Copyright

Beijing Internet Court: AI Face-Swapped Short Drama Infringed a Well-Known Actor’s Portrait Right (Judgment of 2026)

Beijing Internet Court: AI Face-Swapped Short Drama Infringed a Well-Known Actor’s Portrait Right (Judgment of 2026)By •

Mengchun’s Comments This case addresses a new type of personality-rights dispute arising from the use of AI face-swapping technology in short-form video content. The Beijing Internet Court focused first on identifiability. The court held that an AI-generated or AI-modified image does not need to be identical to a person’s actual appearance. If the general public or a relevant group can […]

Beijing Internet Court: AI Face-Swapped Short Drama Infringed a Well-Known Actor’s Portrait Right (Judgment of 2026) More »

Changsha Court: A Structured Approach to Assessing the Copyrightability of AI-Generated Content in China (Judgment of August 5, 2026)

Changsha Court: A Structured Approach to Assessing the Copyrightability of AI-Generated Content in China (Judgment of August 5, 2026)By •

Mengchun’s Comments This case provides a more structured approach to assessing the copyrightability of AI-generated content in China. The court divided the creation process into three stages: pre-generation conception, generation control, and post-generation editing. It then developed a three-part test for assessing originality at the generation-control stage. Compared with the earlier Zhangjiagang Court decision, this case takes the analysis a

Changsha Court: A Structured Approach to Assessing the Copyrightability of AI-Generated Content in China (Judgment of August 5, 2026) More »

Shanghai IP Court Further Clarifies the Boundaries of AI Platforms’ Duty of Care for Copyright Infringement (Judgment of April 29, 2026)

Shanghai IP Court Further Clarifies the Boundaries of AI Platforms’ Duty of Care for Copyright Infringement (Judgment of April 29, 2026)By •

Mengchun’s Comments In the first Chinese case involving copyright infringement conducted through a generative AI platform, the Hangzhou Internet Court held that the AI platform provider could be held liable for assisting infringement. The court emphasized that the platform’s fault should be assessed by considering factors including the nature of the service, the popularity of the work, the obviousness of

Shanghai IP Court Further Clarifies the Boundaries of AI Platforms’ Duty of Care for Copyright Infringement (Judgment of April 29, 2026) More »

Guangzhou Internet Court: AI Detection Reports Alone Cannot Establish That an Illustration Was AI-Generated (Judgment of 2026)

Guangzhou Internet Court: AI Detection Reports Alone Cannot Establish That an Illustration Was AI-Generated (Judgment of 2026)By •

The Guangzhou Internet Court held that AI detection reports may be admitted as evidence. However, because the underlying detection standards, algorithms, and methodologies remain largely undisclosed, such reports have only limited probative value and cannot, by themselves, establish that an image was AI-generated. Instead, AI detection reports must be corroborated by other evidence before a court may conclude that a disputed image is highly likely to have been generated by AI.

Guangzhou Internet Court: AI Detection Reports Alone Cannot Establish That an Illustration Was AI-Generated (Judgment of 2026) More »

10 Practical Takeaways from the SPC’s 2025 Typical IP Cases (Part II)

10 Practical Takeaways from the SPC’s 2025 Typical IP Cases (Part II)By •

In Part I, we discussed five cases involving trademark distinctiveness, semiconductor patents, punitive damages, trade secret protection, and malicious employee poaching. This article highlights five additional cases concerning data scraping, anti-counterfeiting enforcement, online commercial defamation, platform liability, and bad-faith trademark filings.

10 Practical Takeaways from the SPC’s 2025 Typical IP Cases (Part II) More »

10 Practical Takeaways from the SPC’s 2025 Typical IP Cases (Part I)

10 Practical Takeaways from the SPC’s 2025 Typical IP Cases (Part I)By •

On April 20, 2026, the Supreme People’s Court of China released its 2025 Typical Intellectual Property Cases. The selected cases cover a broad range of issues, including trademark law, patent litigation, trade secret protection, unfair competition, data rights, platform liability, and anti-counterfeiting enforcement. This article highlights ten practical takeaways that may be relevant to brand owners, technology companies, platform operators, and IP practitioners following developments in Chinese intellectual property law.

10 Practical Takeaways from the SPC’s 2025 Typical IP Cases (Part I) More »

China IP & AI Quarterly Update — Q1 2026: Key Trends and Practical Considerations

China IP & AI Quarterly Update — Q1 2026: Key Trends and Practical ConsiderationsBy •

Executive Takeaways: China continues strengthening scrutiny over trademark filings, misleading branding practices, and trademark enforcement; Businesses operating in AI, software, robotics, SaaS, and digital services sectors should reassess trademark coverage under the updated Nice Classification system.

China IP & AI Quarterly Update — Q1 2026: Key Trends and Practical Considerations More »

Supreme People’s Court: Prima Facie Proof of Software Copyright Ownership and Burden Shifting in Infringement Cases (Judgment of December 26, 2025)

Supreme People’s Court: Prima Facie Proof of Software Copyright Ownership and Burden Shifting in Infringement Cases (Judgment of December 26, 2025)By •

For companies enforcing software copyrights in China: Courts do not require a complete and flawless record of the entire development process. A combination of a registration certificate, contracts, and version control records is generally sufficient to meet the evidentiary threshold.

Supreme People’s Court: Prima Facie Proof of Software Copyright Ownership and Burden Shifting in Infringement Cases (Judgment of December 26, 2025) More »

Scroll to Top