Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) is transforming global content industries and copyright governance. As a general-purpose technology with broad applicability, adaptability, and cross-domain complementarity, GAI enables unprecedented scalability, personalization, and efficiency in content creation. Yet its rapid integration into publishing ecosystems introduces systemic challenges. Artificial intelligence–generated content (AIGC) erodes originality standards in human–machine collaboration, fragments ownership across multi-actor, algorithm-mediated chains, and creates legal uncertainty over large-scale use of protected data in model training. These developments destabilize rights allocation, diminish the market value of copyright assets, and weaken collaborative mechanisms essential to digital–intelligent transformation. This study undertakes a comparative analysis of governance regimes in the United States, European Union, United Kingdom, Japan, and South Korea. The U.S. relies on a jurisprudence-led model centered on the "human authorship" threshold and evolving fair use interpretations, supplemented by targeted industry self-regulation. The EU advances a legislative-first approach, embedding text and data mining (TDM) exceptions and mandatory disclosure of training data within a transparency-oriented framework. The U.K. emphasizes negotiated policymaking, industry standards, and provenance authentication through cross-sectoral coordination. Japan and South Korea prioritize contract-based governance and procedural standardization, requiring generation-process documentation and applying technical tools such as originality detection and blockchain registries. While these models provide instructive elements, each faces constraints: U.S. jurisprudence lags in addressing non-human creativity, EU legislative breadth risks over-regulation, U.K. consensus-building can slow adaptation, and Japan–Korea contractualism may inadequately address cross-border enforcement. Common trends nonetheless emerge, including a shift from static enforcement toward process-oriented governance, the institutionalization of data and authorship transparency, and strengthened multi-stakeholder coordination. Building on these insights, the paper proposes a five-dimensional governance architecture for China's publishing sector: (Ⅰ) tiered authorship attribution quantifying human creative input and archiving prompts, model invocations, and editorial interventions; (Ⅱ) a unified content–data infrastructure standardizing asset archiving, labeling, and graded circulation; (Ⅲ) proactive platform compliance integrating risk-tiered review, dynamic infringement detection, and standardized dispute resolution; (Ⅳ) a cross-disciplinary talent pipeline combining content expertise, legal literacy, and AI proficiency, supported by joint industry–academia–technology training; (Ⅴ) a strategic shift toward knowledge-as-a-service and data-as-a-service, repositioning publishing as an integrated, analytics-driven knowledge ecosystem. Rather than advocating direct transplantation of foreign models, the analysis evaluates their transferability, highlighting structural conditions and institutional constraints that shape their applicability to China. By integrating comparative legal perspectives with sector-specific diagnostics, the study demonstrates how selective adaptation, informed by empirical assessment, can enhance the responsiveness and resilience of copyright governance. The findings emphasize the necessity for evidence-based, domain-specific policy design that balances technological innovation with the protection of creative ecosystems, providing a reference for aligning domestic reforms with evolving international norms. Ultimately, effective AIGC governance demands adaptive, layered, and coordinated responses across legal, industrial, and technological domains. By synthesizing international best practices with indigenous innovation, China's publishing sector can construct a replicable governance model that safeguards rights, fosters innovation, and strengthens its strategic position in the global knowledge economy.