Wuhan Court Considers Ai Token Costs Calculating Damages Copyright Infringement Ai

On September 23, 2026, the Jiang’an District People’s Court in Wuhan, China announced the first case in Hubei Province involving copyright infringement of an AI-assisted short drama, holding that AI-generated content meeting the requirements of a “work” is copyrightable, consistent with holdings from several other lower Chinese courts (see, e.g., Li v. Liu ). In determining damages, the court included the computing costs associated with token consumption, along with commercial tool licensing costs, as factors in the calculation, alongside other traditional damages factors such as the work’s duration, scope of dissemination, timing of release, and duration of infringement. The court ultimately awarded the plaintiff RMB 20,000 in damages and reasonable expenses.

The unnamed plaintiff, Company A, is a company engaged in short drama planning and production. In early 2026, Company A used generative AI tools to complete a 47-episode short drama titled “Cloud Above XX,” with a total runtime of approximately one hour. The drama was registered with the National Radio and Television Administration and subsequently released on platforms including the Hongguo Short Drama app and WeChat Video Channel.

The dispute centered on whether the short drama, created with AI assistance and comprising visuals and voiceovers generated primarily by AI tools, qualified as a “work” protected under copyright law. The court applied the established standard that a work must be an original intellectual achievement of a human being, arising from human intellectual investment and reflecting the creator’s individualized choices and expression. The court stated that this determination requires a full examination of how AI tools were used throughout the production process.

The court found that production of the short drama involved multiple creative stages: script planning and writing in the preparatory phase; storyboard prompt design, selection of character and scene materials, and screening of AI-generated segments in the intermediate phase; and editing, detail correction, and audio/subtitle synchronization in the post-production phase. Company A’s creative personnel participated in all of these stages and made continuous, substantive intellectual contributions.

The court noted that although the visuals and audio were generated with AI tools, they were not the mechanical output of a single automated process. Creative personnel relied on their artistic training and aesthetic judgment to set source images, adjust storyboard prompts, and select or discard generated content that did not meet their creative expectations, guiding the AI output toward a predetermined creative concept. The court found that the final creative direction and audiovisual presentation depended on the individualized choices and arrangements made by the creative personnel, who exercised foreseeability and substantive control over the final expression, with the AI tools serving as a technical means for realizing that creative intent. On this basis, the court held that the short drama constituted an audiovisual work protected under copyright law.

The court held that Company B, without authorization from the copyright holder, altered the title of the work and copied the entire drama, monetizing it through commercial advertising. This conduct infringed Company A’s right of communication through information networks. The court held Company B liable for infringement, requiring it to cease the infringing conduct and compensate Company A for losses.

Neither party presented evidence of the copyright holder’s actual losses, the infringer’s illegal gains, or a licensing fee for the work. In the absence of such evidence, the court applied statutory damages, taking into account the drama’s runtime, scope of dissemination, timing of its release during a period of high viewership, duration of the infringement, the infringer’s degree of fault, and production cost.

In assessing production cost, the court accounted for characteristics specific to AIGC production, including the computing costs arising from token consumption during content generation and the costs of licensing commercial AI tools. Based on this analysis, the court awarded Company A RMB 20,000 in economic losses and reasonable expenses. Neither party appealed, and the judgment is final.

The court also noted that AI-assisted, human-machine interactive creation has become a method used by an increasing number of creators, which the court stated has lowered barriers to creation, increased production efficiency, and expanded the scope of artistic expression. The court stated that recognizing AI-generated content meeting the requirements of a “work” is consistent with copyright law’s purpose of encouraging creation.

The court advised that when using AI-assisted tools, creators should retain evidence of their creative process, including scripts, prompt drafts, generation records, original project files, and proof of first publication, to support a determination of the work’s copyrightable status. The court also stated that network users and platform operators should not assume that AI-generated content may be used without restriction, and that unauthorized dissemination or alteration of another party’s creative content remains prohibited. The court noted that platform operators are expected to fulfill review obligations and address infringing content.

The original announcement is available here (Chinese only).

Current Public Notices

Current Legal Analysis

More from Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.