The Summer Palace, an imperial garden in Beijing, has launched a series of cosmetics in association with a national brand, Catkin. The lipsticks, whose packaging is inspired by an embroidered screen artifact, were snapped up on an e-commerce platform, with 4,000 pieces sold within 24 hours.

However, like the products released by the Palace Museum, which was the imperial palace of 24 emperors of the Ming and Qing dynasties (1368-1911), the Summer Palace cosmetics too have sparked controversy.

The first problem is copyright and authorization. Catkin was accused of doing unauthorized business after the lipsticks were promoted on the e-commerce platform. It forced the Summer Palace to explain that while it holds the copyright, Catkin has been authorized for the work.

Another company, China Cultural Tourism and Creativity, also develops, promotes and sells products for the historical site. It later claimed rights related to the embroidered screen, forcing the Summer Palace to clarify the situation once again.

While the success of any associated company will bring benefits to the Summer Palace, if there is any ensuing chaos, it will make consumers confused.

As the development of cultural creativity in China is still in a phase of exploration, it is vital to clarify the intellectual property rights, other rights and responsibilities of authorized enterprises and historical sites.

To improve the situation, the historical institutions need patience. During the process of innovation, they not only need to coordinate with relevant parties, but also ensure a more effective mechanism within the legal framework as soon as possible.

(This is an edited excerpt of an article originally published in The Beijing News on April 8)