Claiming Copyright for AI-Generated Images: “Keeping Records of the Process” is Crucial

1. Introduction

As AI-generated images increasingly enter commercial and creative spaces, copyright ownership has become one of the most complex and debated issues in digital law.

A recent judgment by the Beijing Internet Court offers a critical precedent: to claim copyright protection over AI-generated artwork, creators must prove human intellectual input throughout the generation process.

This case—Zhou v. Beijing Technology Co. (2024)—marks one of the most detailed examinations yet of what counts as “original intellectual achievement” under China’s Copyright Law.

2. Case Overview: The “Cat Diamond Pendant” Dispute

In 2023, Zhou, a content creator in the cultural and creative industry, collaborated with a Beijing-based technology firm. During their partnership, Zhou claimed to have used AI painting software to generate an image titled “Cat Diamond Pendant.”

After their cooperation ended, Zhou discovered that the company was still using the image for marketing purposes on multiple platforms. Despite his requests for removal, the firm continued its use, prompting Zhou to file a lawsuit seeking RMB 7,000 in compensation and a public apology.

However, Zhou faced a crucial challenge—he could not provide generation process records or explain the specific steps used to create the image through AI tools.

3. Court Findings: Absence of Proven Human Originality

The Beijing Internet Court ultimately ruled that the AI-generated image did not qualify as a copyrighted work because Zhou failed to prove sufficient human creativity.

The court emphasized that to claim rights over AI-generated content, the claimant must demonstrate their creative contribution—including the input instructions, selection, and modification process—through verifiable evidence.

4. Legal Framework: Interpreting “Intellectual Achievement”

China’s Copyright Law (2021 Amendment) defines “works” as intellectual creations with originality that can be expressed in a tangible form.

In the context of AI-assisted creation, the judgment clarified three critical factors:

The ruling aligns with earlier judicial positions on AI authorship but represents a more refined evidentiary approach, focusing on traceability and human intervention rather than mere output.

5. Evidentiary Standards: What the Court Requires

Presiding Judge Wang Yanjie, Deputy Chief Judge of the Beijing Internet Court’s Case Filing Division, explained in an interview with China Intellectual Property News that AI creators bear the same burden of proof as traditional authors—”whoever asserts must prove.”

However, she emphasized that AI tools significantly lower the threshold for creation, making it vital to distinguish between machine operation and human intellectual labor.

6. Expert Analysis: Toward a Balanced Judicial Standard

Professor Xiong Qi from Huazhong University of Science and Technology noted that this case continues a judicial trend of emphasizing “intellectual input” as the central factor in determining originality.

He pointed out that the ruling encourages creators to adopt documented creative practices, while signaling a prudently inclusive attitude by courts—acknowledging AI’s role in innovation but insisting on rigorous standards for human authorship.

7. Practical Implications

8. Global Context: A Broader Legal Trend

This ruling echoes similar debates worldwide:

The Beijing Internet Court’s decision positions China within a growing international consensus: AI is a tool, not an author—and only when human creativity is evident does copyright protection apply.

9. Conclusion

The “Cat Diamond Pendant” case represents a defining moment for AI copyright law in China. It clarifies that human intellectual input remains the cornerstone of copyright protection, even in the age of generative AI.

For artists, designers, and digital creators, this means one thing: document your creative process. The future of AI art protection lies not in algorithms, but in the traceable record of human creativity behind them.