Chinese courts decide the question case by case, and the Supreme People's Court has issued neither a judicial interpretation nor a guiding case on it. Even so, a reasonably consistent line has emerged.
A user who types in a subject or a generic prompt, without shaping the form, color, composition or lighting of the image in any identifiable way, has not contributed enough creatively for the result to count as a work. A copyright registration certificate cannot paper over that gap — the court will still look behind it and assess originality for itself (Hangzhou Internet Court, (2025) Zhe 0192 Min Chu No. 17573).
The position changes where the user designs the subject and how it is presented, controls composition through parameters, and then adjusts and corrects the output — choices that reflect aesthetic judgment and individual expression. Work produced that way can qualify as a work of fine art and be protected (Beijing Internet Court, (2023) Jing 0491 Min Chu No. 11279).
Evidence. Where there are no contemporaneous records of the process, and the sequence of generation and revision cannot be reconstructed, the creator may be unable to show a sufficient original contribution to the output — in which case it may not be recognized as a work at all (Suzhou Intermediate People's Court, (2025) Su 05 Min Zhong No. 4840).
Image-to-image output built on someone else's artwork. At least one court has treated this as an infringing reproduction and convicted the defendant of copyright infringement under the Criminal Law (Tongzhou District People's Court, Beijing, (2025) Jing 0112 Xing Chu No. 558).
