Author: Dr. LI Enhan, Deputy Director of Token Digital Economy Research Center, CDI

Editor’s note: In the wave of global digitalization and intelligence, AI's role in artistic creation is challenging the foundations of copyright law. Questions about the originality of AI works, their copyright ownership, and the criteria for infringement are now at the forefront for legal experts. Against this backdrop, China and the United States, as major global players, are navigating the uncharted waters of AI and copyright with their distinct legal practices likely to shape international norms.

The growth of artificial intelligence (AI) requires a redefinition of traditional copyright concepts, including authorship, originality, and the attribution of rights and liabilities associated with infringement. While AI creations increase in complexity, the consensus finds that AI should not be granted authorship, as copyright is intended for human creations. However, with technological advancements and increasingly diversified creative forms, this position may encounter greater challenges and debates.

In the U.S., copyright law insists on a conservative approach and stipulates that human authorship is essential for copyright eligibility. This was evident in the case of "A Recent Entrance to Paradise," in which the court clearly stated that the prerequisite for copyright protection is "human authorship," thereby denying copyright registration for AI-generated pieces (Mathur, 2023). The U.S. demands significant human creativity in a work to deem it copyrightable, thus often excluding AI-generated works from copyright protections.

China, in contrast, demonstrates greater flexibility. When assessing AI-generated works, Chinese courts consider both the originality and the degree of human involvement and tend to judge whether works reflect human intellectual input and individuality. In the "Dreamwriter" case, the People's Court of Nanshan District in Shenzhen handed down a judgment in favor of the plaintiff Tencent. It recognized its AI-generated article on stock analysis as eligible for copyright since the article’s structure aligned with the format of the opinion piece and consisted of specific creative choices (Xiao, 2020).

These contrasting standards could lead to diverse future effects. The stringent option might limit the number of AI works eligible for copyright protection, affecting the innovation incentives of AI-related enterprises and individuals. In contrast, an open recognition approach could encourage AI creativity and foster synergy between AI technology and cultural industries. Yet, the latter may also encounter greater AI copyright dispute resolution challenges, necessitating a more nuanced framework for AI copyright recognition.

Furthermore, the conservative leaning of the U.S. may bolster traditional human creative processes and underscore humans' central role in art and culture. Meanwhile, China's flexible recognition could stimulate new forms of artistic and cultural expression. As AI creations may soon become integral to Chinese culture and art, China must prepare its cultural and art industries for the digital impact, addressing concerns such as the diminishing motivation among traditional artists and competitive pressures from AI-generated content in the market.

AI technology is now pushing copyright law into a new era. The contrasting perspectives and practices of China and the United States related to AI copyright reflect different interpretations of human creativity and hint at the future of global copyright law. The challenge for future lawmakers and practitioners will be in reconciling the enduring principles of copyright with the pace of technological innovation.

Reference:

Mathur, A. (2023, Dec 11). Case Review: Thaler v. Perlmutter (2023). Retrieved from Center for Art Law: https://itsartlaw.org/2023/12/11/case-summary-and-review-thaler-v-perlmutter/#post-61801-footnote-ref-0

Xiao, B. (2020, Mar 19). Shenzhen concludes first AI-generated article dispute case [深圳审结首例人工智能生成文章作品纠纷案]. Retrieved from People's Court Daily: http://oldrmfyb.183read.cc/paper/html/2020-03/19/content_166241.htm