“Prompt + AI” ≠ Work
On April 17, 2025, the Zhangjiagang People’s Court delivered a new judgment addressing the copyrightability of AI-generated images in China, seeking to clarify the legal boundaries of “originality” when images are shaped more by algorithms than by artists.
🍿 What Happened?
The plaintiff created three visually striking chair designs, shaped like butterflies, using the AI image generator Midjourney. The process began with prompts such as: “children’s chair with jelly texture, shape of cute pink butterfly, glass texture, light background.” Midjourney produced an initial draft, which was lightly edited in the Xingtu App by overlaying butterfly stickers from its materials library. This version was then re-submitted to the AI for further optimisation. After several rounds of random generation and selection — a process the court described as “blind box” style — the plaintiff chose a final image.
The court, however, found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated sufficient intellectual involvement in the creation process. Specifically, the plaintiff failed to provide original records — such as screenshots or workflows — that could prove substantial creative input in areas like layout, perspective, composition, or colour. Without such evidence, the plaintiff’s modifications appeared superficial and lacked proof of individualised choices.
Moreover, due to the random nature of Midjourney's generation process, the plaintiff admitted being unable to reproduce the same image. This lack of reproducibility further weakened the claim that the final work was the result of intentional, human-led creation. Based on this, the court found that the image did not meet the legal criteria to be considered a "work" under Chinese Copyright Law.
👀 Legal Signal
In the eyes of the court, "prompt + AI" is not enough. Content produced primarily by AI in response to simple prompts may be visually compelling, but it lacks the originality required for copyright protection. What matters is not just the idea behind the image, but the demonstrable expression of human creativity.
*This article was contributed by Claire Jiang Xinyan, who spoke about this case during the ‘Big Tech Disputes - Now and the Future’ panel at the 2025 Inter-Pacific Bar Association (IPBA) Conference. We’re thrilled to feature her take on this fascinating matter in our newsletter!