A STAGE-BASED LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR GENERATIVE AI USES OF WORKS OF FOLK LITERATURE AND ART
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35631/IJLGC.1145014Keywords:
Generative AI, Works of Folk Literature and Art, Copyright, Stage-Based Legal Framework, Cultural Heritage ProtectionAbstract
Generative AI increasingly uses Works of Folk Literature and Art (WFAs) as training data, style references, prompt templates, and commercial design resources. Because WFAs come from collective practice and intergenerational transmission, ordinary copyright law cannot fully address AI-related harms such as false cultural attribution, derogatory distortion, and large-scale commercial exploitation. This article examines why the existing copyright framework is insufficient and how legal responsibilities should be allocated by the training, output, and dissemination stages. Using doctrinal legal analysis of relevant Chinese laws, representative AI-related cases, and international materials concerning traditional cultural expressions, the article proposes a stage-based legal framework. At the training stage, the focus should be on the legality of data sources, sensitivity screening, and reasonable output control. At the output stage, distinctions should be made between identifiable expressions and general stylistic references. At the dissemination stage, liability can depend on the actor’s capacity for control, commercial benefit, and role in market circulation.
Downloads
References
Beijing Internet Court. (2023, November 27). Li v. Liu, Civil Judgment (2023) Jing 0491 Min Chu No. 11279 [AI-generated image copyright case].
Beijing Internet Court. (2024, April 23). Yin Mouzhen v. Beijing Intelligent Technology Company et al., Civil Judgment (2023) Jing 0491 Min Chu No. 12142 [AI-generated voice personality rights case].
Burk, D. L. (2019). Algorithmic fair use. University of Chicago Law Review, 86(2), 283–340.
Carpenter, K. A., Katyal, S. K., & Riley, A. R. (2009). In defense of property. Yale Law Journal, 118(6), 1022–1125.
Coombe, R. J. (1998). The cultural life of intellectual properties: Authorship, appropriation, and the law. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China, art. 6.
Frosio, G. F. (2017). Reforming intermediary liability in the platform economy: A European Digital Single Market strategy. Northwestern University Law Review, 112, 19–46.
Gervais, D. J. (2022). The human cause. In R. Abbott (Ed.), Research handbook on intellectual property and AI. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.
Gillotte, J. L. (2020). Copyright infringement in AI-generated artworks. UC Davis Law Review, 53, 2655–2692.
Ginsburg, J. C., & Budiardjo, L. A. (2019). Authors and machines. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 34, 343–448.
Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court. (2024, December 30). Shanghai Xinchuanhua Cultural Development Co., Ltd. v. Hangzhou Shuimu Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd., Civil Judgment (2024) Zhe 01 Min Zhong No. 10332 [Second-instance Ultraman AIGC platform case].
Hangzhou Internet Court. (2024, September 25). Shanghai Xinchuanhua Cultural Development Co., Ltd. v. Hangzhou Shuimu Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd., Civil Judgment (2024) Zhe 0192 Min Chu No. 1587 [Ultraman AIGC platform case].
Hu, K. (2022). Constructing a copyright protection theory for WFA with Chinese characteristics. Chinese Journal of Law, (2), 131–153.
Janke, T. (2003). Minding culture: Case studies on intellectual property and traditional cultural expressions. Geneva, Switzerland: World Intellectual Property Organization.
Kariyawasam, K. (2008). Intellectual property and traditional cultural expressions. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 16(3), 243–268.
Lemley, M. A., & Casey, B. (2021). Fair learning. Texas Law Review, 99, 743–785.
Li, X., Khair, M. H. M., & Ying, W. (2024). Exploration of Copyright Law Safeguards for Traditional Cultural Expressions (TCEs). International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 19(1), 117-134.
National Copyright Administration of China. (2014, September 2). Regulations on copyright protection of Works of Folk Literature and Art (Draft for Public Comment).
Opderbeck, D. W. (2024). Copyright in AI training data: A human-centered approach. Oklahoma Law Review, 76, 951–1022.
Rosati, E. (2025). Infringing AI: Liability for AI-generated outputs under international, EU, and UK copyright law. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 16(2), 603–627.
Sag, M. (2023). Copyright safety for generative AI. Houston Law Review, 61(2), 295–347.
Samuelson, P. (1986). Allocating ownership rights in computer-generated works. University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 47, 1185–1228.
Samuelson, P. (2023). Generative AI meets copyright. Science, 381(6654), 158–161.
Supreme People’s Court of China. (2026, April 17). Notice on issuing the implementation plan for judicial protection of intellectual property by the people’s courts (2026–2030), Fa Fa [2026] No. 4.
Tao, Q. (2023). Layered protection of WFA: The realization path of special legislation on WFA. Intellectual Property, (8), 74–90.
UNESCO. (2003). Convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage. Paris, France: UNESCO.
WIPO, & UNESCO. (1982). Model provisions for national laws on the protection of expressions of folklore against illicit exploitation and other forms of prejudicial action. Geneva, Switzerland: Authors.
World Intellectual Property Organization. (2005). Intellectual property and traditional cultural expressions/folklore (Booklet No. 1). Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
World Intellectual Property Organization. (2023). The WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore: Background brief No. 2. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
World Intellectual Property Organization. (2024, October 4). The protection of traditional cultural expressions: Draft articles (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/49/5).
Yang, L. (2021). A study on copyright issues of AI-generated products. Modern Law Science, (4).
