In recent decision (2025) 沪0101 民初14775 号, the Shanghai Huangpu District People’s Court held that prompts fed into a generative AI were not subject to copyright protection. In 2022, the plaintiff created six sets of English-language prompts and input them into the Midjourney AI image generation platform using the account “BYShanC.” The prompts directed Midjourney to generate Art Nouveau-style illustrations of fantasy natural subjects — jellyfish, butterflies, gem trees, mushrooms, koi fish — in the style of Alphonse Mucha, rendered as hand-drawn manuscripts on papyrus with biological encyclopedia formatting. The plaintiff discovered that the defendants’ Xiaohongshu account had posted images that appeared nearly identical to the plaintiff’s Midjourney-generated images. The plaintiff then searched the Midjourney platform and found that a separate account (“UNI2T”) had input prompts identical to the plaintiff’s six sets of prompts and generated similar images.
The plaintiff argued the six prompt sets constituted copyrightable literary works, analogous to screenplays or stage design documents. The plaintiff claimed the defendants infringed its rights of reproduction, distribution, information network dissemination, and attribution by copying the prompts and using the resulting AI-generated images commercially.
In response, the defendants argued:
- The prompts do not constitute copyrightable works — they are mere collections of public domain terms lacking originality;
- The prompts represent unprotectable “ideas” rather than “expression;”
- The plaintiff could not prove it owned the BYShanC account or held copyright in the prompts;
- The defendants could not be proven to control the UNI2T account;
- Even if protectable, Midjourney’s terms of service place user prompts into an open, remixable public domain;
- Any use constituted fair use for personal learning purposes.
The Court dismissed all of the plaintiff’s claims, holding: 1. the prompts lacked originality — they were unordered lists of common artistic terms without grammatical structure, narrative coherence, or individualized expression; 2.the prompts constituted unprotectable “ideas” (abstract creative conceptions) rather than protectable “expression;” and 3. even if the prompts were protectable, the plaintiff failed to prove the defendants controlled the UNI2T Midjourney account that used the identical prompts.
The court further noted policy concerns: granting copyright protection to short keyword-style prompts could restrict free use of language and constrain AI innovation.
The full decision, courtesy of 知产库, is available here (Chinese only). Note that this case has not been selected as a guiding or typical case so may have limited precedential value at this time.
