Currently, China has established a regulatory framework for copyright protection of AI-generated content (“AIGC”) through judicial precedents and administrative regulations. While not explicitly addressing artificial intelligence (“AI”), Article 3 of the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China establishes a legal foundation for protecting “intellectual achievements in the fields of literature, art, and science that possess originality and can be expressed in a tangible form”. The Interim Measures for the Management of Generative Artificial Intelligence Services require the service providers to utilize data and models from legitimate sources, and to prevent intellectual property infringement. the Measures for the Labeling of Artificial Intelligence Generated and Synthesized Content mandate the disclosure of the AI origin for such content. With the rapid development and widespread application of AI technology, Chinese courts adjudicating copyright disputes involving AIGC have increasingly demonstrated a prevailing tendency to grant copyright protection to the AIGC that reflect original human intellectual contribution.
On 3 November 2025, the Meixian District People’s Court of Meizhou City, Guangdong Province announced its ruling in a case concerning infringement of the right of communication through information networks involving AIGC (“Meixian Case”). The court held that content automatically generated by AI without demonstrating the user’s unique intellectual input and creativity does not constitute a “work” protected under the Copyright Law. The court emphasized that a work protected by the Copyright Law must satisfy both the requirements of “independence” and “creativity”. Specifically, the work should be “independently created by the author, reflect the author’s individual intellectual judgment and choices, demonstrate the author’s understanding of the artistic aspects of the work, and attain a certain level of creative height”. In this case, the court found that the plaintiff’s act of adding common holiday greetings during the post-generation phase did not reflect sufficient intellectual creativity, thereby negating the work’s originality.
In contrast to the Meixian Case, several earlier court rulings have positively established standards for intellectual input eligible for copyright protection. For example, in the “AIGC Text-to-Image Copyright Case”, Beijing Internet Court (2023) Jing 0491 Min Chu 11279, the court held that the plaintiff’s actions in the AI image generation process—including the design of prompts, parameter adjustments, and the selection of the final image—constituted original intellectual input protected by copyright. Similarly, in the Banxin case, Changshu People’s Court, Jiangsu Province (2024) Su 0581 Min Chu 6697, the court recognized that the creator’s selection and arrangement of visual elements in AI-generated images using generative AI tools and Photoshop demonstrated originality. In the Wuhan AI-Generated Image Case, Wuhan East Lake High-Tech Development Zone People’s Court (2024) E 0192 Zhi Min Chu 968, the court acknowledged that adjustments to prompts, parameters, styles, lighting, effects, and the selection of images reflected originality.
Pursuant to effective judicial rulings, key factors considered by Chinese courts in determining whether AIGC qualifies for copyright protection include: whether the content falls within the literary, artistic, or scientific domains and possesses a definite form of expression? whether it demonstrates originality? and whether it constitutes an intellectual achievement? Established jurisprudence has recognized manifestations of originality including uniquely structured prompt engineering, parameter adjustments demonstrating professional expertise, substantive post-processing that significantly enhances the generated content, and final selections reflecting artistic appreciation and value judgment. Additionally, factors considered in evaluating intellectual input include the time and effort invested by the creator, the complexity of tools used, the systematic nature of the creative process, and the distinctiveness of the final output.
Chinese courts have developed preliminary adjudicative principles for copyright protection of AIGC, with the core focus being the demonstration of human intellectual contribution and originality. To secure copyright protection, AI content creators are advised to ensure substantial human involvement and creative direction throughout the generative process, maintain comprehensive documentation of creative procedures, and complete timely registration of rights. As technology advances and legal frameworks evolve, practices in this field will continue to develop.
On 3 November 2025, the Meixian District People’s Court of Meizhou City, Guangdong Province announced its ruling in a case concerning infringement of the right of communication through information networks involving AIGC (“Meixian Case”). The court held that content automatically generated by AI without demonstrating the user’s unique intellectual input and creativity does not constitute a “work” protected under the Copyright Law. The court emphasized that a work protected by the Copyright Law must satisfy both the requirements of “independence” and “creativity”. Specifically, the work should be “independently created by the author, reflect the author’s individual intellectual judgment and choices, demonstrate the author’s understanding of the artistic aspects of the work, and attain a certain level of creative height”. In this case, the court found that the plaintiff’s act of adding common holiday greetings during the post-generation phase did not reflect sufficient intellectual creativity, thereby negating the work’s originality.
In contrast to the Meixian Case, several earlier court rulings have positively established standards for intellectual input eligible for copyright protection. For example, in the “AIGC Text-to-Image Copyright Case”, Beijing Internet Court (2023) Jing 0491 Min Chu 11279, the court held that the plaintiff’s actions in the AI image generation process—including the design of prompts, parameter adjustments, and the selection of the final image—constituted original intellectual input protected by copyright. Similarly, in the Banxin case, Changshu People’s Court, Jiangsu Province (2024) Su 0581 Min Chu 6697, the court recognized that the creator’s selection and arrangement of visual elements in AI-generated images using generative AI tools and Photoshop demonstrated originality. In the Wuhan AI-Generated Image Case, Wuhan East Lake High-Tech Development Zone People’s Court (2024) E 0192 Zhi Min Chu 968, the court acknowledged that adjustments to prompts, parameters, styles, lighting, effects, and the selection of images reflected originality.
Pursuant to effective judicial rulings, key factors considered by Chinese courts in determining whether AIGC qualifies for copyright protection include: whether the content falls within the literary, artistic, or scientific domains and possesses a definite form of expression? whether it demonstrates originality? and whether it constitutes an intellectual achievement? Established jurisprudence has recognized manifestations of originality including uniquely structured prompt engineering, parameter adjustments demonstrating professional expertise, substantive post-processing that significantly enhances the generated content, and final selections reflecting artistic appreciation and value judgment. Additionally, factors considered in evaluating intellectual input include the time and effort invested by the creator, the complexity of tools used, the systematic nature of the creative process, and the distinctiveness of the final output.
Chinese courts have developed preliminary adjudicative principles for copyright protection of AIGC, with the core focus being the demonstration of human intellectual contribution and originality. To secure copyright protection, AI content creators are advised to ensure substantial human involvement and creative direction throughout the generative process, maintain comprehensive documentation of creative procedures, and complete timely registration of rights. As technology advances and legal frameworks evolve, practices in this field will continue to develop.