1. Introduction. – 2. Methodology. – 3. Legal Gaps in the Copyright Protection of AI-Generated Works. – 3.1. The Distinction Between AI-Generated Works and AI-Assisted Works. – 3.2. Legal and Regulatory Gaps in the Copyright Protection of AI-Generated Works in Selected Jurisdictions. – 3.2.1. Legal and Judicial Practice in the United States. – 3.2.2. Legal and Judicial Practice in the European Union. – 3.2.3. Legal and Judicial Practice in the United Kingdom. – 4. Judicial Practice of China’s Internet Courts in Copyright Disputes Involving AI-Generated Works. – 4.1. “Spring Breeze Brings Tenderness” Case (Li v. Liu, 2023). – 4.2. “Cat Crystal Diamond Pendant” Case (2025). – 5. Shifts in the Perception of Copyright in AI-Generated Works. – 5.1. Originality and Ethical Concerns in Art. – 5.2. The Subject of Copyright. – 5.3. Policy Recommendations. – 6. Conclusions.
Background: The emergence of literary, scientific, and artistic works generated by artificial intelligence (AI) in recent years has become a common legal challenge worldwide. The main legal difficulties relate to determining whether AI-generated works qualify for copyright protection under national laws and international treaties. Judicial practice of the Chinese Internet Courts in copyright disputes concerning AI-generated works has, in recent years, given rise to divergent opinions among legal scholars both within and outside China. Examining judicial approaches to the recognition of copyright in AI-generated works constitutes a valuable source of information for research on international copyright law and for the future improvement of domestic legal systems addressing AI.
Methods: The paper identifies and addresses legal challenges to the protection of copyright in AI-generated works, emphasising that, where the law contains significant gaps, the role of the judiciary must be clearly articulated to overcome these challenges. To achieve this objective, analytical and comparative methods are employed to examine differences in the legal regulation of traditional works and AI-generated works. The study primarily focuses on the current legal framework of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), in conjunction with the laws of the European Union, the United States, and the United Kingdom, with particular emphasis on Chinese judicial practice concerning whether copyright in AI-generated works is recognised and the impact of such case law in a context where the law still contains numerous legal gaps.
Results and conclusions: The study highlights the diversity of approaches to copyright protection for AI-generated works and the need to reconsider the understanding of authors’ creativity in the AI era. Based on the experience of the Chinese Internet Courts, the study concludes that the judiciary plays a particularly important role in filling legislative gaps by assessing the level of human creative intervention in the use of AI to generate works and by ensuring flexibility in the protection of copyright in AI-generated works.