Can hairstyles become works protected by copyright law?

Whether in the street or in the online world, beautifully designed hairstyles can become an aesthetic fashion. So, can hairstyles be works protected by copyright law? Hairstyles can be works protected by copyright law. It is generally believed that the composition of a work includes the following elements: first, the work is the intellectual achievement of human beings in related fields. For example, crop circles that often appear in the west, although the patterns are complex, cannot be classified as works because they are not created by human beings. Second, works can be reproduced in tangible form. Third, the work is an original expression. In addition, it is worth noting that the composition of the work is not limited by the existence time, even the ice sculpture that will melt immediately after 5 minutes can constitute the work. There are two main points of view against hairstyles constituting works: first, the carrier of works in copyright law should refer to non-biological materials that can be copied indefinitely, not organisms (animals, plants or human bodies), so it is difficult to claim copyright for works of organisms; Secondly, because of the combination of hair and human body itself and the characteristics of manual labor, the spread of hairstyle can only be imitated, but not completely copied. First of all, whether the work is established has nothing to do with the carrier. The object protected by copyright law is creative intellectual achievements. Although the existence and dissemination of works depend on material carriers, copyright itself is an invisible existence, and copyright and the carrier of works can be separated from each other. For example, Xu Beihong's Eight Horses, as a work, is not drawing paper, but reflecting the shape of a horse on paper. Therefore, due to the immateriality of copyright, the existence, transfer and loss of copyright are determined, which is not necessarily related to the carrier of the work under normal circumstances. Therefore, generally speaking, whether a work constitutes a work is only related to the achievement itself, and has no direct relationship with the carrier. For example, whether a picture of the heavenly palace is a work or not will not be different because it is an oil painting or a tattoo on the human body. For some special works, such as oral works, even a carrier is not required. In addition, although objective things (such as hair) do not constitute works, the creative achievements of artistic abstraction and aesthetic modification of objective things (such as hair styles) can constitute works. Secondly, hairstyles can also be completely copied. Some people think that hairstyles can't be completely copied. In fact, plagiarism in copyright law is equivalent to complete plagiarism from expression to carrier. According to this view, to copy a work, it must be exactly the same from the carrier to the form. Obviously, this is inappropriate. According to this view, many people can imitate the calligraphy or paintings of famous artists, but no one can imitate them completely (if they can imitate them completely, they can't tell the true from the false). In other words, it is impossible to completely copy, but this does not mean that the calligraphy and painting of those famous artists cannot constitute works. So, what is replication? Article 10 of the current copyright law stipulates that the right of reproduction refers to the right to make one or more copies of a work by printing, copying, rubbing, recording, video recording, copying and remaking. As mentioned above, a work refers to an abstract but objective aesthetic expression, which can exist without the carrier and has no direct connection with the carrier itself. In modern society, due to the development of various imaging technologies, it is very easy to make copies of various forms of works. For example, hair style, as a work, exists in hair, but it is a manifestation of modeling, so it can be fixed with video equipment, and there is no problem that it cannot be completely copied. Copyright exists in the work, but not in the carrier of the work. The same work can be fixed on many different carriers, and there will be no difference because of different carriers. Therefore, although the hairstyle is not as fixed as the sculpture, the work can only be fixed (for example, fixed on the image equipment). As the court ruled in the case of Huang v. World Book Company, although bonsai has been growing and changing, it can still constitute a three-dimensional art work. For hairstyle design, if it meets the basic elements of a composition work, it is also recognized as a composition work in judicial practice. Typical cases include the Ten Scenes of West Lake. It is worth noting that for those hairstyles that do not convey enough personalized expression, it is difficult to be protected by copyright. For example, in the case of hairstyle design such as Liu v. City Liyuan, the court held that the hairstyle involved was not beyond the public domain, thus denying its composition.