PANews reported on November 7th that the Huangpu District People's Court of Shanghai recently issued a first-instance judgment in a "copyright infringement case involving AI prompts." The court ruled that the six sets of prompts in question were merely a list of instructions regarding artistic style, main elements, and material details, lacking originality in expression, and therefore did not constitute "works" under copyright law. The plaintiff's claims for reproduction, distribution, online dissemination, and attribution were thus dismissed. The court pointed out that the prompts were closer to ideas and creative concepts, and did not reflect personalized intellectual input.PANews reported on November 7th that the Huangpu District People's Court of Shanghai recently issued a first-instance judgment in a "copyright infringement case involving AI prompts." The court ruled that the six sets of prompts in question were merely a list of instructions regarding artistic style, main elements, and material details, lacking originality in expression, and therefore did not constitute "works" under copyright law. The plaintiff's claims for reproduction, distribution, online dissemination, and attribution were thus dismissed. The court pointed out that the prompts were closer to ideas and creative concepts, and did not reflect personalized intellectual input.

In Shanghai's first copyright case concerning AI-generated prompts, the court ruled in the first instance that the prompts did not constitute works, and the plaintiff lost the case.

2025/11/07 14:51

PANews reported on November 7th that the Huangpu District People's Court of Shanghai recently issued a first-instance judgment in a "copyright infringement case involving AI prompts." The court ruled that the six sets of prompts in question were merely a list of instructions regarding artistic style, main elements, and material details, lacking originality in expression, and therefore did not constitute "works" under copyright law. The plaintiff's claims for reproduction, distribution, online dissemination, and attribution were thus dismissed. The court pointed out that the prompts were closer to ideas and creative concepts, and did not reflect personalized intellectual input.

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.