Does AI creation have copyright?
2025 03/11
Case Review
Xiao Zhang used a certain AI generation software to generate a picture with the theme of Spring Festival by inputting a series of command information and posted it on the internet. Afterwards, it was unexpectedly discovered that Zhao, a blogger on the internet, had removed the signature watermark of the image and published it as a background image in his song works. Xiao Zhang filed a lawsuit with the court, claiming that Zhao had infringed on the copyright of his AI generated image. However, Zhao believes that AI images are computer-generated and not drawn by Xiao Zhang himself, so they should not enjoy copyright.
In practice, when a court judges a copyright related case, the first step is to confirm whether the text, images, videos, etc. involved constitute a "work" in the legal sense. In practice, the determination of whether it constitutes a "work" will be based on the following aspects:
1、 Belonging to the fields of literature, art, and science. For example, the movements of radio gymnastics were once ruled by the court to not have copyright, because it is a sport aimed at exercising the body, not expressing thoughts and emotions through movements, and does not belong to the fields of literature, art, and science.
2、 Has originality. The author independently completes and reflects personalized expression, and cannot plagiarize or edit existing works.
3、 Can be expressed in a certain form. Can be read, appreciated, copied, and disseminated by the public.
4、 Belonging to the result of investing intelligence. A work is the result of the author's intellectual input in conception, composition, modification, and so on. For example, carved stone sculptures or wood carvings form works, while naturally formed strange stones or trees are not considered intellectual achievements.
It cannot be generalized in practice whether AI creation constitutes a work. If it is the final result obtained by the creator through multiple inputs of prompt words, adjustment of relevant parameters, editing of content, continuous modification, and a large amount of intellectual effort, then because the result reflects the creator's personal aesthetic and personalized adjustment and correction, it is an original result generated after intellectual investment, and can be recognized as a work with copyright. If the previous works created by others are directly presented or simply pieced together through search in the big data system, it cannot be considered as constituting a work.
There are still many legal issues waiting to be explored in the emerging field of AI. It should be noted that if the content generated by AI is a secondary creation based on someone else's copyrighted work, corresponding authorization should be obtained before use, otherwise it may constitute infringement.
Xiao Zhang used a certain AI generation software to generate a picture with the theme of Spring Festival by inputting a series of command information and posted it on the internet. Afterwards, it was unexpectedly discovered that Zhao, a blogger on the internet, had removed the signature watermark of the image and published it as a background image in his song works. Xiao Zhang filed a lawsuit with the court, claiming that Zhao had infringed on the copyright of his AI generated image. However, Zhao believes that AI images are computer-generated and not drawn by Xiao Zhang himself, so they should not enjoy copyright.
Lawyer analysis
In recent years, with the rapid development of artificial intelligence technology, legal issues have also emerged one after another. Judging whether the results produced by AI have copyright cannot be simply generalized, and it needs to be analyzed and judged separately based on specific cases.
Article 3 of the Copyright Law stipulates that the works referred to in this Law refer to intellectual achievements in the fields of literature, art, and science that are original and can be expressed in a certain form.
In practice, when a court judges a copyright related case, the first step is to confirm whether the text, images, videos, etc. involved constitute a "work" in the legal sense. In practice, the determination of whether it constitutes a "work" will be based on the following aspects:
1、 Belonging to the fields of literature, art, and science. For example, the movements of radio gymnastics were once ruled by the court to not have copyright, because it is a sport aimed at exercising the body, not expressing thoughts and emotions through movements, and does not belong to the fields of literature, art, and science.
2、 Has originality. The author independently completes and reflects personalized expression, and cannot plagiarize or edit existing works.
3、 Can be expressed in a certain form. Can be read, appreciated, copied, and disseminated by the public.
4、 Belonging to the result of investing intelligence. A work is the result of the author's intellectual input in conception, composition, modification, and so on. For example, carved stone sculptures or wood carvings form works, while naturally formed strange stones or trees are not considered intellectual achievements.
It cannot be generalized in practice whether AI creation constitutes a work. If it is the final result obtained by the creator through multiple inputs of prompt words, adjustment of relevant parameters, editing of content, continuous modification, and a large amount of intellectual effort, then because the result reflects the creator's personal aesthetic and personalized adjustment and correction, it is an original result generated after intellectual investment, and can be recognized as a work with copyright. If the previous works created by others are directly presented or simply pieced together through search in the big data system, it cannot be considered as constituting a work.
There are still many legal issues waiting to be explored in the emerging field of AI. It should be noted that if the content generated by AI is a secondary creation based on someone else's copyrighted work, corresponding authorization should be obtained before use, otherwise it may constitute infringement.
