With the rapid development and popularization of 3D printing technology, while bringing new challenges to copyright protection, the application of 3D works in various fields is also becoming increasingly widespread. Taking the LEGO toy copyright infringement case of common concern as an example, this paper deeply explores the current protection status of 3D works in China's copyright law, analyzes the application issues of existing laws in the face of new infringement behaviors, and puts forward suggestions on how to improve relevant laws and regulations.  

1、 Case Overview

        This case involves Longteng Technology Industrial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Longteng Technology Industrial Co., Ltd."), a toy manufacturing enterprise located in Chenghai District, Shantou, Guangdong Province; Longteng Company; ）Unauthorized imitation of Danish LEGO toy products. Longteng Company is the largest toy manufacturing and sales company in the local area. In the long-term operation, it has been found that domestic brand toys are not as competitive as Lego brand in the market. Since 2016, the person in charge of Longteng Company has been using methods such as mold making and 3D modeling without authorization from LEGO Corporation to replicate authentic LEGO building blocks, assembly manuals, and packaging patterns in a 1:1 ratio, and label the packaging box with the words'; Bole "; Waiting for our own trademark to be sold domestically and internationally. In August 2022, the head of Longteng Company was criminally detained by the police on suspicion of copyright infringement. After investigation, 30 suspect were arrested, more than 600 infringing toys were seized, more than 1.2 million pieces in total, more than 200 molds were used for the crime, and the amount involved was 1.7 billion yuan. In this case, the defendant S was criminally detained on suspicion of selling infringing copies.  

2、 Case dispute points

（1） Does LEGO product belong to the works protected by China's copyright law

        According to Article 2 and Article 4 (8) of the Implementation Regulations of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China, works referred to in the Copyright Law refer to intellectual achievements in the fields of literature, art, and science that are original and can be replicated in some tangible form; Artworks refer to two-dimensional or three-dimensional aesthetic works of art composed of lines, colors, or other forms such as painting, calligraphy, sculpture, etc. There are different opinions during the trial regarding whether LEGO toys are paintings or sculptures as described in the terms. Some people believe that LEGO toys are not sculptures, but rather a type of puzzle toy that can be manipulated based on the graphics on the toy drawings to present the appearance of the toy. But when it leaves the factory, it's just small toy particles without any sculptural form. Similarly, LEGO toys are three-dimensional works, but they lack originality. There are many similar toy designs on the market. The crystallization of its wisdom lies in the process of assembly, which is the drawing. So it is not accurate to determine the scope of intellectual property protection solely as an artwork.

（2） The boundary between copyright infringement and the crime of selling infringing copies

      Accurately distinguish the boundary between copyright infringement and the crime of selling infringing copies. For the perpetrator who knowingly purchases and sells infringing copies from the manufacturer or distributor, it should be determined that the perpetrator constitutes the crime of selling infringing copies. For the perpetrator who participates in or assists others in committing copyright infringement crimes, but only participates in the sales process in terms of division of labor, it constitutes an accomplice to the crime of copyright infringement. In this case, S only purchased infringing products from Longteng Company for resale and did not actively participate in the process of imitation. It is more appropriate to handle it as the crime of selling infringing copies.

（3） How to determine the amount involved in S's case

      Determination of sales amount: In this case, S opened three 1688 online stores, and evidence should first be collected from the sales amount of the online stores. The accounting firm selects the option based on the electronic document of the online store; The transaction was successful; Remove products that are not the target brand and determine the amount of successfully sold products on the online store. The sales amount cannot exclude labor costs, transportation costs, warehouse fees, etc., all of which are incurred to achieve criminal purposes. In fact, the prosecutor's office believes that it is not enough to determine solely based on the sales amount of the online store opened by S. We can also collect evidence from S's previous purchasing channels. According to the appraisal of an accounting firm, the amount S purchased from the previous store is greater than the amount sold from the online store. This method of collecting evidence also tells us that we can observe evidence from the purchasing channels of sales. However, the lawyer believes that since it is a crime of selling infringing copies, the sales data should be strictly observed, rather than; From high '; Observe the purchasing data. Calculation of the amount of seized goods: Compare the seized goods with the time of circulation in the market to determine how many seized goods were sold in the market during the aforementioned time period. The unit price of the detained product shall be the lowest price of the product sold domestically.

（4） How to determine the illegal gains of S

  The sales amount does not equate to illegal gains. The illegal gains are the sales amount minus the cost of the goods. However, in the handling of actual cases, there are two methods: based on the profit amount and the sales amount. In these two perspectives, when the sales amount is used to determine illegal gains, the original intention is not simply to crack down on crime, but more reflected in precise crackdown. According to the principle of consistency between crime and punishment, if a famous brand bag is sold at a low price by a merchant who imitates the famous brand bag with ordinary leather, while another merchant sells it at the original price of the famous brand bag after making a new one with second-hand leather, it is obviously calculated based on the profit amount. Obviously, the punishment for the latter is much heavier than that for the former, but the subjective malice of the former is much greater. Therefore, there is a statement that the sales amount is determined as illegal gains. In this case, the profit amount theory was ultimately used. On the one hand, this is because S followed the local trend and participated in the industry of selling LEGO replicas, with little subjective malice. On the other hand, S sold counterfeit LEGO products and did not label them as LEGO, and S was not a manufacturer. Therefore, the determination of illegal gains based on profit amount is more fair and just for this case. The determination of illegal gains in this case is based on the amount of profits made, in accordance with the Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Trial of Criminal Cases Involving Illegal Publications and the 2013 Supreme People's Court Research Office's "On Illegal Business Operations"; Illegal gains "; According to the "Research Opinion on the Identification of Issues", the amount involved in S's case is 59 million yuan, and the defendant confessed a profit of 1%. Therefore, his profit is 590000 yuan, and according to the fine, it is one to five times, with a fine of 2.5 million yuan. To sum up, there are many factors considered in the determination of illegal income. In addition to legal considerations, there are also considerations about the subjective malignancy of the suspect and the impact of the crime on society. Therefore, the determination of illegal income in this case of selling infringing replicas is based on the profit amount, not the sales amount. In each different case, specific analysis should be made on specific issues.  

（5） Cross disciplinary issues in criminal law amendments

      In March 2021, China passed the amendment to the "Eleventh Amendment to the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China", which changed the criteria and sentencing range for the crime of selling infringing copies in Article 218 of the Criminal Law. In terms of identification criteria, other serious circumstances are added as identification criteria in the crime of selling infringing copies. Adjust the previous maximum statutory sentence of three years to the current maximum statutory sentence of five years in terms of sentencing range. S was criminally detained on August 5, 2022, approximately five months after the amendment of the law. Most of their actions occurred before the implementation of the Eleventh Amendment to the Criminal Law and were prosecuted after the amendment came into effect. According to Article 12 of the Criminal Law on the retroactive effect of criminal law, based on the principle of leniency, new laws should not be used to evaluate the behavior of the perpetrator before the implementation of the law. Therefore, when sentencing, the fact of legal modification needs to be taken into account. 

3、 The court's determination of copyright for LEGO products

（1） The court's determination result

    In the end, the court determined that a total of 663 assembled 3D models were infringed upon. The expressions carried by these 3D models were independently created by LEGO, with originality and unique aesthetic significance. Therefore, the assembled 3D models all belong to the category of art works protected by China's copyright law. However, the author believes that the focus of the imitators is on the drawings, not some small particles produced, nor can they directly assemble the same shape according to the gourd painting ladle. Only in the case of special drawing layout and steps can the toy particles of the same size be assembled into the final model. It is more like a copyright for writing, rather than evaluating and protecting content based on the final artistic work. In addition, LEGO is the copyright owner of the art works involved, and its country of origin is Denmark. Denmark is a member of the Bern Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and the World Copyright Convention, and China joined these two conventions in 1992. Based on Chinese laws and the provisions of the aforementioned international conventions, the art works of the LEGO company involved in the case are protected by Chinese laws.

（2） Analysis of the Basis and Reasons for Recognition

        The court's determination of LEGO product copyright is mainly based on the following aspects: ① Originality: The court believes that LEGO's three-dimensional models have originality, which is a basic requirement for copyright protection. Originality is reflected in LEGO's design, structure, and assembly methods for each model. ② Aesthetic significance: The court emphasized the unique aesthetic significance of LEGO three-dimensional models. This meets the definition requirements of a work of art, which is a plastic art work with aesthetic value. ③ Expression form: Although LEGO toys are made of dispersed building blocks when they leave the factory, the court regards the assembled three-dimensional model as a protected object, which reflects the emphasis on the final form of the work. ④ International Convention Protection: Considering that LEGO is a Danish company and Denmark is a member of relevant international copyright conventions, the court considers that the LEGO artwork in question is protected by Chinese law.

4、 The current situation of copyright protection for 3D works in China

  （1） The scope of protection for 3D works under current laws and regulations

      The protection of 3D works in China's current laws and regulations is mainly reflected in copyright law, patent law, and trademark law. Although the Copyright Law does not explicitly state; 3D Works "; But it can be classified as a work of art or a model work. Article 3 of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates the scope of works, including works of art, architecture, as well as graphic and model works such as engineering design drawings and product design drawings. For 3D works with novelty, creativity, and practicality, design patents or utility model patents can be applied for protection. If a 3D work has significant features and is used as a symbol of goods or services, it can also apply for three-dimensional trademark protection.

（2） Difficulties and challenges in copyright protection of 3D works

    There are still many difficulties and challenges in protecting the copyright of 3D works in China. Firstly, assess the difficulty of originality. 3D works often involve a combination of functionality and artistry, and how to distinguish between creative expression and functional features is a complex issue. For example, there is controversy in this case over whether the connection method of LEGO bricks belongs to functional features or creative expression and can be protected by copyright. Secondly, the criteria for determining infringement are unclear. How to define the boundary between fair use and infringement has become a challenge for how 3D works can be easily digitally replicated and disseminated. Furthermore, the widespread adoption of 3D printing technology has created the possibility for ordinary consumers to become potential infringers of traditional copyright enforcement challenges. Finally, there have been difficulties in evaluating the value of 3D works that affect the calculation of infringement compensation.  

5、 Suggestions for Improving Copyright Protection of 3D Works in China

（1） Legal advice;

1. Clarify the definition and scope of protection for 3D works

      At present, there is a certain degree of ambiguity in the protection of 3D works in China's copyright law. It is necessary to define 3D works clearly at the legal level and refine their scope of protection. It is possible to consider adding specific provisions for 3D works in the Copyright Law or related implementation regulations, clearly defining their constituent elements, protected objects, and rights content. Specifically, 3D works can be defined as; A highly intellectual achievement created using three-dimensional digital technology and capable of being replicated in a tangible way;. This definition highlights the digital characteristics and replicability of 3D works, while emphasizing the requirements for intellectual achievements to distinguish them from simple 3D scanning or copying.

      In terms of protection scope, 3D model files, 3D printed products, etc. should be clearly included in the protection scope. As a digital representation of 3D works, 3D model files should be protected by copyright law and are a direct reflection of the creator's intellectual labor. 3D printed products are physically implemented 3D models that should also be included in the scope of protection. In addition, to fully protect the rights and interests of creators, auxiliary documents such as design drawings and technical specifications of 3D works should also be considered for inclusion in the scope of protection. The difference between 3D works and traditional and practical art works should be clarified while defining and protecting the scope of 3D works. For example, it can be stipulated that 3D works need to have a certain level of complexity and innovation in technology in order to distinguish them from simple three-dimensional modeling. For 3D works that combine functionality and artistry, the "separability" principle in US copyright law can be referenced, which means that these artistic features can be conceptually separated from the artistic features and practical functions of the work under copyright protection.

      Specific evaluation criteria can be established to better assess the originality of 3D works. For example: (1) Whether the overall concept and design of the work are novel, the following aspects can be considered:; (2) Is the processing of details such as structure, texture, and material in 3D models a reflection of the creator's personalized expression; (3) Does the work that reflects the creator's technical level and innovation ability have a certain level of technical difficulty; (4) Whether the aesthetic value or cultural connotation of the work has uniqueness. Defining the legal status of 3D works at the legal level can provide a clearer basis for judicial practice. For example, when dealing with cases similar to Lego bricks, judges can better determine whether the infringing item constitutes a 3D work and how original it is. This not only improves the accuracy and coherence of judicial rulings, but also provides a clearer legal basis for rights holders to safeguard their rights.  

      At the same time, clear legal provisions can also provide better legal protection for the development of the 3D printing industry, enabling creators and enterprises to clarify their rights and have more confidence in innovation and investment. This is of great significance for promoting the application of 3D printing technology and the development of related industries. Therefore, the country should increase the legal protection of the 3D printing industry.    

2. Improve relevant judicial interpretations;

      To provide specific guidance for the trial of relevant cases by courts at all levels, the Supreme People's Court needs to issue specialized judicial interpretations on specific issues related to the protection of 3D copyright. This judicial interpretation should focus on key and difficult issues such as the identification standards, infringement determination methods, and damage compensation calculation for 3D works. In determining whether a 3D work has originality, the identification standards, infringement determination methods, and damage compensation for 3D works can be considered from the following perspectives: (1) whether the creative concept has uniqueness, that is, whether the overall concept of the 3D work has novelty; (2) Consider whether the production of the work requires a high level of technical expertise and the complexity of its implementation; (3) The richness of detail expression, such as whether the structure, texture, and material of the model reflect the unique ideas of the creator, is very strong; (4) Market acceptance refers to whether a work is recognized by the industry or the market.

      The court can objectively evaluate the originality level of 3D works through these standards. The principle of "separability" in US copyright law can be used as a reference for distinguishing the functional features and artistic expression of 3D works. Specific considerations can be made from the following aspects: (1) whether the artwork can detach from its practical artistic characteristics in terms of concept; (2) Is the practical function of the work affected by the removal of artistic features; (3) Are there any artistic features of the work that can be represented by multiple alternative techniques. If a positive answer is obtained, then the characteristics of these artworks can be protected in terms of copyright. Judging whether 3D printing behavior constitutes infringement from the following aspects: (1) printing purpose, whether it belongs to personal non-commercial use; (2) Printing beyond the reasonable scope of use; (3) To what extent did printmaking influence the market for the original work; (4) Is the printer aware or should be aware of any behavior that may infringe on the copyright of others.

      In specific cases, these standards can help judges make more accurate judgments. The reasonable scope of use of 3D works can be adjusted by referring to the provisions of traditional copyright law and combining with the characteristics of 3D works. The following situations can be clearly explained as reasonable use: (1) small-scale printing for personal learning and research purposes; (2) Use partial 3D models for commenting and introduction purposes; (3) Using 3D models for demonstrations during the teaching process; (4) 3D scanning and printing for the protection or restoration of cultural relics. Such regulations can protect the interests of rights holders while also taking into account the reasonable needs of users and the public. When considering the difficulty of evaluating the value of 3D works, it is possible to explore the establishment of a more reasonable compensation calculation method. One possible method is to refer to the market value of 3D model files, which can be determined by investigating the selling prices of similar 3D models in the market. Another method is to calculate the compensation amount based on the infringer's profit situation, which requires a detailed review of the infringer's sales records and financial statements. In addition, it is also possible to consider establishing a specialized 3D work value assessment agency, where industry experts evaluate the involved works and provide professional opinions to the court.

（2） Suggestions at the law enforcement level;  

1. Strengthen law enforcement efforts;

      At the law enforcement level, the efforts to crack down on copyright infringement of 3D works still need to be strengthened.  

  (1) Enhance the awareness and professional knowledge of law enforcement personnel to protect the copyright of 3D works. To enable law enforcement officers to master the basic principles of 3D printing technology, the characteristics of 3D works, common infringement methods, etc., specialized training can be organized and industry experts can be invited to give lectures. The training content should include basic operations of 3D modeling software, 3D printing process flow, 3D model file feature recognition, etc. to ensure that law enforcement personnel can accurately identify and judge potential infringement behaviors.  

  (2) The supervision of online platforms has been strengthened. Law enforcement agencies should establish a collaborative mechanism with major 3D model trading platforms to promptly detect and handle infringement activities. Many 3D model files are disseminated and traded through online platforms. For car models suspected of infringement, the platform can be required to establish a 3D car model upload review mechanism for technical comparison and manual review. At the same time, in order to protect the rights and interests of the rights holders in a timely manner, a fast complaint and delisting channel should be established.  

  (3) Intensify efforts to deal with offline infringement. Especially for unauthorized 3D printing services that have not been obtained, law enforcement agencies should develop regular inspection plans to focus on 3D printing services in areas around commercial schools where 3D printing services are concentrated. We will intensify efforts to verify whether some merchants providing 3D printing services have obtained legal authorization through open and covert inspections.  

  (4) Organize departments to jointly crack down on major typical infringement cases. The Intellectual Property Office takes the lead in collaborating with public security, industry and commerce, customs and other departments to carry out centralized rectification of 3D work infringement, forming a cross departmental law enforcement force. Improve the effectiveness and deterrence of combating infringement, and achieve good social effects through joint law enforcement actions.  

2. Improve the level of identification technology;

      Technical appraisal is often a crucial step in the handling of copyright cases involving 3D works. Accurately identifying infringement behavior and improving the level of identification technology are crucial.  

  (1) Special agency for copyright appraisal of 3D works. Institutions should recruit experts in 3D printing technology, copyright law, and related industries to form a specialized appraisal team. Appraisal institutions can set up different professional groups such as 3D model structure analysis group, surface texture proportion control group, and functional feature evaluation group to ensure the professionalism and comprehensiveness of appraisal work.  

  (2) Develop unified scale standards and procedures for 3D works. These standards should include methods such as geometric structure proportion comparison of 3D models, surface texture analysis, functional feature comparison, and so on. Specifically, by using three-dimensional point cloud comparison technology, the geometric deviation between two models can be calculated, and there is a certain difference in the proportion of the geometric structure; Comparing the texture features of the model surface, image processing algorithms can be used for surface texture analysis; Comparing functional characteristics requires combining professional knowledge to analyze whether the functional design of the model has similarities.  

  (3) Intensify the development and application of identification technology, fully utilize the advantages of artificial intelligence to develop and apply an automatic model comparison system, improve the efficiency and accuracy of identification work, and specifically use deep learning algorithms to train the model to have the ability to automatically identify feature points and perform rapid comparison work; Develop augmented reality or virtual reality tools to assist appraisers in more intuitively observing and comparing the details of 3D models, thereby improving the effectiveness and accuracy of appraisal work. Through the above measures, more intelligent means will be introduced into the field of appraisal.  

  (4) Improve the quality assessment and review mechanism for the copyright appraisal results of 3D works. A specialized review agency can be established to re-examine all important and controversial appraisal conclusions and form a final determination conclusion. Reviewers should possess expertise and rich experience in different fields to ensure the comprehensiveness and objectivity of the review. At the same time, establish an appraisal database to regularly analyze the accuracy of its appraisal conclusions and continuously improve appraisal standards and methods. Make the copyright appraisal conclusion of 3D works more credible and objective.   

VI. Conclusion

      The article analyzes the copyright infringement case of LEGO toys and explores the current situation and challenges faced by China's copyright law in protecting 3D works. Research has found that there are deficiencies in current laws and practices regarding the definition of copyright infringement and compensation calculation for 3D works. These issues have affected the protection of rights holders' interests and brought certain difficulties to judicial rulings. Therefore, this article proposes improvement suggestions from both legal and law enforcement perspectives. Firstly, it is recommended to provide a clear definition and scope of protection for 3D works at the legal level, and to improve relevant judicial interpretations. Secondly, it is recommended to increase law enforcement efforts and improve the level of identification technology at the law enforcement level. By proposing these improvement suggestions, the protection of 3D works under China's copyright law can be better implemented. At the same time, it also provides a certain reference for protecting intellectual property rights and safeguarding the interests of rights holders.