Volume 3 · Issue 3 (2026)
10.66521/2938-9933-2026033001
Human–Machine Co-Creation and Digitised Intangible Cultural Heritage: Defining Rights Subject Matter and Legal Boundaries in the Chinese Context
Xiaoyu Wang
Capital University of Economics and Business, Beijing, China
Abstract: Generative technologies are being increasingly integrated into the digitisation of intangible cultural heritage (ICH), rendering the legal status of outputs from human–machine co-creation highly ambiguous. This paper explores how Chinese copyright law should define protectable subject matter in the context of human–machine co-creation for digitised ICH, based on empirical research findings. It is found that participants hold markedly divergent understandings of human creative contributions, and co-created outputs are heavily reliant on pre-existing ICH materials, which obscures the boundaries of effective human control. Chinese courts attempt to identify human intellectual input by disaggregating the creative process, yet a stable and universally applicable criterion for determining protectable subject matter remains unestablished. This paper argues that copyright protection should be limited to identifiable human interventions in the final expression, which independently meet the originality threshold under Chinese copyright law.
Keywords: Human–machine co-creation; Digitized intangible cultural heritage; Copyright law; Rights subject matter; Generative AI; China
References
[1]
Musiani, Francesca, and Valérie Schafer. “Digital Heritage and Heritagization.” RESET. Recherches en Sciences Sociales sur Internet 6 (2017). https://doi.org/10.4000/reset.806.
[2]
Dore, Giulia, and Pelin Turan. “When Copyright Meets Digital Cultural Heritage: Picturing an EU Right to Culture in Freedom of Panorama and Reproduction of Public Domain Art.” IIC – International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 55 (2024): 37–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-023-01408-60.
[3]
Cao, Tiancheng Leo. Platforming Digital Cultural Heritage: History, Curation, and Platform Governance on Google Arts & Culture. Doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, 2024. https://doi.org/10.26153/tsw/55818.
[4]
Klinowski, Mateusz, and Karolina Szafarowicz. “Digitisation and Sharing of Collections: Museum Practices and Copyright During the COVID-19 Pandemic.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law – Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique 36, no. 5 (2023): 1991–2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-09986-x.
[5]
Guzdial, Matthew, and Mark O Riedl. ‘An Interaction Framework for Studying Co-Creative AI’.arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.09709 (2019). https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.09709.
[6]
He, Zhiting, Jiayi Su, Li Chen, Tianqi Wang, and Ray LC. ‘“I Recall the Past”: Exploring How People Collaborate with Generative AI to Create Cultural Heritage Narratives’.
[7]
Gosart, Ulia, Valmaine Toki, and Susan Townzen. “Protecting Traditional Cultural Expressions: Law, Indigenous Protocols, Library Practices.” IFLA Journal (2025). https://doi.org/10.1177/03400352251342520.
[8]
Le, Van Anh. “Copyright of Photography and Artificial Intelligence: A Tale of Two Technologies.” Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 20, no. 8 (2025): 562 ff. https://academic.oup.com/jiplp/article/20/8/562/8203364. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpaf039.
[9]
Margoni, Thomas. The Digitisation of Cultural Heritage: Originality, Derivative Works and (Non)-Original Photographs. Working paper, Institute for Information Law (IViR), University of Amsterdam, 2014. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2502813.
[10]
Moerland, Anke. “Copyright Implications of Digitizing Cultural Heritage.” In The Art of Moving Borders: Liber Amicorum Hildegard Schneider (Maastricht Law Series, vol. 25), edited by Pauline Melin, Sarah Schoenmaekers, Sergio Carrera, and Yuri Michielsen, 475–501. The Hague: Eleven Publishing, 2022. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4162559.
[11]
Davis, Nicholas, et al. “Human-Computer Co-Creativity: Blending Human and Computational Creativity.” Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment (AIIDE-13) 9, no. 6 (2013): 9–12. https://doi.org/10.1609/aiide.v9i6.12603.
[12]
Lemley, Mark A. “How Generative AI Turns Copyright Upside Down.” Columbia Science & Technology Law Review 25, no. 2 (2024): 190–235. https://doi.org/10.52214/stlr.v25i2.12761.
[13]
Lee, Edward. “Prompting Progress: Authorship in the Age of AI.” Florida Law Review 76, no. 5 (2024): 1445–1512. https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr/vol76/iss5/2.
[14]
Wang, Xiao. “AI Output: A Human Condition That Should Not Be Protected Now, or Maybe Ever.” Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property 20 (2021): 136–164. Available at https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/ckjip/vol20/iss1/7.
[15]
Sun, Zhengliang. “Ren Gong Zhi Neng Shengcheng Neirong de Zhuzuoquan Wenti Tanxi [On Copyright Issues of AI-Generated Content].” Tsinghua Law Journal 13, no. 6 (2019): 190–204. https://dianda.cqvip.com/Qikan/Article/Detail?id=7200838634.
[16]
Gooding, Ryan E. “Recognizing Partial AI Authorship: Toward a More Permissive Copyright Regime.” Wisconsin Law Review (2024): 1333. https://doi.org/10.59015/wlr.ZDOK3241.
[17]
Kvale, Steinar, and Svend Brinkmann. InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2015. Available at: https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/interviews/book239402.
[18]
Patton, Michael Quinn. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2015. Available at: https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/qualitative-research-evaluation-methods/book232962.
[19]
George, Tegan. “Semi-Structured Interview | Definition, Guide & Examples.” Scribbr, January 27, 2022 (revised June 22, 2023). https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/semi-structured-interview/.
[20]
Hagaman, Ashley K., and Amber Wutich. “How Many Interviews Are Enough to Identify Metathemes in Multisited and Cross-Cultural Research? Another Perspective on Guest, Bunce, and Johnson’s (2006) Landmark Study.” Field Methods 29, no. 1 (2017): 23–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X16640447.
[21]
Maguire, Moira, and Brid Delahunt. “Doing a Thematic Analysis: A Practical, Step-by-Step Guide for Learning and Teaching Scholars.” All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (AISHE-J) 9, no. 3 (2017): 3351. https://ojs.aishe.org/index.php/aishe-j/article/view/335.
[22]
World Intellectual Property Organization. Understanding Copyright and Related Rights. WIPO Publication No. 909(E). Geneva: World Intellectual Property Organization, 2016. Accessed October 15, 2025. https://www.wipo.int/publications/en/details.jsp?id=4081.
[23]
Oppenlaender, Jonas. “A Taxonomy of Prompt Modifiers for Text-to-Image Generation.” Behaviour & Information Technology 43, no. 15 (2024): 3763–3776. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2023.2286532.
[24]
Chen, Liang, and Shengnan Zhu. “Ex-Ante Incentives and Gradient Empowerment: A Preliminary Framework for the Protection of Generative AI Prompts.” Journal of Beijing Technology and Business University (Social Sciences) 2025, no. 4: 131–142. https://sns.wanfangdata.com.cn/sns/perio/bjgsdxxb-sh/2025/04?articleId=BJGSDXXBSHKXB2025004011.
[25]
Zhu, Ge. “‘AI Wensheng Tu’ de Falü Shuxing yu Quanli Guishu Yanjiu [On the Legal Attributes and Ownership of ‘AI Text-to-Image’].” Zhishi Chanquan [Intellectual Property] 34, no. 1 (2024): 24–35. Available at: https://www.ciplawyer.cn/articles/152801.html.
[26]
Liu, Chuntian. Zhishi Chanquan Fa [Intellectual Property Law]. 3rd ed. Beijing: Higher Education Press & Peking University Press, 2007. For a bibliographic record, see: https://bklib.ruc.edu.cn/docinfo.action?id1=5bebb15b50f2060b884b069e25b85a80.
[27]
Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China (as amended 2020).
[28]
Regulations for the Implementation of the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China (State Council Decree No. 600, revised 2013).
[29]
Intangible Cultural Heritage Law of the People’s Republic of China (adopted 2011, as amended).
[30]
Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China (promulgated 2020, in force 2021).
[31]
Constitution of the People’s Republic of China (as amended 2018).
[32]
Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (as amended).
[33]
Measures for the Payment of Remuneration for the Use of Written Works (National Copyright Administration of China).
[34]
Beijing Feilin Law Firm v Beijing Baidu Netcom Science and Technology Co., Ltd, Beijing Internet Court, Civil Judgment (2018) Jing 0491 Min Chu No. 239, 25 April 2019.
[35]
Li v Liu, Beijing Internet Court, Civil Judgment (2023) Jing 0491 Min Chu No. 11279, 27 November 2023.
[36]
Shenzhen Tencent Computer Systems Co., Ltd v Shanghai Yingxun Technology Co., Ltd, Shenzhen Nanshan District People’s Court, Civil Judgment (2019) Yue 0305 Min Chu No. 14010, 24 December 2019.
[37]
Shanghai Xinchuanhua Cultural Development Co., Ltd v Guangzhou Nianguang Network Technology Co., Ltd, Guangzhou Internet Court, Civil Judgment (2024) Yue 0192 Min Chu No. 113, 8 February 2024.
Download PDF