In the past years, several courts have ruled that AI-generated content may be copyrighted as long as there is sufffcient human contribution
A court has recently ruled that merely inputting prompts into an AI system does not meet this threshold
While AI-generated content might qualify for copyright protection, users must prove substantial personal intellectual contribution beyond simple prompt engineering
Since 2022, when AI tools ffrst started trending around the world, the legal world has been pondering whether AI-generated content may be copyrighted. In 2023 the Beijing Internet Court made a ffrst historic judgment, conffrming that such work can be copyrighted as long as the person using the AI tool put in enough efforts to shape the work using different prompts and parameters. Afterwards, several courts sided with the Beijing Internet Court, but few words were said on the thresholds or tests of human efforts for AI-generated work to be copyrightable.
Recently, however, a Chinese court ruled differently. For the first time, it was found that
images generated by using AI tools may not qualify for copyright protection when the
generation process is too simple and straightforward. The judgment, issued by the
People's Court of Zhangjiagang City, Jiangsu Province, in March 2025, marks a crucial
turning point in how courts may evaluate AI-generated works.
Background
This groundbreaking case centred on a dispute between a designer and several companies over alleged copyright infringement of AI-generated butterffy chair designs. The plaintiff had created images of a ‘Fantasy Wings Transparent Art Chair’ using Midjourney and published them on RedNote (a trending social media platform) in August 2023. When the defendants later produced and marketed similar butterffy-themed chairs, the plaintiff sued for copyright infringement and unfair competition, claiming damages.
Decision
All claims were dismissed, with the court essentially ffnding that the images of the ‘Fantasy Wings Transparent Art Chair’ did not qualify as copyrighted work.
The court emphasised that qualifying as a "work" under copyright law requires demonstrable original intellectual creation. The judges determined that merely inputting prompts into an AI system, regardless of the sophistication of the output, does not meet this threshold. This principle could signiffcantly impact creators who rely primarily on AI tools with minimal human intervention.
The court also established that AI-generated content might potentially qualify for copyright protection, but only where users can prove substantial personal intellectual contribution beyond simple prompt engineering. This standard sets a higher bar for creators seeking to protect AI-generated works. It suggests that creators must demonstrate meaningful creative input throughout the generation process, not just in the initial prompt phase.
Further, the evidentiary requirements outlined in the decision are particularly noteworthy. The plaintiff's inability to provide original workffow records for the speciffc images in dispute signiffcantly weakened her claim. The court acknowledged the inherent challenge in AI-generated content: the random and non-repeatable nature of AI generation makes it impossible to reproduce exact images, even with identical prompts. This characteristic of AI systems poses unique challenges for copyright protection.
Implications
For practitioners and creators, the ruling necessitates a more rigorous approach to documenting the creative process when working with AI tools. The decision suggests thatcreators should maintain comprehensive records of their creative inputs, design choices and modiffcations throughout the AI generation process. Simple prompt engineering, no matter how clever, may not be sufffcient to establish copyright protection.
The implications of this ruling may extend beyond China's borders. As courts worldwide grapple with questions of AI authorship and creativity, this decision provides a framework for evaluating the copyrightability of AI-generated works. The emphasis on substantial human creative input, rather than technological sophistication, could inffuence how other jurisdictions approach similar cases.
The judgment also highlights the growing tension between traditional copyright concepts and emerging AI technologies. As AI systems become more sophisticated, the line between human and machine creativity becomes increasingly blurred. This ruling suggests that courts may continue to prioritise demonstrable human creative input when determining copyright protection.
For businesses and creators using AI tools, the decision underscores the importance of developing workffows that incorporate substantial human creative elements. This might include signiffcant pre-prompt conceptual development, careful curation and selection of outputs, and meaningful post-generation modiffcations. The goal is to ensure that the ffnal work reffects genuine human creativity rather than merely skilled use of AI tools.
As AI technology continues to advance, courts and legislators will likely face more complex questions about the intersection of creativity, technology and legal protection. The court's emphasis on human creative input over technological process may well serve as a guidepost for future decisions in this rapidly evolving area of law.
