Judging creativity in AI-generated art: Chinese and Western perspectives on originality in copyright law
-
Célia Matias
Célia Matias holds a PhD in law from the University of Hong Kong and currently serves as an assistant professor at the University of Macau. Her research focuses on the intersection of law and technology, intellectual property law and jurisprudence.
and
Jingyi Chen
Jingyi Chen holds an LLM from the Chinese University of Hong Kong. She is currently a PhD student at the University of Macau. Her research focuses on intellectual property law and technology.
Abstract
The desire to translate mental images into tangible forms has been intrinsic to human civilisation since its inception and has evolved through various mediums. The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) image generators has complicated the relationship between creative ideas and their expression, introducing a third-party intermediary labelled “AI” that blurs traditional distinctions between creator and tool. Legal decisions on whether AI-generated outputs merit copyright protection have rekindled discussions on originality, with courts grappling over the threshold of creativity required for protection. Initial rulings have taken divergent paths; some disconnect human creativity from AI output, while others acknowledge AI’s potential for novel creative expression, as exemplified by the Li v Liu decision in the Beijing Internet Court. This article contextualises and analyses this decision, sparking broader debates on the interplay between human creativity and AI, the arguments of incentive and justice, and the necessity of re-evaluating copyright frameworks to accommodate AI’s role. It proposes a nuanced understanding of collaboration that recognises AI’s contributions, allowing for distinctions between levels of human creativity and forms of artistic expression.
About the authors
Célia Matias holds a PhD in law from the University of Hong Kong and currently serves as an assistant professor at the University of Macau. Her research focuses on the intersection of law and technology, intellectual property law and jurisprudence.
Jingyi Chen holds an LLM from the Chinese University of Hong Kong. She is currently a PhD student at the University of Macau. Her research focuses on intellectual property law and technology.
References
Bender, Emily M, Angelina McMillan-Major, Timnit Gebru & Shmargaret Shmitchell. 2021. On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? In Conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency (FAccT ’21), Virtual Event, Canada. New York, NY, USA: ACM 3–10 March 2021.10.1145/3442188.3445922Search in Google Scholar
Bently, Lionel & Brad Sherman. 2014. Intellectual property law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/he/9780199645558.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Bercimuelle-Chamot, Kevin. 2024. To be protected a t-shirt design must be original and/or have individual character, recalls French court. The IPKat. https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/01/to-be-protected-t-shirt-design-must-be.html (accessed 29 April 2024).Search in Google Scholar
Braga, Matthew. 2016. The Verbasizer was David Bowie’s 1995 lyric-writing Mac app. Vice. https://www.vice.com/en/article/xygxpn/the-verbasizer-was-david-bowies-1995-lyric-writing-mac-app (accessed 29 April 2024).Search in Google Scholar
Brauneis, Robert. 2020. Understanding copyright’s first encounter with the fine arts: A look at the legislative history of the Copyright Act of 1870. Case Western Reserve Law Review 71(2). 585–625.Search in Google Scholar
Brumm, Adam, Oktaviana Adhi Agus, Burhan Basran, Budianto Hakim, Rustan Lebe, Jian-xin Zhao, Priyatno Hadi Sulistyarto, Marlon Ririmasse, Shinatria Adhityatama, Iwan Sumantri & Maxime Aubert. 2021. Oldest cave art found in Sulawesi. Science Advances 7. 3. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abd4648.Search in Google Scholar
Burro, Alessandro. 2020. Fictio iuris and AI: How legal fiction could temporarily fix AI’s autonomously generated work issues on copyright. Media Laws. https://www.medialaws.eu/fictio-iuris-and-ai-how-legal-fiction-could-temporarily-fix-ais-autonomously-generated-work-issues-on-copyright/ (accessed 14 July 2024).Search in Google Scholar
Cerri, Alessandro. 2024. Czech court finds that AI tool DALL-E cannot be the author of a copyright work. The IPKat. https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/04/czech-court-finds-that-ai-tool-dall-e.html (accessed 29 April 2024).Search in Google Scholar
Cheng, Le & Xiuli Liu. 2023. From principles to practices: The intertextual interaction between AI ethical and legal discourses. International Journal of Legal Discourse 8(1). 31–52. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2023-2001.Search in Google Scholar
Cheng, Le & Xiuli Liu. 2024. Unravelling power of the unseen: Towards an interdisciplinary synthesis of generative AI regulation. International Journal of Digital Law and Governance 1(1). 29–51. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijdlg-2024-0008.Search in Google Scholar
Chused, Richard. 2019. Temporary and conceptual art: Property and copyright, hopes and prayers. Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal 45(2). 1–68.Search in Google Scholar
Cuntz, Alexander, Carsten Fink & Hansueli Stamm. 2024. Artificial intelligence and intellectual property: An economic perspective. WIPO Economic Research Working Paper 77. 1–33. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4757971.Search in Google Scholar
Diehl, Travis. 2024. A.I. Art that’s more than a gimmick? Meet AARON. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/15/arts/design/aaron-ai-whitney.html (accessed 29 April 2024).Search in Google Scholar
Drahos, Peter. 1996. A philosophy of intellectual property. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Elgammal, Ahmed. 2018. What the art world is failing to grasp about Christie’s AI portrait coup. Artsy. https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-art-failing-grasp-christies-ai-portrait-coup (accessed 29 April 2024).Search in Google Scholar
Flynn, Eilionóir & Anna Arstein-Kerslake. 2014. Legislating personhood: Realising the right to support in exercising legal capacity. International Journal of Law 10(1). 81–104. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1744552313000384.Search in Google Scholar
Friedmann, Danny. 2024. Creation and generation copyright standards (Pre-Publication Draft). NYU JIPEL. 1–60.10.2139/ssrn.4770924Search in Google Scholar
Fuller, Lon L. 1967. Legal fictions. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Gal, Rinon, Yuval Alaluf, Yuval Atzamon, Or Patashnik, Amit H. Bermano, Gal Chechik & Daniel Cohen-Or. 2022. An image is worth one word: Personalizing text-to-image generation using textual inversion. https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.01618 (accessed 29 April 2024).Search in Google Scholar
Goenaga, Mikel Arbiza. 2020. A critique of contemporary artificial intelligence art: Who is Edmond de Belamy? AusArt 8(1). 49–64.10.1387/ausart.21490Search in Google Scholar
He, Tianxiang. 2024. AI originality revisited: Can we prompt copyright over AI-generated pictures? GRUR International 73(4). 299–307. https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikae024.Search in Google Scholar
Ho, Jonathan, Ajay Jain & Pieter Abbeel. 2020. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33. 6840–6851.Search in Google Scholar
Hugenholtz, P. Bernt & João Pedro Quintais. 2021. Copyright and artificial creation: does EU copyright law protect AI-assisted output? IIC-International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 52(9). 1190–1216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-021-01115-0.Search in Google Scholar
Hughes, Justin. 2012. The photographer’s copyright photograph as art, photograph as database. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 25(2). 339–428.Search in Google Scholar
Joshi, Deven. 2023. Understanding image generation with diffusion. Medium. https://medium.com/@dev.n/understanding-image-generation-with-diffusion-78eea7e7d6f8 (accessed 29 April 2024).Search in Google Scholar
Kiristeller, Paul Oskar. 1983. “Creativity” and “Tradition”. Journal of the History of Ideas 44(1). 105–113.10.2307/2709307Search in Google Scholar
Lemley, Mark A. 2024. How generative AI turns copyright upside down. Colum Science & Technology Law Review 25. 190–212. https://doi.org/10.52214/stlr.v25i2.12761.Search in Google Scholar
Li, Hang. 2023. The identification and attribution of rights of artificial intelligence generated content from the perspective of copyright. Entertainment Law Insider 4. 12–20.Search in Google Scholar
Li, Yang & Xiaoyu Li. 2018. Discussion on the copyright of artificial intelligence generated products from the perspective of Kant’s philosophy. Journal of Law 39(9). 43–54.Search in Google Scholar
Liang, Zhiwen. 2017. On the legal protection of AI creations. Legal Science (Journal of Northwest University of Political Science and Law) 35(5). 156–165.Search in Google Scholar
Liu, Qiang. 2020. Research on legal issues of intellectual property rights in artificial intelligence. Beijing: Beijing China Law Press.Search in Google Scholar
Liu, Tieguang. 2019. The criterion for the adjustment of the criteria for judging the originality of the work and the path to be observed—taking the determination of the originality of the live broadcast of sports events as an example. Journal of Soochow University (Law Edition) 6(4). 13–23.Search in Google Scholar
Lo, Leo S. 2023. The art and science of prompt engineering: A new literacy in the information age. Internet Reference Services Quarterly 27(4). 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/10875301.2023.2227621.Search in Google Scholar
Luft, Constantin. 2024. Whats in a name? Legal fictions and philosophical fictionalism. Law & Literature. 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/1535685x.2024.2354043.Search in Google Scholar
Marchant, Jo. 2016. A journey to the oldest cave paintings in the world. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/journey-oldest-cave-paintings-world-180957685/ (accessed 29 April 2024).Search in Google Scholar
Mazzone, Marian & Ahmed Elgammal. 2019. Art, creativity, and the potential of artificial intelligence. Arts 8(1). 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3390/arts8010026.Search in Google Scholar
McKinsey & Company. 2024. What is prompt engineering? Mckinsey. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/mckinsey-explainers/what-is-prompt-engineering (accessed 29 April 2024).Search in Google Scholar
Neuwirth, Rostam. 2022. Future law, the power of prediction, and the disappearance of time. Law, Technology and Humans 4(2). 38–59. https://doi.org/10.5204/lthj.2376.Search in Google Scholar
Neuwirth, Rostam. 2023. Equality in view of political correctness, cancel culture and other oxymora. International Journal of Legal Discourse 8(1). 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2023-2003.Search in Google Scholar
Neuwirth, Rostam. 2024. The global institutional governance of AI: A four-dimensional perspective. International Journal of Digital Law and Governance 1(1). 113–153. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijdlg-2024-0004.Search in Google Scholar
Paul, Christiane. 2023. Digital art. New York: Thames & Hudson.Search in Google Scholar
Patzer, Lisa Marie. 2020. Cory Archangel: A case study of contemporary avant-garde strategy. Lisa Marie Patzer. https://lisamariepatzer.com/cory-arcangel-a-case-study-of-contemporary-avant-garde-strategy/ (accessed 12 July 2024).Search in Google Scholar
Popli, Nik. 2023. The AI job that pays up to $335K – and you don’t need a computer engineering background. Time. https://time.com/6272103/ai-prompt-engineer-job/ (accessed 29 April 2024).Search in Google Scholar
Rachum-Twaig, Omri. 2018. Copyright law and derivative works: Regulating creativity. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780429439247Search in Google Scholar
Rosati, Eleanora. 2018. Why originality in copyright is not and should not be a meaningless requirement. Journal of Intellectual Law & Practice 13(8). 597–598. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpy084.Search in Google Scholar
Rosati, Eleanora. 2023. Originality in copyright law: An objective test without any artistic merit requirement, recalls Arnold LJ. The IPKat. https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/11/originality-in-copyright-law-objective.html (accessed 29 April 2024).Search in Google Scholar
Rosati, Eleanora. 2024. From conceptual art to AI: On the Druet/ Cattelan dispute and authorship of works made by someone other than the “author”. The IPKat. https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/06/from-conceptual-art-to-ai-on.html (accessed 12 June 2024).Search in Google Scholar
Said, Zahr K. 2016. Copyright’s illogical exclusion of conceptual art. Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 39. 335–354.10.2139/ssrn.2784349Search in Google Scholar
Sarkar, Advait. 2023. Enough with “human-AI collaboration”. In CHI Conference on human Factors in computing systems, 1–8 April 2023. New York: Association for Computer Machinery.10.1145/3544549.3582735Search in Google Scholar
Supreme People’s Court. 2020. Several issues concerning the application of law to the trial of cases involving civil disputes over copyright (2020 Amendment).Search in Google Scholar
Thompson-Jones, Katherine & Shelby Moser. 2024. The philosophy of digital art. In Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), The standford encyclopedia of philosophy (summer 2024 edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2024/entries/digital-art/ (accessed 12 July 2024).Search in Google Scholar
Van Gompel, Stef & Erlend Lavik. 2013. Quality, merit, aesthetics and purpose: An inquiry into EU copyright law’s eschewal of other criteria than originality. Revue Internationale du Droit D’Auteur 236. 100–295.Search in Google Scholar
Waedler, Pau. 2020. Beyond “Ganism”: AI art as conceptual art. CIAC. http://ciac.ca/en/ai-ciac-mtl-03-01/ (accessed 29 April 2024).Search in Google Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy. 1994. Vagueness in law and language: Some philosophical issues. California Law Review 82(3). 509–540. https://doi.org/10.2307/3480971.Search in Google Scholar
World Trade Organization (WTO). 1994. Agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights. https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips_01_e.htm (accessed 01 July 2024).Search in Google Scholar
Wright, Ian. 2023. Is prompt engineering really engineering? Engineering.com. https://www.engineering.com/is-prompt-engineering-really-engineering/ (accessed 29 Aprol 2024).Search in Google Scholar
Wu, Haotian. 2023. The originality and protection strategy of artificial intelligence creations – taking “ChatGPT” as an example. Science and Technology and Law 3. 76–86.Search in Google Scholar
Xie, Lin & Wei Chen. 2019. The deemed author(s) for copyright in artificially generated works. Journal of Law Application 9. 38–47.Search in Google Scholar
Xiong, Qi. 2017. Copyright determination of artificial intelligence-generated content. Intellectual Property 3. 3–8.Search in Google Scholar
Yang, Ling, Zhilong Zhang, Yang Song, Shenda Hong, Runsheng Xu, Zhao Yue, Wentao Zhang, Bin Cui & Ming-Hsuan Yang. 2023. Diffusion models: A comprehensive survey of methods and applications. ACM Computing Surveys 56(4). Article 105. https://doi.org/10.1145/3626235.Search in Google Scholar
Official sites (last accessed for verification)
European countries. 1886. Berne convention for the protection of literary and artistic works. https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/ (accessed 01 July 2024).Search in Google Scholar
Parliament of Great Britain. 1710. Statute of Anne. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Statute-of-Anne (accessed 11 July 2024).Search in Google Scholar
Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress. 2020. Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China (2020 amendment). https://www.pkulaw.com/en_law/a3b3a54bea64f090bdfb.html (accessed 01 July 2024).Search in Google Scholar
State Council. 2013. Regulation for the implementation of the copyright law of the People’s Republic of China (2013 revision). https://www.pkulaw.com/en_law/9cf4d322129fe9d6bdfb.html (accessed 01 July 2024).Search in Google Scholar
© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- Ethical considerations related to personal data collection and reuse: trust and transparency in language and speech technologies
- Human dignity and patient’s interests above all: assisted dying in Switzerland and the UK
- Unveiling human rights protection in China from the perspective of criminal procedure law
- Navigating power and impoliteness in criminal court discourse
- Liability regulation on short video platforms: balancing freedom of expression and copyright protection
- Judging creativity in AI-generated art: Chinese and Western perspectives on originality in copyright law
- Stance expressions in legal academic discourse: A corpus-based analysis of legal journals
- Discoursing Chinese Maritime Law’s structure and reform
- Toward “climate-driven”: innovation on legislation of modern marine fisheries law under era of blue carbon
- Book Reviews
- Jean-Claude Gémar: The Pioneer and Vanguard of Jurilinguistics
- The Search Between Ideal and Reality: A Review of Professor Pinghua Sun’s Historic Achievement of a Common Standard: Pengchun Chang and The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- Ethical considerations related to personal data collection and reuse: trust and transparency in language and speech technologies
- Human dignity and patient’s interests above all: assisted dying in Switzerland and the UK
- Unveiling human rights protection in China from the perspective of criminal procedure law
- Navigating power and impoliteness in criminal court discourse
- Liability regulation on short video platforms: balancing freedom of expression and copyright protection
- Judging creativity in AI-generated art: Chinese and Western perspectives on originality in copyright law
- Stance expressions in legal academic discourse: A corpus-based analysis of legal journals
- Discoursing Chinese Maritime Law’s structure and reform
- Toward “climate-driven”: innovation on legislation of modern marine fisheries law under era of blue carbon
- Book Reviews
- Jean-Claude Gémar: The Pioneer and Vanguard of Jurilinguistics
- The Search Between Ideal and Reality: A Review of Professor Pinghua Sun’s Historic Achievement of a Common Standard: Pengchun Chang and The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
