A Study on the Boundaries of Copyright Protection for AI-Generated Content
Main Article Content
Authors
Emilio Aguinaldo College
Abstract
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) challenges traditional copyright law by questioning authorship, originality, and infringement standards. This paper explores the copyright boundaries of AI-generated content through theoretical analysis, comparative study, and case review. It finds that outputs created without human input should not be protected, while human–AI collaborative works may qualify for limited rights. Drawing on practices in the United States, United Kingdom, and European Union, the study proposes institutional pathways for China, including clarifying the legal status of AI-generated works, introducing a “special protection right,” refining originality thresholds, and expanding fair use. The paper argues for a balanced copyright framework that promotes innovation, preserves the public domain, and adapts to the digital era.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright remains with the author(s). All articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This license permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, provided that appropriate credit is given to the original author(s) and the source, a link to the license is provided, and any changes are indicated.
How to Cite
References
Wang, Qian. (2017). On the characterisation of AI-generated content in copyright law. Legal Science (Journal of Northwestern University of Politics and Law), 35(5), 148–155. https://doi.org/10.16290/j.cnki.1674-5205.2017.05.014
Gervais, D. J. (2019). The machine as author. Iowa Law Review, 105, 2053–2105.
Samuelson, P. (1986). Allocating ownership rights in computer-generated works. University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 47(6), 1185–1239.
U.S. Copyright Office. (2023). Copyright registration guidance: Works containing material generated by artificial intelligence (88 Fed. Reg. 16,190). U.S. Government Publishing Office. https://www.federalregister.gov/
Thaler v. Perlmutter, 1:22-cv-01564 (D.D.C. 2023).
Shenzhen Nanshan District People’s Court. (2019, December 21). Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Yingxun Technology Co., Ltd. (“Dreamwriter” case). WIPO Lex.
Beijing Internet Court. (2019, April 25). Feilin Law Firm v. Baidu Inc. (first AI-generated content copyright infringement case). Beijing Internet Court official release.
United Kingdom. (1988). Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Section 9(3). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/
Article Sidebar
