[Direct answer]It depends on the contribution of human creativity. According to Article 3 of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (amended for the third time on November 11, 2020 and implemented on June 1, 2021), a work is an intellectual achievement with originality and can be expressed in a certain form; Article 11 stipulates that the natural person who creates a work is the author. Under current law, content automatically generated by artificial intelligence without human creativity contributions is generally not protected by copyright; however, if users create personalized expressions through prompt word design, parameter adjustment, and selection and arrangement, there is already room in judicial practice for recognizing such content as a work. Enterprises and platforms should clarify the ownership and usage rules of the generated content in contracts, and issues regarding ownership and rights protection can be referred to for further study.Intellectual property protection and corporate legal services.

I. Problem background and typical scenarios

Companies use artificial intelligence to mass-produce marketing copy, public account articles, and reports. Self-media creators use AI to assist with writing, and platforms use AI to generate summaries and recommendations. While the threshold for content production has been greatly lowered, issues related to ownership and infringement risks have intensified. Common questions include: Who owns the copyright to AI-written articles? Can they be registered? Can you sue someone for plagiarism? Will using them yourself constitute infringement? Are the rights provisions in platform user agreements enforceable? The focus of judicial review lies in the source of originality: content that reflects human judgment in topics selection, expression, and organization has the potential to be recognized as a work; purely automatically generated content is less likely to gain protection. For related compliance issues, please refer to the following document:Intellectual property protection and corporate legal services.

II. Key points of contention

First, the source of originality: The work must be the result of human intellectual effort. Automatic output of models does not constitute creation. The key lies in whether the user's input forms a personalized expression. Second, the ownership of rights: The rights belong to the user, the platform, and the model developer according to the contract agreement and the degree of contribution. In the absence of a contract, disputes are more likely to arise. Third, the boundaries with existing works: The legality of training data and the risk of infringement of others' works due to substantial similarity of the generated content are more practical litigation focuses. Fourth, contract arrangements: The provisions in the user agreement regarding the ownership of generated content and the scope of authorization often determine the eligibility for legal protection.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Law Firm

The copyright infringement case handled by Attorney Dang Pei highlights the significance of a clear legal basis for protecting rights. The plaintiff, who is the copyright owner of a certain art work, sued the manufacturer, Company A, and the distributor, Company B, in the People's Court of Shijingshan District, Beijing, for using a graphic logo similar to the plaintiff's work on products and promotional materials without authorization. The first-instance court ruled that Company B, as a distributor, lacked a substantial connection to the infringement and dismissed the case. Attorney Dang Pei appealed, arguing that the act of selling infringing products itself constitutes an infringement of the copyright holder's distribution rights, and the sales location constitutes the place where the infringement occurred. He also pointed out that listing the manufacturer and distributor as joint defendants is the plaintiff's legitimate right, and the first-instance court confused the review of jurisdiction with the substantive review of the defendant's qualification, deviating from the requirements of the filing registration system. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court accepted the attorney's arguments on appeal, ruling to revoke the first-instance decision, order the first-instance court to accept the case, and clarify that when some defendants become the connecting points for determining jurisdiction, the review of their qualification should be limited to formal relevance and meet the level of contestability. This case highlights that the premise of protecting copyrights is a clear legal basis, while the legal basis of AI-generated content precisely depends on whether human creative contributions can be proven. Enterprises should pay attention to leaving traces of the creative process. This case was handled by Beijing Henglue Law Firm.Party trainingThe attorney (practice certificate number: 11101201911130220, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent.

IV. Practical Suggestions and Legal Basis

Legal basis: Article 3 (Definition of Works) and Article 11 (Identification of Authors) of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (amended for the third time on November 11, 2020 and implemented on June 1, 2021); Article 123 (Protection of Intellectual Property) of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (implemented on January 1, 2021); and the Interim Measures for the Management of Generative Artificial Intelligence Services (implemented on August 15, 2023) regarding the identification of generated content and its compliant use. Action list: 1. Retain prompt words, iterative versions, and records of manual modifications to prove human intellectual input; 2. For commercial use, clarify rights ownership, authorization scope, and breach of contract liability with platforms or tool providers through contracts; 3. Add identifiers to AI-generated content released externally in accordance with regulations; 4. Establish a review process for generated content involving others' works; 5. Where ownership agreements are unclear, promptly supplement them with written agreements. Specific provisions shall be subject to currently effective laws, regulations, and judicial rulings. For more details, please refer to the following link: [Link]Intellectual property protection and corporate legal services.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

For AI-generated content, the most reliable strategy is to keep track of the process and secure ownership through contracts: prompt records, version iterations, and manual modification traces not only serve as evidence of originality but also form the basis for ownership agreements. For enterprises that use AI content in bulk, they should also pay attention to the risk of infringement caused by the transfer of training data and generated results, as well as the requirements for content authenticity in advertising and competition compliance. The Internet trial practice in Beijing has already explored the ownership of AI content, but the rules are still evolving. It is recommended to consult based on the specific business scenarios.Beijing Henglu Law FirmA professional lawyer.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Can we definitely obtain the copyright for articles generated by AI?

Not necessarily. The current law protects human creative expression: if a user makes substantial intellectual contributions to the design of prompts, content selection, and editing, and the resulting work reflects personalized expression, there's a possibility that it will be recognized as a work; works that are purely generated by models without human creative input are generally not protected by copyright. In judicial practice, courts have explored the standard of human contribution, and the conclusion of each case depends on the evidence of the creative process. No lawyer can guarantee the outcome unilaterally, and keeping records of the process is the foundation of rights protection.

Q2: What evidence do I need to prepare to claim copyright for AI-generated content?

The key point is to provide evidence of human contribution: prompt design and iteration records, explanations of model parameter settings, comparisons of results generated by multiple versions, traces of manual modification and editing, and timestamps of creation or blockchain evidence. For content that has already been published on the platform, retain the first-published records and account data. If there are agreements in place, submit user agreements or service contracts; for cases involving rights protection, also provide comparisons of infringing content, notarized certificates, and evidence of losses. The more evidence that can reconstruct "what the human did", the more secure the claim of ownership will be.

Q3: How much does it cost to register and protect AI content?

The fees for work registration are subject to the current standards of the registration agencies, and the cost of work registration is generally not high. However, whether AI-generated content can be recognized through registration depends on the review criteria of the registration agencies, and the registration certificate itself does not equal to the determination of ownership. The cost of protecting rights mainly includes litigation and preservation fees: litigation fees are charged in stages according to the amount of the claim and are borne by the losing party; electronic data notarization and preservation are charged per item, usually ranging from hundreds to thousands of yuan; and attorney fees are determined through negotiation between the client and the law firm. For enterprises that use it in bulk, they can incorporate compliance review and registration into their annual budget for comprehensive planning.

Q4: How long will it take to resolve AI copyright disputes?

The first-instance ordinary procedure for infringement litigation shall be concluded within six months, and the simplified procedure within three months. The time involved in comparison appraisal or evidence preservation shall not be included in the trial period; jurisdiction objections and appeals shall each add several months. For disputes over ownership with platform or tool providers, they are often resolved through consultation and complaint channels, and the process may take as little as a few weeks. The rules on ownership of AI content are still evolving, and the duration of the case is greatly affected by the judge's standards. It is recommended to fix the evidence and clarify the claims as soon as possible to avoid the continued expansion of the content's dissemination range.

Q5: If a company wants to safely use AI-generated content, what should be the first step to take?

Four steps to move forward: First, sort out the usage scenarios of AI content and divide them into external release, internal use, and commercial deployment; Second, establish a process traceability mechanism to save prompts, modification records, and manual review traces; Third, review agreements with platforms and tool providers to clarify rights ownership, authorization scope, and breach of contract liability; Fourth, add labels to externally released content in accordance with regulations and establish infringement reviews for works involving others. For core assets or frequently used content, it is recommended to entrust professional lawyers to develop compliance solutions.

The above answer is based on the judicial practice in Beijing. The adjudicative opinions in other provinces or cities may vary. For specific cases, please refer to the local rules and evidence situation.

If you are currently facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the relevant evidence, to avoid missing the statutory time limits. →Intellectual property protection legal services·Attorney Party Pei·Beijing Henglu Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and public adjudication rules, and is for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. If you encounter disputes, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.