IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlawss/v14y2025i4p43-d1685238.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Copyright Implications and Legal Responses to AI Training: A Chinese Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Li You

    (Intellectual Property School, East China University of Political Science and Law, Shanghai 201620, China)

  • Han Luo

    (School of Law, University of International Business and Economics, Beijing 100029, China)

Abstract

The emergence of generative AI presents complex challenges to existing copyright regimes, particularly concerning the large-scale use of copyrighted materials in model training. Legal disputes across jurisdictions highlight the urgent need for a balanced, principle-based framework that protects the rights of creators while fostering innovation. In China, a regulatory approach of “moderate leniency” has emerged—emphasizing control over downstream AI-generated content (AIGC) while adopting a more permissive stance toward upstream training. This model upholds the idea–expression dichotomy, rejecting theories such as “retained expression” or “retained style”, which improperly equate ideas with expressions. A critical legal distinction lies between real-time training, which is ephemeral and economically insignificant, and non-real-time training, which involves data retention and should be assessed under fair use test. A fair use exception specific to AI training is both timely and justified, provided it ensures equitable sharing of technological benefits and addresses AIGC’s potential substitutive impact on original works. Furthermore, technical processes like format conversion and machine translation do not infringe derivative rights, as they lack human creativity and expressive content. Even when training involves broader use, legitimacy may be established through the principle of technical necessity within the reproduction right framework.

Suggested Citation

  • Li You & Han Luo, 2025. "Copyright Implications and Legal Responses to AI Training: A Chinese Perspective," Laws, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-23, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlawss:v:14:y:2025:i:4:p:43-:d:1685238
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/14/4/43/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/14/4/43/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlawss:v:14:y:2025:i:4:p:43-:d:1685238. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.