Author(s)

ShuJie Si

Affiliation(s)

School of Law, University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing 102488, China.

Corresponding Author

ShuJie Si

ABSTRACT

When studying the copyrightability of AIGC, we should focus on analyzing authorship and originality. First, under the backdrop of new technologies, the core approach of defining authorship based on the actual creator remains unchanged, similar to traditional creative models. The significance of establishing authorship in copyright law lies in assessing the creator's causal responsibility for the creative expression produced. Consequently, the focus shifts to how causal relationships can explain the impact of pre- and mid-creative phase actions on authorship. Second, within China's legal practice, originality is typically decomposed into two dimensions—“independence” and “creativity”—for interpretation and definition. Firstly, “independence” represents the independence of the creative process, signifying a work independently completed by the author and originating from their labor, rather than plagiarized, altered, or appropriated from others. Secondly, “originality” denotes creativity, meaning the work must embody the author's intellectual creation and individual expression, encompassing a minimum level of creative labor.

KEYWORDS

Generative AI; AIGC copyrightability; Originality; Copyright

CITE THIS PAPER

ShuJie Si. The copyrightability of AIGC. World Journal of Sociology and Law. 2026, 4(1): 13-17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.61784/wjsl3031.

REFERENCES

[1] Ge ZHU, Guobin CUI, Qian WANG, et al. Is AI-generated content (AIGC) protected under copyright law? China Law Review, 2024, 03, 1-28.

[2] Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China. Art. 11, para. 1, 2020 amendment.

[3] Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China. Art. 11, paras. 2 and 3, 2020 amendment.

[4] Balganesh S. Causing Copyright. Colum. L. Rev., 2017, 117, 1.

[5] Toney v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 406 F.3d 905, 910 (7th Cir. 2005).

[6] Aalmuhammed v. Lee, 202 F.3d 1227, 1232 (9th Cir. 2000).

[7] Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53, 61 (1884).

[8] Thomson v. Larson, 147 F.3d 195, 202 (2nd Cir. 1998).

[9] Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China. Art. 3, 2020 amendment.

[10] Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 359 (1991).

[11] Lianyong ZHANG, Sandan LOU, Yu FENG et al. 2024 Beijing Internet Court Copyright Benchmark Cases and Analysis.China Copyright, 2025, 04, 116-125.

[12] Guobin CUI. A Review of Judicial Cases on the Copyrightability of AI-Generated Works. Digital Rule of Law, 2025, 02, 43-55.

[13] Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China. Art. 13, 2020 amendment.