Thresholds for Authorship and Originality in AI-generated and AI-assisted works
A Comparative Study of Chinese and EU Copyright Case Law
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46282/blr.2025.9.2.1136Keywords:
AI Copyrightability, AI-Assisted Works, AI-Generated Works, Originality , Copyrightability, Copyright Law, Authorship, Chinese Law, EU LawAbstract
This paper examines the intersection of originality and authorship in copyright law, focusing on the treatment of AI-generated and AI-assisted works in China and the European Union. It identifies the conceptual oscillation between the two terms and addresses it by introducing a unified analytical scaffold, the Two-Tier Matrix, distinguishing between an objective layer of originality (independent creation and minimal creativity) and a subjective layer of authorship (free and creative choices by a natural person). The analysis traces how statutory provisions, doctrinal debates, and judicial decisions in both jurisdictions can be mapped onto this two-tier structure. In China, courts and scholars emphasise the objective tier, lowering the threshold for minimal creativity while requiring demonstrable human involvement. By contrast, the EU situates protection firmly within the subjective tier, demanding discernible human creative choices as established in Court of Justice of the European Union case law such as Infopaq and Painer. The comparative framework reveals not only the different doctrinal trajectories of the two systems but also highlights their convergences and the challenges they face in regulating AI creativity. By adopting the Two-Tier Matrix, this study provides a coherent tool for evaluating emerging copyright questions and contributes to the broader academic discussion on the future governance of AI-authored works.
References
Dai, Z. and Jin, B. (2023). The copyright protection of AI-generated works under Chinese law. Juridical Tribune, 13(2), 241-260. DOI: 10.24818/TBJ/2023/13/2.05 DOI: https://doi.org/10.24818/TBJ/2023/13/2.05
Gaffar, H. and Albarashdi, S. (2025). Copyright Protection for AI-Generated Works: Exploring Originality and Ownership in a Digital Landscape. Asian Journal of International Law, 15(1), 23-46. doi:10.1017/S2044251323000735 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S2044251323000735
Han, M., Xinyu, W. and Zhuobin, Z. (2024). The Perspective of Originality: Research on the Legal Attribute of Content Generated by Artificial Intelligence. Highlights in Business, Economics and Management, 39, 369-374. https://doi.org/10.54097/yjng0436 DOI: https://doi.org/10.54097/yjng0436
Hugenholtz, P. B. and Quintais, J. P. (2021). Copyright and Artificial Creation: Does EU Copyright Law Protect AI-Assisted Output? International Review of Intellectual property and Competition Law, 52, 1190–1216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-021-01115-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-021-01115-0
Hutukka, P. (2023). Copyright Law in the European Union, the United States and China. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 54, 1044–1080. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-023-01357-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-023-01357-0
Lu, Y. (2025). Reforming Copyright Law for AI-Generated Content: Copyright Protection, Authorship and Ownership. Technology and Regulation, 81-95. https://doi.org/10.71265/chkr8w30 DOI: https://doi.org/10.71265/chkr8w30
Rosati, E. (2013). Originality in EU Copyright: Full Harmonization through Case Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781782548942.00002
Rosati, E. (2023). Copyright at the CJEU: Back to the start (of copyright protection). In: Bosher, H. and Rosati, E. (eds.), Developments and directions in intellectual property law: Twenty years of The IPKat (pp. 211-228). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192864475.003.0013 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192864475.003.0013
Synodinou, E. (2018). The Foundations of the Concept of Work in European Copyright Law. In: Codification of European Copyright, Challenges and perspectives (pp. 93-113). Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.
Wan, Y. and Lu, H. (2021). Copyright Protection for AI-Generated Outputs: The Experience from China. Computer Law & Security Review, 42, 105581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2021.105581 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2021.105581
Wang, H. (2023). Authorship of Artificial Intelligence-Generated Works and Possible System Improvement in China. Beijing Law Review, 14, 901-912. DOI: 10.4236/blr.2023.142049 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/blr.2023.142049
Xiao, Y. (2023). Decoding Authorship: Is There Really no Place for an Algorithmic Author Under Copyright Law? International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 54, 5-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-022-01269-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-022-01269-5
Yang, Z. (2024). Rethinking the Copyrightability of Artificial Intelligence Generated Objects: Taking China's the AI Text-To-Picture Case as an Example. Journal of Economics and Law, 1(3), 20-28. https://doi.org/10.62517/jel.202414304 DOI: https://doi.org/10.62517/jel.202414304
Zhuk, A. (2024). Navigating the legal landscape of AI copyright: a comparative analysis of EU, US, and Chinese approaches. AI and Ethics, 4, 1299–1306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-023-00299-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-023-00299-0
European Parliament and Council of the European Union. (1996). Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 77, 20–28.
European Parliament and Council of the European Union. (2001). Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 167, 10–19.
European Parliament and Council of the European Union. (2006). Directive 2006/116/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights (codified version). Official Journal of the European Union, L 372, 12–18.
European Parliament and Council of the European Union. (2009). Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs (codified version). Official Journal of the European Union, L 111, 16–22.
European Parliament and Council of the European Union. (2019). Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market. Official Journal of the European Union, L 130, 92–125.
State Council of the People’s Republic of China. (2013). Regulations for the implementation of the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China (2013 Amendment). Order of the State Council No. 634. Available at: http://www.npc.gov.cn/englishnpc/Law/2007-12/12/content_1383934.htm (accessed on 13.12.2025).
Beijing Film Law Firm v. Baidu Netcom Science & Technology Co. Ltd., Jing 0491 Min Chu No.239 (Beijing Internet Court April 25, 2018).
Beijing Intellectual Property Court. (2020). Automated video screenshot copyright case [Case concerning copyrightability of automatically captured video]. Affirmed by Beijing High People’s Court, 2021. Available at: https://www.proquest.com/docview/2830356599 (accessed on 13.12.2025).
Beijing Internet Court, judgment of 27 November 2023, Li v. Liu (Stable Diffusion AI-generated image case), Jing 0491 Min Chu No. 11279.
CJEU, judgment of 16 July 2009, Infopaq International A/S v. Danske Dagblades Forening, C-5/08, ECLI:EU:C:2009:465.
CJEU, judgment of 1 December 2011, Painer v. Standard Verlags GmbH and Others, C-145/10, ECLI:EU:C:2011:798.
CJEU, judgment of 1 March 2012, Football Dataco Ltd and Others v. Yahoo! UK Ltd and Others, C-604/10, ECLI:EU:C:2012:115.
CJEU, judgment of 2 May 2012, SAS Institute Inc. v. World Programming Ltd, C-406/10, ECLI:EU:C:2012:259.
CJEU, judgment of 13 November 2018, Levola Hengelo BV v. Smilde Foods BV, C-310/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:899.
CJEU, judgment of 29 July 2019, Funke Medien NRW GmbH v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, C-469/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:623.
CJEU, judgment of 12 September 2019, Cofemel – Sociedade de Vestuário SA v. G-Star Raw CV, C-683/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:721.
CJEU, judgment of 11 June 2020, SI and Brompton Bicycle Ltd v. Chedech/Get2Get, C-833/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:461.
Nanshan District People’s Court (Shenzhen), judgment of 24 December 2019, Shenzhen Tencent v. Shanghai Yingxun, Yue 0305 Min Chu No. 14010.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Bratislava Law Review
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The Author(s) transfers copyright to the Article to the Publisher of the Journal by the Licence Agreement.
The Author(s) retains rights specified in the Licence Agreement.
The readers may read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of all of the Article of the Journal and use them for any other lawful purpose under specified Creative Commons Licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
