September 2025
Taiwan’s Ministry of Culture Issued “Guidelines on the Application of Generative AI in Arts and Culture”
The rapid development of Generative Artificial Intelligence (hereinafter “GAI”) has opened new opportunities for artistic and cultural creation, while also raising conflicts with existing legal frameworks. In July 2025, the Ministry of Culture released the Guidelines on the Application of Generative AI in Arts and Culture (hereinafter “Guidelines”), providing recommendations on copyright protection, potential risks, and compliance measures for the use of GAI. The main points are summarized as follows:
1. Conditions for Copyright Protection
Whether GAI-generated outputs are eligible for copyright protection has been widely debated internationally. According to Chapter 4 of the Guidelines, copyright protection requires that a work be the creative expression of human thought or emotion. If a result is generated solely by GAI without human creative input, it cannot be entitled to protection. Conversely, if the output generated by GAI reflects creative input from the user issuing the prompts, the user may claim copyright protection in the generated result.
(1) With Human Creative Input
Where the user provides instructions to add, delete, or modify in ways that contribute creativity, the Guidelines regard GAI as merely an assistive tool, and the generated content as incorporating human creative input. Accordingly, the content produced with GAI may be entitled to copyright protection.
(2) The Creative Input Must Reflect Human Individuality or Originality
As for whether the instructions given to GAI amount to creative input, the Guidelines state that such contributions must, at a minimum, demonstrate individuality or originality—for instance, by incorporating unique choices in lighting, composition, or other personal ideas in the creation of an image.
2. Potential Infringements in Using GAI
Use of GAI in creation may involve several types of unlawful acts:
(1) Direct Reproduction or Adaptation by Inputting Another’s Work into GAI
Under Articles 22 and 28 of the Copyright Act, authors hold the exclusive rights to reproduce and adapt their works. The Guidelines note that downloading another’s work without authorization and using it to train GAI constitutes reproduction of that work. If one further instructs GAI to generate identical or similar content, thereby modifying or rearranging the original work, such conduct amounts to an adaptation. Whether such acts qualify as fair use under Articles 44 to 65 of the Copyright Act must be assessed case by case; if they do not, they will be deemed an infringement of the author’s rights.
(2) Indirect Reproduction or Adaptation Where the GAI System Itself Relies on Existing Works Without the User’s Intent
Apart from situations where users intentionally input others’ works into GAI, the GAI system itself may also generate content that incorporates existing works without the user’s knowledge. According to the Guidelines, if it can be demonstrated that an existing work used by GAI was accessible and that, under ordinary social circumstances, it is reasonable to assume the work could have been accessed, there is a risk that the GAI-generated output may be deemed a reproduction or adaptation.
(3) Infringement of Moral Rights
As GAI’s capabilities in processing audio-visual works continue to advance, there has been an increasing number of online creations that alter a performer’s appearance or voice through GAI. The Guidelines note that such creations, if unauthorized, may infringe on moral rights by misappropriating an individual’s likeness and may constitute an infringement of moral rights under Article 17 of the Copyright Act.
3. Mitigating Legal Risks in Using GAI for Creative Works
It is clear that using GAI in creative activities entails significant legal risks. To address these risks, the Guidelines propose several measures for creators and cultural enterprises, with the key points summarized as follows:
(1) Confirm rights and obligations: Review the terms of service of the GAI tool to confirm the ownership of intellectual property rights in the generated content and the allocation of liability.
(2) Use authorized inputs: Ensure that data or source materials entered into GAI are either lawfully authorized or from the public domain.
(3) Enhance copyrightability: Increase user involvement in the creative process to ensure that the final output reflects human creativity and qualifies for copyright protection.
(4) Check for potential infringements: Before publishing GAI-generated works, verify whether the output may infringe copyrights, personality rights, or give rise to other unlawful conduct.
(5) Maintain complete records: Keep detailed records of the data, source materials and prompts entered into GAI, as well as the generated outputs, to serve as evidence in the event of a dispute.
4. Conclusion
Although the Guidelines constitute “administrative guidance” under Article 165 of the Administrative Procedure Act and are therefore not legally binding, they nevertheless remain an important reference for applying the law to GAI-created works. However, as the standards for determining the degree of human creativity and fair use remain unclear, creators and cultural enterprises should follow the latest developments from the Intellectual Property Office of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Intellectual Property and Commercial Court to ensure their GAI-generated works are eligible for copyright protection.
1. Conditions for Copyright Protection
Whether GAI-generated outputs are eligible for copyright protection has been widely debated internationally. According to Chapter 4 of the Guidelines, copyright protection requires that a work be the creative expression of human thought or emotion. If a result is generated solely by GAI without human creative input, it cannot be entitled to protection. Conversely, if the output generated by GAI reflects creative input from the user issuing the prompts, the user may claim copyright protection in the generated result.
(1) With Human Creative Input
Where the user provides instructions to add, delete, or modify in ways that contribute creativity, the Guidelines regard GAI as merely an assistive tool, and the generated content as incorporating human creative input. Accordingly, the content produced with GAI may be entitled to copyright protection.
(2) The Creative Input Must Reflect Human Individuality or Originality
As for whether the instructions given to GAI amount to creative input, the Guidelines state that such contributions must, at a minimum, demonstrate individuality or originality—for instance, by incorporating unique choices in lighting, composition, or other personal ideas in the creation of an image.
2. Potential Infringements in Using GAI
Use of GAI in creation may involve several types of unlawful acts:
(1) Direct Reproduction or Adaptation by Inputting Another’s Work into GAI
Under Articles 22 and 28 of the Copyright Act, authors hold the exclusive rights to reproduce and adapt their works. The Guidelines note that downloading another’s work without authorization and using it to train GAI constitutes reproduction of that work. If one further instructs GAI to generate identical or similar content, thereby modifying or rearranging the original work, such conduct amounts to an adaptation. Whether such acts qualify as fair use under Articles 44 to 65 of the Copyright Act must be assessed case by case; if they do not, they will be deemed an infringement of the author’s rights.
(2) Indirect Reproduction or Adaptation Where the GAI System Itself Relies on Existing Works Without the User’s Intent
Apart from situations where users intentionally input others’ works into GAI, the GAI system itself may also generate content that incorporates existing works without the user’s knowledge. According to the Guidelines, if it can be demonstrated that an existing work used by GAI was accessible and that, under ordinary social circumstances, it is reasonable to assume the work could have been accessed, there is a risk that the GAI-generated output may be deemed a reproduction or adaptation.
(3) Infringement of Moral Rights
As GAI’s capabilities in processing audio-visual works continue to advance, there has been an increasing number of online creations that alter a performer’s appearance or voice through GAI. The Guidelines note that such creations, if unauthorized, may infringe on moral rights by misappropriating an individual’s likeness and may constitute an infringement of moral rights under Article 17 of the Copyright Act.
3. Mitigating Legal Risks in Using GAI for Creative Works
It is clear that using GAI in creative activities entails significant legal risks. To address these risks, the Guidelines propose several measures for creators and cultural enterprises, with the key points summarized as follows:
(1) Confirm rights and obligations: Review the terms of service of the GAI tool to confirm the ownership of intellectual property rights in the generated content and the allocation of liability.
(2) Use authorized inputs: Ensure that data or source materials entered into GAI are either lawfully authorized or from the public domain.
(3) Enhance copyrightability: Increase user involvement in the creative process to ensure that the final output reflects human creativity and qualifies for copyright protection.
(4) Check for potential infringements: Before publishing GAI-generated works, verify whether the output may infringe copyrights, personality rights, or give rise to other unlawful conduct.
(5) Maintain complete records: Keep detailed records of the data, source materials and prompts entered into GAI, as well as the generated outputs, to serve as evidence in the event of a dispute.
4. Conclusion
Although the Guidelines constitute “administrative guidance” under Article 165 of the Administrative Procedure Act and are therefore not legally binding, they nevertheless remain an important reference for applying the law to GAI-created works. However, as the standards for determining the degree of human creativity and fair use remain unclear, creators and cultural enterprises should follow the latest developments from the Intellectual Property Office of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Intellectual Property and Commercial Court to ensure their GAI-generated works are eligible for copyright protection.
