Skip to main content

“Tencent Dreamwriter”

Decision of the People’s Court of Nanshan (District of Shenzhen) 24 December 2019 – Case No. (2019) Yue 0305 Min Chu No. 14010

  1. 1.

    A work can be considered creative in a copyright sense when the factors that indicate the creator’s personal selections, judgment and skills are present. In the case of works generated by machine learning software, this requirement can be fulfilled to the extent that humans are involved in the selection of factors such as the format of the data that is fed into the algorithm and the rules that the software must follow.

  2. 2.

    In addition, there has to be a direct connection between the creative choices and the specific expression of the work. In the case of works generated with the aid of machine learning software, this means determining whether the creative choices made by humans – such as the input data, trigger rules, templates, and training of the algorithm – are reflected in the final product.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Author information


Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Translated by Xiaoshuai REN.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Regulations for the Implementation of the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China, Arts. 2, 3. “Tencent Dreamwriter”. IIC 51, 652–659 (2020).

Download citation


  • Protection of works generated by machine learning software
  • Copyright and AI
  • Notion of work
  • Creation and creativity
  • Intellectual creation with originality
  • Personality of the creator