In Part I of this NRF blog series, posted here, we reported on three AI-related cases published in 2025 by the Beijing Internet Court as being ‘model’ (precedent-illustrating) AI cases. In this article, we continue with the remaining three
With the increasingly widespread use of artificial intelligence (AI) in all walks of life, disputes relating to AI are also rapidly emerging. In a press conference last year, the Beijing Internet Court published eight ‘model’ (precedent-illustrating) cases involving
The Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (PCPD) in Hong Kong conducted compliance checks on 60 local organizations across a wide range of sectors to study their use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and its impact on personal data
Judge William Alsup expressed broad concerns about a proposed $1.5 billion settlement deal between Anthropic PBC and a number of author-plaintiffs, questioning whether the agreement adequately protects class members and Anthropic. At a September 8 preliminary hearing, Judge Alsup denied
In August 2024, we reported on the Hong Kong Government’s two-month public consultation on potential revisions to the Copyright Ordinance (Cap. 528) (“CO”) in response to developments in generative artificial intelligence (“AI”). The public consultation was
On 27th November 2023, the Beijing Internet Court upheld that an AI generated work can be protected by copyright if the work reflects an author’s choice of expression and has originality (see our earlier blog post here). Almost
On 8 July 2024, the Hong Kong government launched a two-month public consultation on potential revisions to the Copyright Ordinance (Cap. 528) in view of the rapid developments in artificial intelligence (“AI”), especially generative AI. The 52-page consultation
In our previous newsletter here, we reported a decision from the Beijing Internet Court ruling that the copyright of a portrait generated by an artificial intelligence (“AI”) program is owned by the user who “controlled meticulously” the parameters for
The copyright eligibility of computer-generated literature and artistic works is not, contrary to what many may think, a post-millennial question. In a case decided as early as 1985 [1], in a time long before the internet era, the English