TLDR: Effective November 1, 2025, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) has issued new provisions that remove jurisdiction over AI-related copyright disputes from specialized Internet Courts. This move aims to centralize complex online cases within Internet Courts while redirecting more ‘general and traditional’ online cases, including AI copyright, to other local courts. The decision marks a significant shift in how China handles intellectual property in the rapidly evolving field of artificial intelligence.
In a pivotal legal development, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) announced new ‘Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on the Jurisdiction of Internet Courts’ (最高人民法院关于互联网法院案件管辖的规定), set to take effect on November 1, 2025. These provisions significantly alter the landscape for intellectual property litigation, specifically stripping Internet Courts of their jurisdiction over AI copyright cases.
The 2025 Provisions amend the previous 2018 regulations, removing five categories of cases from the Internet Courts’ purview. Among these are ‘copyright or neighboring rights disputes involving works first published online’ and ‘disputes arising from infringement of copyright or neighboring rights in works published or disseminated online.’ This change directly impacts the handling of legal challenges concerning artificial intelligence-generated content.
The SPC’s rationale behind this reallocation is to ensure that ‘new, cutting-edge, and complex online cases are heard by the Internet Courts,’ while ‘general and traditional online cases are heard by other local courts.’ This suggests that the SPC may now consider AI copyright jurisprudence to be sufficiently established or less ‘cutting-edge’ than when Internet Courts initially took the lead in these matters.
Previously, Internet Courts, particularly the Beijing Internet Court, were at the forefront of developing copyright jurisprudence for generative artificial intelligence. Notable cases included ‘Li v. Liu,’ which recognized copyright for images created using generative AI, and the ‘Cat Crystal Diamond Pendant’ case, which addressed the level of creativity required for generative AI works to claim copyright. The SPC’s decision could imply a belief that the legal principles in these areas are now settled enough to be handled by a broader range of local courts.
While AI copyright cases are being redirected, Internet Courts will retain jurisdiction over specific categories. These include disputes related to ‘Internet domain name ownership, infringement, and contract disputes,’ ‘disputes arising from the signing or performance of online shopping contracts through e-commerce platforms,’ ‘Internet service contract disputes where the signing and performance are completed online,’ and ‘online public interest litigation cases initiated by the procuratorate.’
For cases already accepted before the November 1, 2025, implementation date, the original people’s courts that accepted them will continue to hear them. Appeals for cases falling under the jurisdiction of a specialized people’s court will be heard by the corresponding specialized court.
Also Read:
- Chinese AI Professor’s Appearance Sparks Viral Debate and Academic Scrutiny
- Global AI Supremacy: US Fortifies Chip Alliances as China Champions Open-Source Innovation
This strategic shift by China’s highest court underscores the country’s evolving approach to regulating AI and intellectual property, aiming for a more streamlined and specialized judicial system as technology continues to advance.
