In the current era where artificial intelligence technology is sweeping the globe, AI related patent applications and copyright protection have become the core battlefield for innovators to compete. However, the differences in legal frameworks and the refinement of review standards among countries have made "qualification compliance," "sufficient materials," and "controllable risks" the three major challenges that cannot be avoided.

1、 Comparison of copyright authorization differences for AI works in core countries

a. Criteria for determining rights: Quantitative differences in "human participation" among countries

In terms of the relevant rules and practices for copyright recognition of AI generated content:

China adopts a binary standard of "human led+AI assisted", which requires works to reflect "personalized selection and arrangement" in terms of originality. Content generated entirely by AI does not constitute a work. The "AI Wenshengtu" case heard by Changshu Court in 2025 is a typical example. The plaintiff's work "Companion Heart" created by adjusting the prompt words in version 8 and modifying it with Photoshop was authorized for protection because it reflects human creativity.

The United States has implemented a "substantial human contribution" test, which requires humans to play a leading role in the "expression form and core concept" of content. In 2024, the US Copyright Office ruled that images generated by simply inputting prompt words are not authorized, while AI novels that have undergone human reconstruction of narrative logic are registered.

The EU adheres to the principle of "creative autonomy" combined with compliance binding, requiring works to meet the "traceability of human intellectual investment" and comply with the labeling requirements of the Artificial Intelligence Act. The case of the German Federal Court in 2025 shows that industrial drawings designed with AI assistance obtain copyright protection because humans have clearly defined "structural safety parameters" and marked AI participation.

Japan adheres to the principle of "creative intention led" and focuses on determining whether humans have "pre-set creative goals and achieved them through AI". The guidelines released by the Japanese Agency for Cultural Affairs in 2024 state that AI generated manga scripts can be recognized as protected works if humans have designed storyboarding logic and character settings in advance.

South Korea adopts the "technology contribution splitting" standard, requiring a clear distinction between the boundaries of "human creativity" and "AI execution". The case of the South Korean Intellectual Property Office in 2025 shows that in AI assisted music creation, only the main melody composed by humans obtains copyright, and the accompaniment generated by AI is not only protected.

b. Ownership and Registration Rules: Differences in Details from Subject to Process

In terms of AI generated content copyright related rules, China, the United States, the European Union, and Japan exhibit different characteristics in different dimensions.

From the perspective of rights holders

In China, it is defined as a natural person or unit, and job creation belongs to the unit in the absence of an agreement;

Only natural persons have rights in the United States, and businesses need to obtain property rights through contractual agreements;

The EU is mainly composed of natural persons, and enterprises can register as "rights managers";

Japan clearly defines individuals as natural persons and allows "creative teams" to collectively sign their names.

In terms of registration requirements

China needs to submit "AI usage instructions+creation process records", and those who do not indicate AI participation will be rejected for registration;

The United States mandates disclosure of "AI tool model+human modification ratio", and pure AI content will not be registered;

The EU requires the submission of a 'Compliance Statement for AI Generated Content' simultaneously to prove that the copyright of the training data has not been infringed;

Japan, on the other hand, needs to submit a "creative intent statement" that explains the logic of human instructions for AI.

Regarding the Scope of Rights

Chinese works are consistent with traditional works, covering reproduction rights, distribution rights, etc., but AI assistance needs to be indicated;

The United States restricts the scope of "exclusive licenses" and reserves space for adjusting the rights of AI technology iterations;

The EU also includes the "AI generated labeling right", which prohibits others from removing AI from participating in labeling;

Japan excludes the adaptation rights of "AI generated parts" and only protects the core of human creativity.

In terms of registration cycle

About 30 working days in China, additional AI contribution verification is required;

The United States takes 45-60 working days, and complex cases require hearings;

Cross border registration in the EU takes about 60 working days, but member states within the EU recognize each other;

Japan has a fast track for manufacturing AI works within 20 working days.

2、 The full process strategy of copyright owners from creation to rights protection

a. Creative stage: Building a 'human contribution evidence chain'

In the process of creation, copyright owners need to accurately control the key points of evidence for "substantial human contributions" and build a solid "human contribution evidence chain" to avoid the risk of missing rights. It is crucial to document the three key steps of "prompt word design, parameter adjustment, and content modification" throughout the entire process. Recommend using creation tools with timestamps.

For prompt words, it is necessary to save the iteration record from "initial instructions" to "final version", such as gradually iterating from "first version: generating landscape paintings" to "fifth version: ink landscape painting+morning mist effect+left welcoming pine", clearly presenting the evolution of creative ideas.

During the modification process, a comparison file between the AI generated initial draft and the human modified draft should be retained, and the proportion of modifications should be marked. It is recommended that it should not be less than 30% to meet most national standards. At the same time, record the creative intention explanation, such as "after generating the initial draft through AI, humans reconstruct the narrative logic to reflect the personalized expression of the 'environmental theme' in the work", highlighting the unique role of humans in creation.

In addition, we should be wary of the trap of "pure AI generation" and avoid directly using AI one click generated content to claim rights. In the 2023 case of the Beijing Internet Court, AI pictures with simple prompt words and no modification were rejected for lack of originality.

b.Registration stage : Accurate submission of materials

During the registration stage, copyright owners need to prepare materials accurately to adapt to the differences in rules in different regions. The list of core material preparation varies by country.

In China, the creative instructions should include: "AI tool name, usage scenario, human modification content", and accompanied by comparative screenshots; The auxiliary evidence is the iteration record of prompt words and the video of the modification process; Job creation also requires submission of a unit ownership statement.

In the United States, the creation instructions should quantify the "human contribution ratio" and provide copyright notices for AI tools; The supporting evidence is the interview record of the creative intention (which can be notarized); Collaboration among multiple individuals requires submission of a 'Contribution Splitting Agreement'.

The EU requires the creation of a statement that includes: "Compliance Statement for AI Training Data" to prove non infringement; The supporting evidence is a "no abuse risk certificate" issued by the ethics committee (in high-risk areas); Cross border works require submission of the EU Cross border Copyright Adaptation Declaration.

During the registration process, there are still some key compliance actions that cannot be ignored. According to China's "Regulations on the Identification of Content Generated by Artificial Intelligence" and the EU's "Artificial Intelligence Act", it is necessary to mark "AI assisted generation" in a prominent position on the work. Even if the unmarked work meets the originality requirements, it may still be rejected for registration or face administrative penalties. If non-public data is used to train AI assisted creation, a "data authorization file" (such as CC license certificate, user authorization letter) must be submitted. South Korea and the European Union have particularly strict scrutiny on this, and any missing file will directly lead to registration failure.

c. Exercise and protection of rights: Clear boundaries, in line with judicial practice

In terms of exercising rights, the license and transfer contract should clearly state the "scope of rights for the AI generated part" and avoid vague expressions of "all rights of the work". It is recommended to specify that "only the copyright of the core part of human creation is transferred, and the AI executed part is not included". When modifying AI generated content from others during secondary creation, it is necessary to ensure that the modified parts are original and do not infringe upon the core creativity of the original human creator. In the "AI Novel Adaptation Case" in China by 2025, the adaptation that only adjusts the sentence order does not constitute a new work, and the plot logic needs to be reconstructed in order to claim rights.

Fixed evidence is crucial in safeguarding rights. The comparison of infringement should be targeted separately at the "core part of human creation" and the "AI assisted part". Only the former can claim copyright infringement, while the latter may constitute unfair competition. Proof of loss should provide evidence of "human creative input costs (such as time and energy)" and "commercial value of the work" to avoid claiming losses solely based on AI generated costs (which are not recognized by most countries).

Different countries have different adaptation methods for judicial procedures. In our country, we can file a lawsuit to the Internet court, giving priority to submitting "notarized documents of the creation process"; The United States can apply to the Copyright Office for a "pre determination of infringement" and then file a lawsuit to shorten the trial period; The EU can initiate cross-border rights protection through the EU Intellectual Property Office, achieving a single procedure covering multiple member states.

d. Job Creation and Collaborative Creation: Clarify Ownership and Resolve Internal Disputes

In the context of job creation and collaborative creation, clarifying ownership is the key to avoiding internal disputes. For job creation, companies need to sign an "AI Creation Ownership Agreement" with employees, clarifying that "works created using unit resources (such as proprietary AI tools, training data) have copyright owned by the unit, and employees enjoy the right of attribution". According to the "AI News Release Case" in China, in the absence of an agreement, the copyright belongs to the employees, and the unit only has the right to use it. Multi person collaborative AI works require the signing of a "Contribution Splitting Agreement", which clarifies the scope of each person's attribution rights, such as "A is responsible for designing prompt words, and B is responsible for content modification". Japan and South Korea require that the agreement be submitted simultaneously during registration, otherwise it will not be registered.

In today's rapidly advancing AI technology, the protection of patents and copyrights is not only a legal requirement, but also a core means for innovators to build competitive barriers. From the qualification recognition of inventors to the retention of creative evidence, from cross-border application strategies to the fixation of evidence for rights protection, every detail may determine success or failure. Only by deeply understanding the differences in global rules and establishing a full process compliance system can we stand invincible in the wave of AI.