actual tasks, the claim may not be established.

Q3: Are the acceptance fees for cases involving ownership confirmation litigation charged per case or based on the appraised value of the poster?

The fees for rights confirmation requests and compensation requests are different. According to the "Measures for the Payment of Litigation Costs" (implemented on April 1, 2007), if the request is simply to confirm the ownership of copyright and does not claim for property payment, it is usually paid according to the number of cases in non-property cases, with relatively fixed fees; if the rights confirmation also proposes to stop infringement and compensate for losses with specific amounts, this part is calculated based on the amount of the claim in property cases. The plaintiff pays the fees upfront when the case is registered, and the losing party will bear the fees or share them according to the proportion of responsibility. The valuation of the poster does not necessarily equal the base for the acceptance fee. The amount of compensation claimed by the plaintiff is the basis for the segmented calculation. Exaggerated claims will push up the pre-paid costs but may not be fully supported. Lawyer's fees are calculated separately, with no government-set prices. They are charged according to the number of cases, a percentage of the amount of the claim, or an hourly agreement, subject to the terms of the contract. Before suing, the plaintiff should calculate the supportable benefits together with the acceptance fee and evidence collection expenses, and then decide whether to claim compensation at the same time.

Q4: What is the starting point for the unit to give priority to employing an employee within two years after they leave the company?

During the two-year period, the deadline is calculated from the date the work is completed, rather than from the date of resignation, delivery, or first publication, which is often misunderstood. According to the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on November 11, 2020 and implemented on June 1, 2021), the copyright of a work created in the course of employment generally belongs to the author, while the employer enjoys the priority right to use the work within the scope of its business. Within two years after the completion of the work, the author may not authorize a third party to use the work in the same manner as the employer without the employer's consent. Therefore, to determine the deadline, it is necessary to fix the completion date first: the last modification time of the layered source files, the date of the acceptance certificate, the internal review records, and the timestamp of the first publication page can all serve as evidence. The earlier the date is fixed, the less likely it is to be disputed later. It is also important to note the three-year statute of limitations, which starts from the date when the right holder knows or should have known that his rights have been infringed and the obligee's identity. Do not confuse the two-year priority period with the statute of limitations.

Q5: Should I first sign the copyright ownership agreement or first export the source file to leave a record?

In terms of order, it is necessary to first ensure that evidence is preserved before discussing retroactive signing. Do not treat retroactive signing as the only action. Implementable tasks for the day include: backing up layered source files and recording the creation and last modification times; exporting layer lists, font lists, and media reference paths; preserving requirement lists, work assignment records, modification iterations, acceptance confirmations, internal release pages, and photos of materials in use; and, if necessary, obtaining notarization or trusted timestamp certification. Synchronously archive labor contracts, intellectual property clauses, salary and project bonus certificates, media procurement and authorization documents. Subsequently, negotiate written supplementary agreements with current employees or outsourcing partners, specifying rights ownership, attribution methods, usage scope, whether sub-licensing is permitted, and retroactive recognition of past usage. In accordance with the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on November 11, 2020 and implemented on June 1, 2021), if the commissioned creation contract does not stipulate rights ownership, the rights shall belong to the entrusted party. It is advisable to clarify the retroactive scope in the supplementary agreement. If only retroactive signing is performed without preserving evidence, the effectiveness of the agreement may be easily questioned when the completion time cannot be clarified.

This article is written based on the common judicial interpretation in the Beijing area. If the case occurs in other regions, it is recommended to consult local lawyers to verify the regional differences.

If you are facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the evidence materials, so as to avoid missing the statutory time limit. →Intellectual property protection legal services·Beijing Hengluo Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on current laws and regulations and publicly available adjudication rules, and is provided for general reference only. It does not constitute formal legal advice for specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. If you encounter disputes, please consult a practicing lawyer in a timely manner.