Marking the conclusion of a long legal battle, the Beijing Higher People’s Court recently affirmed an August 24, 2023 decision by the Beijing IP Court against Sichuan Academy of Fine Arts Professor Ye Yongqing. The Beijing IP Court ruled that Ye infringed the copyright of Silvain in his paintings and ordered Ye to pay Silvain 5 million RMB, publish an apology and cease infringement. That apology was published in China’s Legal Daily on January 23, 2025.

The Beijing IP Court found that 122 of Ye’s works had plagiarized 87 of Silvain’s. Ye is a well-known artist selling about $24 million USD of paintings at auctions per the Global Times. Ye’s most expensive painting sold for just over 1 million Euros and many of his works sold for about 200 thousand to 500 thousand Euros. In contrast, Silvain’s artworks often sell for 5,000 to 15,000 Euros. 

On April 30, 2025, the Beijing IP Court listed Silvain’s case in the Court’s annual list of 2024 IP cases along with 6 other IP cases.

Wininger: Can you introduce yourself – what is your title, company, and role in the litigation? 
Liu: I’m Liu Yue, a member of the Christian Silvain Foundation. When the news involving Ye Yongqing’s copying of Silvain’s work became an international story spanning China and Belgium, I took an active role in supporting Mr. Silvain’s legal efforts. My responsibilities included securing legal representation, putting together the evidence, and facilitating communication with his lawyer, Mr. Wu Tao, a trusted friend who handled the case.

Wininger: There appear to be infringing works dating back to at least 1994. How did the artist first learn about the infringement?

Liu: Long before the plagiarism became public, people close to the artist had mentioned to him that they’d seen paintings suspiciously similar to his. However, he couldn’t confirm who was behind them or if it was even the same artist. He was vaguely aware that his art might have been copied abroad, but it wasn’t until 2018—when Ye Yongqing planned an exhibition in Brussels—that Silvain pieced everything together and took action.

Wininger: Was there any communication with Ye Yongqing to resolve this matter without litigation? Did he respond?

Liu:Ye posted on social media claiming he had tried to reach out to Silvain. However, Silvain’s position was always clear: he would only accept a public apology and declined to engage in any further communication with Ye.

Wininger: Why did you decide to litigate?

Liu: Ultimately, the decision rested with the artist. Over time, it became evident that Ye had no intention of issuing a public apology voluntarily, leaving litigation as the only viable recourse. Silvain’s choice to pursue legal action was courageous, particularly given the widespread skepticism in the West about intellectual property enforcement in China. Many believed that plagiarism was culturally tolerated in China and that a foreign artist stood little chance in a Chinese court. Silvain’s case challenged those assumptions.

Wininger: Initially, it looks like the Jinniu District People’s Court of Chengdu City didn’t accept the case? That must have been a blow to the artist. It was a criminal case and then you switched to civil case? Why did you first try for criminal prosecution?

Liu: Actually, from the very beginning, we pursued parallel paths – a civil claim for copyright infringement alongside a criminal complaint for academic fraud. This dual approach served two key purposes: first, the civil case would establish the factual basis of plagiarism, while simultaneously, the criminal one was meant to demonstrate our seriousness about pursuing all legal avenues. The Chengdu court’s decision to defer the criminal case was reasonable and expected, as establishing plagiarism in civil court was a necessary first step.

After we won the second civil judgment and Ye issued his public apology, we chose not to pursue the criminal case further as our primary objectives had been achieved.

Wininger: What was your strategy at the Beijing IP Court to prove infringement?

Liu: Our legal team’s approach was straightforward: place Ye’s copied works side by side with Silvain’s originals and analyse their similarities in detail. This method left little room for doubt.

Wininger: Why do you think it took over five years for Ye to issue his apology?

Liu:I can’t say for certain, but I suspect Ye’s legal team may have advised him to prolong the proceedings, exhausting every legal avenue in hopes that we would abandon the case.

Wininger: Has Ye paid the judgment in full? 
Liu:Yes, besides issuing the apology he has paid the full judgement of 5 million RMB.

Wininger: Is the artist satisfied with the judgment?

Liu: Absolutely. For the artist, the public apology was everything—far more important than any financial compensation. Actually, He has directed all financial damages from the judgment to properly acknowledge and reward the legal team and key supporters whose tireless efforts made this victory possible over the past 5 years. Not a single cent was retained for himself. The apology was the only vindication he sought.

Wininger: Has the market value of Ye’s artwork declined while Silvain’s has risen since the judgment?

Liu: The shift happened as soon as the scandal broke in 2019—once the news went public, the plagiarism was so blatant that the market reacted immediately. Ye’s reputation suffered, while Silvain’s recognition grew. For Silvain, however, the court’s ruling and Ye’s public apology carried far greater personal significance than any impact on their respective art valuations.

Wininger: Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions. I’m glad to see justice was served.

Liu: My pleasure, thank you for having me.