The discourse surrounding the standard of originality has long been divided into two schools of thought: subjectivism and objectivism. Subjectivism emphasizes the participation of natural persons in the creative process, whereas objectivism focuses on the distinctiveness of a work's expression. Through a historical examination of the originality standard and a comparative analysis of judicial practices across multiple jurisdictions, it becomes evident that "anthropocentrism" imposes functional constraints on the copyright system and that a mechanistic application of objectivism may result in ethical risks. Neither school of thought can independently address the originality issues arising from AI-generated content. Therefore, drawing on the integrative tendencies demonstrated in current Chinese judicial practice, this paper advocates for a primarily objectivist judgment framework, supplemented by elements of subjectivism. The proposed framework bases its evaluation on the distinctiveness of the result and the novelty of expression, while incorporating a human intervention factor to introduce value judgments rooted in subjectivism. This approach not only enables the copyright system to fulfill its institutional functions and social values simultaneously, but also offers insights for the collaborative global governance of copyright.
Jie Wang (Fri,) studied this question.