To publish or monetize fan works, first obtain permission from the original creator, or replace borrowed characters’ names and relationships with your own

Even if a fan work only borrows character names, personalities, and relationships, publishing it may still be deemed copyright infringement. In one case, Jiang Nan’s novel This Side of Youth featured over 60 characters from Jin Yong’s works; a second-instance ruling ordered him to pay 1.68 million yuan in damages plus 200,000 yuan in legal fees. After nine years of litigation, the parties reached a settlement whereby he agreed not to republish the book unchanged. Courts evaluate such cases on a case‑by‑case basis.

Cost

There are no upfront costs. Before publishing or selling, you must negotiate licensing with the rights holder. If terms cannot be reached, change the borrowed characters’ names, personalities, and relationships. Also avoid referencing the original work in book titles, subtitles, or promotional material.

Benefit

The novel used names such as Guo Jing, Huang Rong, Qiao Feng, and Linghu Chong. Published in 2002 under the subtitle “The College Years of the Heroes from The Legend of the Condor Heroes,” it sold millions of copies. Jin Yong sued in 2016 seeking 5 million yuan in compensation. The first instance ruled no copyright violation because isolated names and traits are not protectable; however, it found unfair competition since Jiang Nan leveraged the original works’ fame to attract readers, ordering 1.68 million yuan in damages plus legal costs. The second instance reversed this, finding copyright infringement because the collective “character ensemble” constituted protected expression; it also upheld the unfair‑competition finding. Both rulings were later superseded by a settlement that avoided labeling the act as plagiarism. In another case, Zhang Muye’s sequel Mogin Xiaowei incorporated characters and lore from Ghost Blows Out the Light; a court ruled it constituted false advertising despite finding no copyright infringement.

Notes

You are the ultimate beneficiary. This B rating reflects the lack of clear legal boundaries for fan works; the two court rulings diverged, and the final settlement rendered both moot. Judges emphasize a three‑step analysis: whether similarities are abstract ideas or concrete expression, whether those expressions are original, and whether any exception such as fair use applies. Risks differ greatly between merely borrowing a theme versus copying entire character sets. No court rulings exist for free online fan works, and no statutory exemption exists for non‑commercial use. The Jiang Nan case spanned nine years from filing to settlement, involving multiple trials and the original author’s death; even after selling rights, authors can still be sued by buyers, as seen in the Zhang Muye case. Reasonable legal expenses are recoverable, as demonstrated by the 200,000‑yuan award for attorney fees. Risks related to translating, redistributing, or sharing others’ works are discussed in item 24 of this section. 〔5600000〕 〔2006〕 〔20000000〕 〔900000〕 〔600000〕

Sources · 4

1. 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）. gipc.gov.cn/front/content.action?id=7b7cb9a7b…
2. 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. gdcourts.gov.cn/xwzx/fayuanxinmeiti/content/p…
3. 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）. ncac.gov.cn/xxfb/ywxx/202004/t20200430_47269.…
4. 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）. npc.gov.cn/npc/c2/c30834/202011/t20201119_308…