AI and Copyright in China: A 2025 Guide to Protecting AIGC and Navigating Liability

Estimated reading time: 10 minutes

The rapid evolution of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming content creation, yet it simultaneously introduces complex legal and compliance challenges, particularly in China. With the “Measures for the Labelling of Artificial Intelligence-Generated and Synthetic Content” (“Labeling Rules” or “Measures”) set to take effect on September 1, 2025, technology and media companies, IP counsel, and executives in the creative and tech industries must urgently address the new landscape of AI-Generated Content (AIGC) ownership, infringement, and liability.

This guide provides a structured framework for understanding these pivotal changes and developing robust mitigation strategies to protect your AI-driven innovations and ensure compliance in China’s evolving regulatory environment.

1. The Landscape in Brief: Core Risks and Requirements

China’s regulatory environment governing AIGC and copyright has undergone transformative change. The Measures for Labeling Artificial Intelligence-Generated and Synthetic Content mark a watershed moment in global AI governance. These enforceable rules mandate explicit and embedded labeling of all AI-generated text, images, audio, video, and immersive virtual scenes distributed online within China, reflecting the government’s drive for transparency, accountability, and social stability.

Who is Affected?
The Measures primarily apply to internet information service providers and online content distribution providers that leverage AI for content generation. Consequently, technology and media companies, their IP counsel, and executives operating or intending to operate within China are directly impacted.

Potential Impacts:

• Significant Liability Risk: Companies face direct liability for unlabelled, misleading, unlawful, or infringing AI-generated outputs. Non-compliance can result in substantial legal and administrative penalties, as service providers are held directly accountable.
• Heightened Compliance Burdens: The mandate for both explicit (clearly visible, e.g., watermarks, text indicators) and implicit (metadata-level) content labelling requires significant technical and operational overhauls, adding layers of complexity to content workflows.
• Clarifying Copyright Ownership: A pervasive challenge has been the uncertainty surrounding copyright protection for AIGC. While courts may recognize copyright for AI-assisted works demonstrating substantial human input and originality, purely AI-generated content generally lacks such protection, creating a critical grey area for works with minimal human intervention.

This regulatory framework is led by the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) in coordination with several key ministries, including the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the Ministry of Public Security, and the National Radio and Television Administration. This multi-agency approach underscores a coordinated, robust enforcement priority focused on transparency, clarifying content provenance, mitigating misinformation, and reinforcing accountability for AI-driven outputs, especially concerning ownership and copyright infringement.

2. Macro Drivers of Change

China’s regulatory overhaul in AI-generated content arises from several foundational forces:

• Explosive Growth of Generative AI: The rapid adoption and commercial deployment of generative AI models across Chinese tech and creative sectors have exponentially increased the volume and diversity of synthetic media, challenging existing IP and content governance frameworks.
• Government Priority on Information Integrity and Social Stability: China’s leadership aims to prevent misinformation, curb harmful or unlawful content, and guard against “deep synthesis” abuses that could destabilize the public discourse. Labeling AI content is a tool to maintain public trust and control the digital narrative.
• Protecting Copyright and Encouraging Human Creativity: By refining copyright criteria around AI output, regulators seek to balance encouragement of innovation with safeguarding the rights of human creators. Human intellectual contribution remains the linchpin of legal protection.
• Strategic Competition for AI Leadership: China’s centralized, comprehensive regulatory approach reflects its strategic desire for “safe and controllable” AI development, differentiating its governance model from the patchwork regulatory experimentation in other major jurisdictions such as the US and EU.

Together, these drivers explain China’s unique regulatory architecture that tightly integrates copyright governance, labeling mandates, and liability frameworks under state oversight for generative AI technologies.

3. Deep Dive: Defining Trends and the Regulatory Landscape

Trend 1: The 2025 Labeling Rules for AI-Generated and Synthetic Content

Instituted by the CAC in coordination with the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, Ministry of Public Security, and National Radio and Television Administration, the Measures for Labeling Artificial Intelligence-Generated and Synthetic Content came into effect on September 1, 2025. Key features include:

• Scope: Applies broadly to all AI-generated or synthetic content online—text, images, audio, video, and immersive virtual scenes—distributed by “internet information service providers” and “online content distribution service providers,” regardless of their domicile.
• Labeling Requirements: Obligates dual forms of labeling: explicit user-visible marks indicating AI origination and implicit, embedded metadata labels codifying content provenance.
• Accountability: Places responsibility on AI service providers and content distributors, enforcing penalties for failure to comply, including administrative sanctions and reputational risk.

This mandatory labeling represents a milestone in promoting transparency and informed content consumption, directly supporting enforcement against misinformation and IP infringement.

Trend 2: Shifts in Copyright Ownership Focusing on Human Authorship

Domestically, Chinese courts, particularly the Beijing Internet Court, have begun to grapple with AIGC copyrightability. The Beijing Internet Court’s November 2023 ruling set a precedent by granting copyright protection to AI-assisted creations only when there is demonstrable originality tied to meaningful human intellectual input. This landmark decision establishes:

• AI, as technology, cannot itself hold authorship or legal personhood.
• Works fully autonomously generated by AI with no significant human involvement likely remain outside copyright protection.
• Copyright ownership corresponds to the human creator(s) who materially direct or contribute to the AI output.

This nuanced stance compels companies to rigorously document human contributions within AI creation workflows, a necessary condition to assert or defend intellectual property rights in China’s evolving judicial landscape.

Trend 3: China’s Regulatory Approach Compared Internationally and Its Legal Evolution

China’s approach to regulating AI-generated content is distinguished by its prescriptive, centralized framework actively enforced by multiple government authorities. This contrasts with the US and EU, which generally favor more flexible or evolving models primarily focused on human authorship and voluntary transparency.

Aspect	China	EU (Emerging)	US
Copyright for AIGC	Sometimes granted if human creativity is evident; ongoing legal debate, especially for purely AI-generated content (Beijing Internet Court ruled Nov 2023).	Draft AI Act influences content responsibility; copyright law not extended to AI output.	AI-generated content generally not copyrightable unless significant human authorship is demonstrated.
Content Labelling	Mandatory explicit and implicit labelling for AIGC (effective Sep 1, 2025).	Transparency obligations emerging under AI Act.	No mandatory federal labelling; some voluntary/industry standards.
Liability	Service providers can be held directly accountable for unlabelled content, violations, or misleading/unlawful AIGC.	Risk allocation varies by content and use.	Mostly on human users/developers, not the AI system itself.

Since 2022, China has progressively introduced draft and final rules addressing generative AI, deepfakes, algorithmic recommendation systems, and disclosure obligations. The 2023 judicial rulings on AI copyright protection reinforce these policies, cementing a trend toward harmonized governance that aligns with broader cybersecurity, intellectual property, and content regulation strategies. Anticipated technical standards coming into force by November 1, 2025, issued by the State Administration for Market Regulation and Standardization Administration of China, will additionally codify compliance expectations across generative AI deployment.

4. Sector-Specific Implications

For Technology Companies

• Compliance Obligations: Mandatory labeling requires integration of explicit content markers and embedded metadata at source and distribution levels. Compliance systems must capture, verify, and maintain evidence of AI content origination and human intervention.
• Liability Risks: Service providers bear responsibility for unlawful or infringing AI outputs. Failure to label or prevent copyright infringement invites administrative sanctions, regulatory intervention, and potential harm to corporate reputation.
• IP Strategy Adaptations: Protecting AI-driven innovations demands detailed documentation policies to substantiate human authorship claims supporting copyright protection. Licensing agreements and user terms should explicitly address attribution, ownership, and indemnity provisions relative to AI-generated content.

For Creative Industries

• Copyright Enforcement: Creators and rights holders must ensure that AI-assisted works meet the originality and human input thresholds to qualify for legal protection. Metadata and labeling provide new tools to track provenance and combat unauthorized exploitation.
• Risk Management: Given strict liability regimes, creative firms working with AI must audit AI-generated materials to prevent inadvertent infringement, especially where datasets may contain third-party copyrighted works.
• Strategic IP Management: Contracts with AI technology providers and collaborators require revisiting to clarify rights delineation, compliance responsibilities, and risk sharing under China’s tightening regulatory regime.

Overall, both sectors must build integrated governance frameworks blending IP management with real-time compliance monitoring and training.

5. The Mitigation Framework: Practical Compliance Action Plan

Protecting your organization from AIGC-related risks in China requires a comprehensive, systematic approach. Here is a practical compliance action plan:

• Ensure Robust Compliance Systems: Implement robust technical systems for both explicit (e.g., visible watermarks, text indicators) and implicit (e.g., embedded metadata) content labelling for all AIGC. Establish clear internal protocols for applying these labels. Crucially, continuously monitor regulatory updates and industry guidance from Chinese authorities, and foster strong cross-departmental coordination between legal, IT, product, and content creation teams.
• Document Human Involvement Rigorously: For any AI-assisted outputs where copyright protection is desired or disputes may arise, clearly record and evidence the human creative processes involved. This includes detailed prompt engineering logs, documentation of iterative human refinements, and records of key creative decision-making that demonstrates substantial human input and originality.
• Update Contracts and Internal Policies: Proactively revise all relevant copyright and licensing agreements, both internal and external, to explicitly address human versus AI contribution, clear ownership expectations for AIGC and AI-assisted content, and specific labelling obligations. Ensure these updates reflect the nuances of China’s AIGC Measures.
• Conduct Regular Risk Assessments and Audits: Implement a routine audit schedule for your AIGC processes and outputs. This should identify potential IP infringement risks (e.g., outputs generated from copyrighted training data without proper licensing) and confirm adherence to labelling requirements. Establish rapid compliance correction mechanisms to address any deviations promptly.
• Invest in Training and Awareness: Develop and deploy mandatory training programs for all relevant personnel, including creative teams, product managers, legal staff, and developers. These programs should detail the specifics of China’s AIGC regime, the nuances of copyright eligibility, and best practices for managing legal and reputational risks associated with AI-generated content.
• Monitor Evolving Case Law: The legal landscape for AIGC copyright and liability is dynamic. Stay informed of evolving judicial interpretations from Chinese courts, as these rulings will continue to shape the boundaries of copyright eligibility and liability for AI-driven innovations. This proactive monitoring allows for timely adjustments to your compliance strategies.

6. Scenario Analysis: A Case Study in Navigating AIGC Risks

Consider “Horizon Studios,” a prominent digital content creation agency with significant operations in China, specializing in immersive experiences and multimedia campaigns for global entertainment and tech brands. Horizon Studios has heavily integrated generative AI tools into its workflow to produce high-volume content, including character animations, virtual scene designs, and personalized narrative scripts.

The Challenge: Horizon Studios launched a highly anticipated interactive digital art installation for a major cultural event in Shanghai. While much of the visual content was AI-assisted, the final art piece—a complex, adaptive narrative generated by an AI—was largely machine-driven with minimal, though crucial, human “curation” prompts. Horizon’s internal documentation for this project was not robust enough to distinguish between human creative decisions and purely AI-generated elements. Simultaneously, a series of short promotional videos for the installation, also AI-generated, were distributed across Chinese social media platforms without the mandatory explicit or implicit AIGC labels.

The Impact: The unlabelled promotional videos quickly drew the attention of Chinese regulators, leading to an official inquiry into non-compliance with the AIGC Measures. Horizon Studios faced potential fines and a significant reputational hit for failing to meet transparency obligations. Concurrently, a local art critic publicly questioned the originality and copyright eligibility of the interactive installation, citing its heavy reliance on AI. Due to insufficient documentation of the human creative intent and unique prompt engineering, Horizon struggled to assert its intellectual property rights over the innovative piece, diminishing its commercial potential and setting a precarious precedent.

The Mitigation in Action: Had Horizon Studios proactively implemented a comprehensive mitigation framework, this scenario could have been largely averted:

• Robust Labelling Systems: Automated and manual checks for both explicit (e.g., a “Content created with AI” tag) and implicit (metadata embeds) labelling would have ensured all promotional materials were compliant, preventing the regulatory inquiry.
• Detailed Human Involvement Documentation: Standardized logging of every human prompt, iterative refinement, and creative decision in the development of the interactive art piece would have provided irrefutable evidence of the “human spark” necessary for copyright eligibility. This could include detailed prompt engineering logs, creative brief iterations, and records of human selection from AI-generated variants.
• Updated Contracts and Policies: Clear internal policies and external agreements would have predefined copyright ownership for AI-assisted works and mandated strict adherence to labelling requirements, aligning expectations with all stakeholders.
• Proactive Risk Assessment and Training: Regular internal audits of AIGC outputs and continuous training for creative and legal teams on China’s evolving AIGC rules would have identified and rectified the labelling and documentation gaps before regulatory scrutiny or public challenges arose.

This case highlights that in China’s rapidly evolving AI landscape, robust, systemic compliance and meticulous documentation are not merely legal obligations, but critical safeguards for both mitigating liability and securing the commercial value of AI-driven innovations.

7. Strategic Considerations for Leadership

Executives and intellectual property counsel should contemplate the following strategic questions to navigate China’s evolving AI and copyright environment effectively:

• How will our organization document and demonstrate material human intellectual contributions within AI content creation workflows to secure copyright protection?
• Are our compliance systems architected to implement China’s dual explicit and implicit labeling requirements robustly, both within domestic operations and for content distributed into China?
• What liability exposure do we face as an AI content provider, and do our contracts adequately address indemnity and risk allocation vis-à-vis downstream users and third parties?
• How do we monitor and incorporate developments in Chinese jurisprudence concerning “originality” and human authorship to refine our IP strategies and dispute readiness?
• For multinational companies, how do we reconcile China’s centralized regulatory model with more fragmented AI governance regimes globally to ensure coherent cross-border compliance?

Proactive engagement with specialized local counsel and interdisciplinary teams spanning legal, compliance, technical, and creative functions is critical to operationalize these insights. Strategic investment in documentation tools, training programs, and policy updates will position companies to mitigate risk and capitalize on AI innovation within China’s unique regulatory context.

Conclusion

China’s 2025 regulatory framework institutes a rigorous ecosystem of human oversight, mandatory labeling, and provider liability for AI-generated content. Tech and creative firms must act decisively to adapt IP strategies and compliance programs, ensuring transparent human authorship and labeling adherence to safeguard copyrights and manage emerging risks in this tightly controlled environment.

Frequently Asked Questions

Strategic Guidance

Navigating the complexities of AI and copyright in China requires specialized expertise and strategic foresight. Decisions made today can significantly impact your organization’s compliance posture, operational efficiency, and competitive standing.

To transform this regulatory or strategic challenge into a durable advantage, partner with our advisory team. Contact us to schedule a consultation and learn how we can help you build a resilient and forward-looking strategy.