PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 3, 2021China and WTO Review12 citationsOpen Access

Artificial Intelligence Cases in China: Feilin v. Baidu and Tencent Shenzhen v. Shanghai Yingxin

JLJu Yoen Lee

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

In 2019, two court rulings in China on the issue of copyrightability of AI creations received international attention. It was reported that in Feilin v. Baidu, known as the first AI case, the Beijing Internet Court denied copyright of AI creations, whereas the Shenzhen Nanshan District People's Court acknowledged copyright of AI creations in the Tencent Dreamwriter case. The two cases, however, were quite similar, as they acknowledged copyright of AIassisted, not AI-generated, written works and recognized these works as a work of a legal entity. The difference between the two judgments is that the Beijing Internet Court regarded originality as an independent requirement and judged it according to the objective standard, whereas the Shenzhen Nanshan District People's Court regarded human creation as part of the requirement of originality. In this sense, it was the Beijing Internet Court that actually made the more favorable judgment on an AI-generated work.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Ju Yoen Lee (2021) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a1560fa0c3a39952e9f6b99https://doi.org/10.14330/cwr.2021.7.1.11
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1The sentimental fools and the fictitious authors: rethinking the copyright issues of AI-generated contents in China2019 · 36 citations
  2. 2Beijing Internet Court denies copyright to works created solely by artificial intelligence2019 · 12 citations