The landscape of artificial intelligence and intellectual property law continues to evolve at a rapid pace, with courts worldwide grappling with fundamental questions about creativity, authorship, and copyright in the digital age. A groundbreaking decision from China’s Zhangjiagang Court in the Feng vs Dongshan Company case has sent ripples through the global legal community, marking the first time a Chinese court has definitively denied copyright protection to AI-generated images.
This pivotal ruling not only reshapes our understanding of AI copyright law in China but also signals a remarkable convergence with U.S. legal standards on artificial intelligence and intellectual property rights.
Table of Contents
Understanding the Feng vs Dongshan Company Case
The Feng vs Dongshan Company case began when Ms. Feng, a designer, created several AI-generated images using Midjourney, a popular text-to-image AI service, in August 2023. She titled her creation “Wings of Fantasy Artistic Transparent Chair” and used specific prompts including “Children’s chair with jelly texture, shape of cute pink butterfly, glass texture, light background” to generate her designs.
When Feng published these AI-generated images on social media platform Little Red Book, she openly shared her prompts and sought manufacturers interested in licensing her designs. However, the situation took a contentious turn when defendants, including Dongshan Company, began manufacturing and selling chairs substantially similar to Feng’s AI-generated designs without her permission.
The Feng vs Dongshan Company litigation centered on two critical questions that would ultimately reshape AI copyright law in China: whether AI-generated pictures qualify for copyright protection and whether the defendants’ actions constituted infringement.
The Court’s Revolutionary Decision in Feng vs Dongshan Company
On March 19, 2025, the Zhangjiagang Court delivered its landmark ruling in Feng vs Dongshan Company, fundamentally altering the Chinese legal landscape regarding AI-generated content. The court’s decision was unequivocal: AI-generated images lacking sufficient human creative input cannot receive copyright protection under Chinese law.
The court established that for AI-assisted content to qualify for copyright protection, users must demonstrate substantial human creativity and control throughout the generative process. This requires more than simply inputting prompts into an AI system. The Feng vs Dongshan Company ruling emphasized that creators must provide “clear documentation to prove that they have made personalized choices and substantive contributions to the expressive elements in the AI-generated content”.
Critically, in the Feng vs Dongshan Company case, Feng could not reproduce her exact AI-generated images using the same prompts due to Midjourney’s inherent randomness. This inability to control or predict the AI’s output became a decisive factor in the court’s determination that she lacked sufficient creative authorship.
Key Legal Principles Established by Feng vs Dongshan Company
The Feng vs Dongshan Company ruling established several groundbreaking legal principles that will influence future AI copyright cases:
Human Creative Control Standard
The court emphasized that copyright protection requires demonstrable “human creative control” over the AI generation process. Unlike previous Chinese cases that recognized some copyright protection for AI-assisted works, the Feng vs Dongshan Company decision set a higher bar for proving human authorship.
Documentation Requirements
The ruling mandates that AI users must maintain detailed records of their creative process to claim copyright protection. The court noted that because creating specific expressive results through single-round prompts is difficult, comprehensive documentation becomes essential to prove human creative input.
Prompt Copyrightability
The Feng vs Dongshan Company case also addressed whether text prompts themselves can receive copyright protection. The court concluded that simple prompts constitute “merely ideas” rather than expressions of ideas, making them ineligible for copyright protection.
Convergence with U.S. Copyright Standards
Perhaps most significantly, the Feng vs Dongshan Company decision demonstrates remarkable alignment with recent U.S. copyright standards on AI-generated content. This convergence manifests in several key areas:
The emphasis on “human creative control” mirrors principles established by the U.S. Copyright Office and federal courts. Both jurisdictions now focus on whether creators can consistently, predictably, and repeatedly produce the same AI-generated output.
The requirement for documentation echoes the U.S. Copyright Office’s approach in cases like “A Single Piece of American Cheese,” where detailed video evidence of the creation process supported copyright registration.
The determination that simple text prompts are non-copyrightable aligns with U.S. Copyright Office reports stating that basic prompts constitute ideas rather than expressions.
Implications for Creative Industries
The Feng vs Dongshan Company ruling has profound implications for designers, artists, and creative professionals using AI tools. The decision essentially requires creators to transform from passive prompt-writers into active creative directors who must document their iterative refinement process.
For commercial applications, the ruling suggests that businesses cannot simply rely on AI-generated content for intellectual property protection. Instead, they must invest in human creative oversight and comprehensive documentation to establish copyrightable works.
The furniture design industry, specifically highlighted in Feng vs Dongshan Company, now faces particular challenges in protecting AI-assisted designs without clear evidence of human creative control.
Global Legal Landscape and Future Trends
The Feng vs Dongshan Company decision represents a significant shift in Chinese jurisprudence, moving away from earlier cases that recognized copyright protection for AI-generated works. This change aligns China more closely with international standards while potentially influencing other jurisdictions grappling with similar issues.
Legal experts anticipate that the Feng vs Dongshan Company precedent will encourage other Chinese courts to adopt similar standards for evaluating AI-generated content. This could lead to greater consistency in AI copyright law across different Chinese jurisdictions.
The ruling also highlights the importance of international coordination on AI copyright issues, as the Feng vs Dongshan Company case demonstrates how different legal systems are converging on similar principles despite developing independently.
Practical Guidance for AI Users
Following the Feng vs Dongshan Company ruling, individuals and businesses using AI tools for creative purposes should consider several practical steps:
Document Everything: Maintain comprehensive records of your AI creation process, including initial prompts, iterations, refinements, and creative decisions.
Active Participation: Move beyond simple prompt input to actively select, modify, and refine AI outputs through multiple iterations.
Human Creative Elements: Ensure substantial human creative input in the final work, not merely in the initial prompting phase.
Legal Consultation: Seek professional legal advice when planning to commercialize AI-assisted creative works, particularly in light of the Feng vs Dongshan Company precedent.
FAQ
Q: What was the main outcome of the Feng vs Dongshan Company case?
Q: How does the Feng vs Dongshan Company ruling affect AI users?
Q: Can text prompts be copyrighted according to Feng vs Dongshan Company?
Q: How does this ruling compare to U.S. copyright law?
Q: What should businesses do differently after this ruling?
The Feng vs Dongshan Company case represents a watershed moment in AI copyright law, establishing clear boundaries between human creativity and machine generation. As artificial intelligence continues to reshape creative industries, this landmark decision provides crucial guidance for navigating the complex intersection of technology and intellectual property rights. The ruling’s emphasis on human creative control and documentation requirements sets a new standard that creators, businesses, and legal professionals must carefully consider in our increasingly AI-driven creative landscape.
Do consider reading : The Jason Allen Case: Legal Analysis of AI Generated Art and Copyright
[…] The Legal Analysis of AI Generated Art and Copyright The Jason Allen Case serves as a pivotal exploration of how traditional copyright doctrines adapt—or resist—the challenges posed by generative AI. As the courts and policymakers refine human-authorship thresholds, artists, researchers, and students must engage critically with evolving standards to navigate the future of creative expression in an AI-augmented world.Relevant case: The Landmark Feng vs Dongshan Company Ruling: Chinese Court Denies AI-Generated Images Copyright Pro… […]