Theoretical Controversies over the Originality Standard for AI-Generated Content and the Chinese Approach
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.71411/jassp.2025.448Keywords:
AI-generated content, copyright, originality standard, anthropocentrism, Chinese approachAbstract
The discourse surrounding the standard of originality has long been divided into two schools of thought: subjectivism and objectivism. Subjectivism emphasizes the participation of natural persons in the creative process, whereas objectivism focuses on the distinctiveness of a work's expression. Through a historical examination of the originality standard and a comparative analysis of judicial practices across multiple jurisdictions, it becomes evident that "anthropocentrism" imposes functional constraints on the copyright system and that a mechanistic application of objectivism may result in ethical risks. Neither school of thought can independently address the originality issues arising from AI-generated content. Therefore, drawing on the integrative tendencies demonstrated in current Chinese judicial practice, this paper advocates for a primarily objectivist judgment framework, supplemented by elements of subjectivism. The proposed framework bases its evaluation on the distinctiveness of the result and the novelty of expression, while incorporating a human intervention factor to introduce value judgments rooted in subjectivism. This approach not only enables the copyright system to fulfill its institutional functions and social values simultaneously, but also offers insights for the collaborative global governance of copyright.
References
Valyaeva, A. (2023, August 15). AI image statistics: How much content was created by AI. Everypixel Journal. Retrieved July 28, 2025, from https://journal.everypixel.com/ai-image-statistics
Wang, Q. (2017). On the legal nature of content generated by artificial intelligence in copyright law. Legal Science (Journal of Northwest University of Political Science and Law), 35(5), 148–155. https://doi.org/10.16290/j.cnki.1674-5205.2017.05.014
Yang, L., & Wang, S. (2024). Reflections on the copyright subject matter of AI-generated content: Also discussing the choice of originality standards for work determination. Journal of Beihang University (Social Sciences Edition), 37(2), 50–62. https://doi.org/10.13766/j.bhsk.1008-2204.2023.0862
Yang, S. (2007). The subjective standard for judging the originality of works. Electronic Intellectual Property, (7), 64–65.
U.S. Copyright Office. (2023, September 5). Re: Second Request for Reconsideration for Refusal to Register Théâtre Dopéra Spatial (SR # 1-11743923581; Correspondence ID: 1-5T5320R). https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/Theatre-Dopera-Spatial.pdf
United States Copyright Office. (2023, February 21). Re: Zarya of the dawn (Registration No. VAu001480196; Correspondence ID: 1-5GB561K) [Government document]. https://copyright.gov/docs/zarya-of-the-dawn.pdf
The Municipal Court in Prague. (2023, October 11). S. Š. v TAUBEL LEGAL, advokátní kancelář s.r.o. [Court decision]. https://mediareport.nl/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/praag-en.pdf
Biancheri v. Rai-Radiotelevisione Italiana S.p.A., Law No. 633 of 1941, Art. 1. (2024). RAI Radiotelevisione v. Chiara Biancheri. IIC – International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 55, 470–474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-024-01441-z DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-024-01441-z
Hegel, G. W. F. (1961). Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts [The philosophy of right] (F. Yan & Q. T. Zhang, Trans.). Beijing: The Commercial Press. (Original work published 1820)
Dehousse, P. (2017). Philosophy of intellectual property law (Z. Zhou, Trans.). Beijing: The Commercial Press. (p. 70)
Yang, S. (2007). The objective standard for judging the originality of works. Electronic Intellectual Property, (8), 63–64.
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, c. 48, § 178 (UK).
Strengthening intellectual property protection in emerging fields and new business formats. (2021, November 2). Economic Daily.
Beijing Internet Court. (2023). Civil judgment on AI-generated image copyright infringement dispute [(2023) Jing 0491 Minchu No. 11279].
Dai, Z., & Jin, B. (2023). The copyright protection of AI-generated works under Chinese law. Juridical Tribune, 13(2), 241–260. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24818/TBJ/2023/13/2.05
Wu, H. (2024). On the copyrightability of AI-generated content: Practice, jurisprudence, and institutional perspectives. China Legal Review, (3), 113–129
Cong, L., & Li, Y. (2023). Identification of works and copyright ownership of generative AI: A case study of ChatGPT’s application scenarios. Journal of Shandong University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), (4), 171–181. https://doi.org/10.19836/j.cnki.37-1100/c.2023.04.015
Wuhan Donghu New Technology Development Zone People’s Court, Hubei Province. (2024). Civil judgment on AI image copyright infringement dispute [(2024) E 0192 Zhi Minchu No. 968].
Changshu People’s Court, Jiangsu Province. (2024). Civil judgment on copyright infringement dispute: Lin v. Hangzhou Gaosi Qimo Technology Co., Ltd., et al. [(2024) Su 0581 Minchu No. 6697].
Nanshan District People’s Court, Shenzhen, Guangdong Province. (2019). Civil judgment on copyright infringement dispute: Tencent v. Yingxun Technology [(2019) Yue 0305 Minchu No. 14010].
Wang, Q. (2024). The legal nature of content generated by artificial intelligence in copyright law. Legal Studies in Business and Law, 41(3), 182–200. https://doi.org/10.16390/j.cnki.issn1672-0393.2024.03.009
McPherson, M. S. (1983). The economics of justice. Law and Philosophy, 2(1), 129–136.
Gostin, P. (2023). The way of copyright: From the printing press to the digital cloud (J. Jin, Trans.). Beijing: The Commercial Press. (p. 24)
Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53 (1884). Retrieved June 27, 2025, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/111/53/
Sherman, B., & Bentley, L. (2012). The evolution of modern intellectual property law: The British experience 1760–1911 (Reprint ed., J. Jin, Trans.). Beijing: Peking University Press. (pp. 207–208)
Zhao, R. (2011). Reflection and understanding on the standard of originality of works. Intellectual Property, (9), 55–58.
U.S. Copyright Office. (2023, December 11). Re: Second request for reconsideration for refusal to register SURYAST (SR # 1-11016599571; Correspondence ID: 1-5PR2XKJ). Retrieved June 27, 2025, from https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/SURYAST.pdf
Wuhan Donghu New Technology Development Zone People’s Court, Hubei Province. (2024). Civil judgment on AI image copyright infringement dispute [(2024) E 0192 Zhi Minchu No. 968].
Wu, H. (2003). Philosophical interpretations of intellectual property law by legal philosophers. Legal Studies in Business and Law, (5), 77–85.(Wu, 2003)
Hughes, J. (1988). The philosophy of intellectual property. Georgetown Law Journal, 77(2), 287–366.(Hughes, 1988)
Aslan, B. (2024). Reflections of the concepts of creativity, originality and characteristic on generative autonomous AI systems with an analysis of copyright perspective. Journal of Commercial and Intellectual Property Law, 2024(1), 3–24.(Aslan, 2024)
Yang, S., & Chen, X. (2016). Will intellectual property legal systems end? A commentary on "The paradigm shift: Reflecting on intellectual property theory". Intellectual Property, (11), 3–12.(Yang & Chen, 2016)
The technological journey after "AlphaGo": Gazing toward the era of human-machine coexistence. (2016, March 18). Economic Information Daily.
Li, C. (2025). Rethinking the normative significance of the concept of "expression": Also discussing the legal nature of AI user instruction behavior. Intellectual Property, (5), 3–20.
Oddi, A. S. (2002). The tragicomedy of the public domain in intellectual property law. Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal (Comm/Ent), 25(1), 1–64.
Li, C. (2013). A critique of the fundamental theories of copyright. Intellectual Property Publishing House. (pp. 61, 70, 130)
Benjamin, W. (2017). A short history of photography (Q. L. Xu & Z. M. Lin, Trans.). Guangxi Normal University Press. (Original work published 1931)
U.S. Copyright Office. (1790). Copyright law of the United States (1790 Act). https://www.copyright.gov/about/1790-copyright-act.html
Li, C. (2019). On the legal analytical method of artificial intelligence: Taking copyright as an example. Intellectual Property, (7), 14–22.
Sherman, B., & Bentley, L. (2012). The making of modern intellectual property law: The British experience, 1760–1911 (J. Jin, Trans.; Rearranged ed.). Peking University Press.
Lin, X., & You, K. (2018). The copyright system's response to AI-generated works: A perspective based on the theory of civil fruits. Electronic Intellectual Property, (6), 13–19.
Lu, B. (2020). On the selection of originality judgment standards for AI-generated works. Inner Mongolia Social Sciences, 41(4), 102–108. https://doi.org/10.14137/j.cnki.issn1003-5281.2020.04.014(Lu, 2020)
Zhang, X. (2025). Global transformation of AI governance and China’s approach. Journal of East China University of Political Science and Law, (1), 18–32.
Roberts, H., Hine, E., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2024). Global AI governance: Barriers and pathways forward. International Affairs, 100(3), 1275–1286.(Roberts, Hine, Taddeo, & Floridi, 2024) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiae073
Guangdong Shenzhen Nanshan District People’s Court. (2019). Civil judgment on Tencent v. Yingxun Technology copyright infringement dispute [(2019) Yue 0305 Minchu No. 14010].
Olson, D. P. (1983). Copyright originality. Missouri Law Review, 48(1), 29-62.
Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991).
Hughes, J. (2021). Restating copyright law's originality requirement. Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, 44(3), 383–410. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52214/jla.v44i3.8099
Jiang, G. (2025). On the “minimum creativity standard” for users claiming AIGC copyright. Chinese and Foreign Law Review, (3), 681–701.
Huang, H., & Huang, J. (2019). The rationale for protecting AI-generated works as copyrighted works. Jiangxi Social Sciences, (2), 33–42, 254.
Xie, L., & Chen, W. (2019). Resolving copyright dilemmas of AI-generated works under the fictitious author rule. Legal Application, (9), 38–47.
Ding, X. (2023). The deconstruction and reconstruction of copyright: A jurisprudential reflection on the legal protection of AI-generated works. Legal System and Social Development, (5), 109–127.
Gostin, P. (2023). The path of copyright: From the printing press to the digital cloud (J. Jin, Trans., p. 290). Beijing: The Commercial Press.
He, L., & Deng, T. (2021). A reconsideration of the originality standard for AI-generated works: Also discussing the judicial judgment model of human intervention. Journal of Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications (Social Sciences Edition), (5), 55–68.
Cyberspace Administration of China. (2025, March 7). Measures for the identification of AI-generated synthetic content. Retrieved June 30, 2025, from https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/zhengceku/202503/content_7014286.htm
Palace, V. M. (2019). What if artificial intelligence wrote this: Artificial intelligence and copyright law. Florida Law Review, 71(1), 217–ii.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 JIE WANG (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
