Chinese and English archive texts include AI-assisted translations, not independently human-reviewed. Consult the original-language sources alongside them.
The court's case account states that Zhou did not submit the images' original generation records. Retrospective descriptions and simulations did not establish creative labour at the time of original generation. All claims were dismissed at first instance; the appeal was dismissed and the original judgment upheld.
What changed
The court's case account states that Zhou did not submit the images' original generation records. Retrospective descriptions and simulations did not establish creative labour at the time of original generation. All claims were dismissed at first instance; the appeal was dismissed and the original judgment upheld.
This is the publication date, not a precise judgment date. The defendant's claim of joint conception remains a defence argument. Insufficient evidence does not establish that all AI images lack copyright, nor can the judgment be summarised as a ban on AI use.
Editorial research question
Editorial interpretation: institutional context for proving the creative process in AI-assisted design, particularly the evidentiary distinction between retrospective simulations and contemporaneous generation records.
This is an editorial interpretation or question, separate from factual statements.
Evidence & sources
The court's case account states that Zhou did not submit the images' original generation records. Retrospective descriptions and simulations did not establish creative labour at the time of original generation. All claims were dismissed at first instance; the appeal was dismissed and the original judgment upheld.
SRC-0216Lines 23–65: source date, facts of Zhou's case, evidentiary analysis, results at both instances and the judge's explanation.
Beijing Internet Court / republished by Intellectual Property Finance (知产财经) · ZH · 2025-09-16
Case
Related documents
DOC-0204AI text-to-image copyright claimed without generation records demonstrating intellectual contribution; court dismisses for insufficient evidenceCite this record
ANTI-AI ARCHIVE. “Beijing Internet Court presents the crystal cat pendant copyright evidence case.” evt-0215. Include this page’s URL and your access date when citing.