Public Beta · Not legal advice
← Interactive map

China · CN-002

Tencent Dreamwriter v Shanghai Yingxun

HELDShenzhen Nanshan District People's Court(2019) Yue 0305 Min Chu 14010Final
AuthorshipCopyrightabilityHuman Creative ContributionOriginality

Key holding or allegation

The court recognised protection based on the human-organised process of selection, analysis, judgment and arrangement underlying the generated article.

Why it matters

Early direct AI-assisted authorship authority showing protection may depend on identifiable human creative organisation.

Facts

A financial article was generated through Tencent's automated writing system and copied by the defendant.

Issues before the court

Whether the automated article qualified for copyright protection in light of the organised human production process.

What the court did not decide

Does not establish that every machine-generated text is copyrightable or that the AI system is an author.

Procedural timeline

2019

Shenzhen Nanshan District People's Court
Merits judgment: Automated financial article protected based on the organised human selection, analysis, judgment and arrangement underlying the production process.

HELD