Under the background that the writing boundary of "human-machine dichotomy" has become blurred, it is necessary to discuss the nature of the original content generated by artificial intelligence (AIGC).From the perspective of legal interpretation, the fruits system, the data product system and the traditional work system cannot be reasonably applied to AIGC. From the perspective of legislative theory, we should abandon the concept of "romantic author" and solve the problem of the nature of content generated by artificial intelligence, which is subject to the writing principles of human authors. The system of works is no longer applied in an all-or-nothing way, and takes originality as the key criterion for identifying works, and puts forward a new form of works.

Ye Lin. Research on the Nature of Works of Artificial Intelligence-generated Content. International Journal of Frontiers in Sociology (2024), Vol. 6, Issue 5: 23-28. https://doi.org/10.25236/IJFS.2024.060504.

[1] Wu Handong. Questions on the Copyright Law of works generated by artificial Intelligence [J]. Chinese and Foreign Law, 2020, v.32, No.18(03):93-11

[2] Wu Handong. Institutional Arrangement and legal Regulation in the era of Artificial Intelligence [J]. Social Science Abstracts, 2017(12):76-78.

[3] Wu Handong. Intellectual Property Law [M]. Beijing: Law Press, 2014.

[4] Xiong Qi. Legal Structure of Copyright Incentive Mechanism [M]. Beijing: China Renmin University Press, 2011.

[5] Shi Jinchuan, Chen Chunliang. Law and Economics [M]. Beijing: Peking University Press, 2014.

[6] Feng Xiaoqing, Pan Baihua. Research on the identification of Artificial Intelligence "creation" and the Protection of property rights and interests -- Comment on the "First case of Copyright infringement of Artificial Intelligence-Generated Content" [J]. Journal of Northwestern University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 2020, 50(02):39-52.

[7] Yi Jiming. Are artificial intelligence creations works? [J]. Legal Science (Journal of Northwest University of Political Science and Law), 2017, 35(05):137-147.

[8] Jing Jing. On the protection of Adjacent rights of Artificial Intelligence-generated Content [J]. Jinling Law Review, 2020(01):259-278.

[9] Huang Yuye, Malaysia Airlines. Rights ownership of works generated by artificial Intelligence from the perspective of Fruits [J]. Journal of Henan Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 2018, 45(04):23-29.

[10] Yang Lihua, Wang Shitong. Reflections on the Objectiveness of copyright in artificial Intelligence-generated Content -- and on the selection of originality criteria for judging works [J/OL]. Journal of Beijing university of aeronautics and astronautics (social science edition): 1-17 [2023-10-24]. DOI: 10.13766 / j.b HSK. 1008-2204.2023.0862.

[11] Wang Qian. On the qualitative analysis of artificial intelligence-generated content in copyright law [J]. Political Science and Law Forum, 2019, 41(04):16-33.

[12] Zhou Xuefeng. Analysis on tort liability of generative Artificial Intelligence [J]. Comparative Law Research, 2023(04):117-131.

[13] Xu Jiali. Copyright ownership of artificial intelligence products [J]. Jinan Journal (Philosophy and Social Sciences), 2023, 45(04):37-49. (in Chinese)

[14] Feng Xiaoqing, Hao Mingying. Generate invention patent protection system of artificial intelligence research [J]. Journal of hunan university (social science edition), 2023 ((02): 143-152. The DOI: 10.16339 / j.carol carroll nki HDXBSKB. 2023.02.019.

[15] Yu Xingzhong, Zheng Ge, Ding Xiaodong. Six issues in Generative Artificial Intelligence and law: A case study of ChatGPT [J]. China Law Review, 2023(02):1-20.

[16] Yin Zhiqiang. Why Artificial Intelligence is "human": Civil Law response in the era of Artificial Intelligence [J]. Social Science Research, 2023(01):60-70.

[17] Feng Xiaoqing. Intellectual Property Law in the Digital Age [J]. Digital Rule of Law, 2023(03):25-45.