As artificial intelligence continues to reshape content creation, questions around copyright and authorship have moved to the forefront of the convesation. Hong Kong’s Copyright Ordinance (Cap 528) provides a statutory structure for determining authorship, but applying these provisions to AI-generated works presents new challenges. This new Practice Note from the Lexis+ Practical Guidance Hong Kong Intellectual Property Module examines these complexities and offers clarity for practitioners assessing rights in an increasingly automated environment.
Understanding the Legislative Framework
The Copyright Ordinance sets out the foundations of authorship and ownership, including a specific rule for “computer-generated” works, defined under section 198 as works produced in circumstances where there is no human author. In such cases, the author is deemed to be the person who undertook the arrangements necessary to create the work. While straightforward in theory, this criterion becomes difficult to apply when a digital output results from layered human and technical contributions.
AI systems typically involve developers, programmers, data trainers, system operators, and end-users who provide prompts or instructions. The Practice Note highlights that allocating authorship among these parties can raise uncertainties.
Guidance from Other Jurisdictions
Because Hong Kong’s framework mirrors the UK model, case law from England and Wales helps contextualise how courts may approach similar disputes.
Key decisions explored include:
• Nova Productions Ltd v Mazooma Games Ltd [2006] RPC 14 (High Court) and [2007] Bus LR 1032 (Court of Appeal);
• THJ Systems Ltd v Sheridan [2024] ECDR 4; and
• Express Newspapers v Liverpool Daily Post & Echo [1985] FSR 306.
These cases collectively illustrate how courts differentiate between substantive creative contribution and mere operation or prompting of a system.
Key Issues for Practitioners
This Practice Note outlines several areas requiring careful evaluation:
• Identifying the party who made the “arrangements necessary” for generating the work.
• Distinguishing between creative input and mechanical or facilitative actions.
• Managing ownership expectations where multiple contributors support an AI workflow.
• Reassessing risk and IP strategy when using AI tools for content creation.
As AI technologies become embedded in commercial and legal practice, clarity on authorship and ownership is essential. The new Lexis+ Practical Guidance Hong Kong Intellectual Property Module provides authoritative, practical insight to help professionals navigate these evolving issues.
Complete the form below to download the full Practice Note today to stay equipped with the latest analysis and ensure your advisory, compliance, and commercial decisions remain defensible and informed.
Note: After completing the form, the whitepaper will appear on the same page. Please stay on the page after submission. If you do not see the whitepaper, contact us at marketing.hk@lexisnexis.com for assistance.