In late March 2026, a copyright storm in the music industry sparked nationwide attention. Singer Li Ronghao publicly accused Shan Yichun of "deliberate infringement" by performing his work Li Bai at her Shenzhen concert, despite his explicit refusal of the licensing application beforehand. This "Li Bai Dispute" is not merely a celebrity quarrel, but a vivid public lecture on intellectual property rights.
I. Case Overview: "Deliberate Infringement" After License Refusal
The sequence of events is clear based on information disclosed by both parties. Shan Yichun’s team did apply for a license from the Music Copyright Society of China (MCSC) on behalf of Li Ronghao before the concert, but received a "clear and polite refusal". Nevertheless, Li Bai was still performed at the Shenzhen concert on March 28.
Li Ronghao posted a confirmation email from the MCSC stating that "no license was granted for this work", and posed four sharp questions: "On what grounds, by what right, from what perspective, and with what mindset did you perform this song?"
Shan Yichun apologized twice afterward, admitting a supervisory oversight in "failing to personally verify the licensing documents". She promised to halt future performances, delete promotional materials, and "bear the full copyright royalties and corresponding compensation personally". The organizers, Beijing Baimu Entertainment Culture Media Co., Ltd. and Kuojing Music (Chengdu) Co., Ltd., also issued apology letters, acknowledging flaws in copyright review.
II. Legal Nature: Not Negligence, but Intentional Infringement
Legally, there is no room for dispute in this case. China’s Copyright Law clearly stipulates that the performance right refers to the right to publicly perform a work, and commercial performances must obtain permission from the copyright owner. As a collective management organization, the MCSC manages copyrights under entrustment rather than owning them; the final decision on licensing lies with the right holder. Once Li Ronghao refused, the MCSC could not issue a license.
Li Tao, Associate Professor at the Law School of Central University of Finance and Economics, pointed out that Shan Yichun’s insistence on performing after the application was rejected constitutes "use without permission", which is copyright infringement. More crucially, this "knowing violation" is fundamentally different from ordinary negligent infringement. The MCSC labeled this act "deliberate infringement", which could trigger punitive damages (up to five times the copyright royalty) if judicial proceedings are initiated.
III. Root Cause: The Luck Mentality of "Ride First, Buy Ticket Later" in the Industry
This incident exposes not just an isolated oversight, but a long-standing copyright disorder in the music industry. It is common in commercial performances to "perform before licensing is finalized". Some teams hold the fluke mentality of "perform first, apologize and compensate if caught", treating copyright compliance as a technical issue to be remedied after the fact, rather than a legal red line that must be observed in advance.
This mentality devalues intellectual property as a transaction cost and ignores the creative dignity behind it. Li Ronghao’s remark in his response—"If I wanted money, I would have granted the license from the start"—reveals the core demand of rights protection: this is not about money, but about respect. When creators cannot even secure the right to refuse adaptation of their works, the independence of creation is lost.
IV. The Boundary of Adaptation Right: What Counts as a "New Work"?
This case also involves a professional issue: whether Shan Yichun’s version of Li Bai constitutes an adaptation. Her performance in Singer 2025 incorporated electronic Chinese style, internet game memes and spoken lyrics, and the line "How? So what?" became a viral meme. However, Li Ronghao argued that it only "switched acoustic drums for electronic drums without changing the chords", which is "changing the book cover but not the content".
Legally, an adaptation must meet the standard of "originality". Even if a new work is formed, permission from the copyright owner of the original work must still be obtained. More importantly, if the adaptation alters the original theme or style, it may also infringe the right of integrity. This reminds us that adaptation is not a shortcut to avoid licensing obligations, but a creative act requiring dual permission.
V. Industry Implications: Building Three Lines of Defense for Copyright Compliance
How to avoid similar incidents? Legal professionals propose three core lines of defense:
-
Artist’s primary liability. As the concert’s executive producer, Shan Yichun’s attempt to shift responsibility by claiming "ignorance" is unconvincing. Artists must establish a "personal verification" mechanism instead of relying entirely on teams. Copyright awareness should be a standard part of professional literacy, not an outsourced administrative process.
-
Organizer’s review obligation. As organizers of commercial performances, organizers have a legal duty to ensure all content is legal and compliant. The "flaws and oversights" admitted in the apology letters are essentially a systematic lack of risk control.
-
Functional optimization of collective management organizations. The MCSC played a role in confirming rights in this incident, but its "apply first, refuse later" process also indicates that the industry needs a more efficient licensing response mechanism to reduce "accidental infringement" caused by information asymmetry.
Conclusion
Shan Yichun stated in her apology: "As a fellow creator, I deeply understand the importance of copyright awareness." This sentence should have been a premise for action, not an afterthought. The essence of intellectual property protection is to maintain a virtuous cycle of the creative ecosystem—only when the rights of original creators are fully respected can later generations be motivated to become new originators.
The "Li Bai Dispute" will eventually subside, but its warning should not fade. In the field of intellectual property, there is no "ignorance exempts from guilt", nor is "apology equals exemption from liability". Respecting originality is the bottom line that every creator must uphold.
