Online infringement of Artificial intelligence (AI) generated content essentially constitutes IP infringement and should adhere to Article 50 of Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Law Applicable to Foreign-Related Civil Relationships. However, applying Article 50 to online infringement involving AI-generated objects presents a dual interpretation dilemma. The first dilemma pertains to the interpretation of the requested place of protection. The second issue concerns the redundancy of party autonomy in the article. Therefore, Article 50 should be reinterpreted with as emphasis on maintaining the territoriality of IP rights to make it applicable to online infringement of AI-generated objects. The place where protection is sought should be understood as the forum. If there are relevant factors, the affected cyberspace can be ‘collapsed’ into the court’s location. By employing the territoriality of IP, party autonomy should be limited to regulating the issue of damages.

I. Introduction
II. Dual Dilemma of Application of Article 50
    A. Dilemmas of Interpretation of the Requested Place of Protection
    B. Dilemmas in the Application of Party Autonomy
III. Rethinking the Requested Place of Protection of Article 50
    A. Selective or One-by-One Application of Copyright Laws
    B. Interpretation of the Requested Place of Protection: Forum
    C. Methodology of the Place of Requested Protection: SpaceFolding
IV. Rethinking the Party Autonomy of Article 50
    A. Possibility of Party Autonomy
    B. Modes of Application of Party Autonomy
V. Summary and Conclusion

• Youyou Jiang(Lecturer at School of Law and Politics, Nanjing Tech University, China. Ph.D. (Nanjing U.))