AIGC (Artificial Intelligence Generated Content) refers to content created automatically using artificial intelligence technology, which can take various forms such as text, images, music, videos, etc.The core of AIGC lies in imitating human creativity. Through machine learning and deep learning algorithms, AI can learn specific styles and patterns, and based on this, generate new and unique content, bringing new opportunities for content creation. It can significantly improve content production efficiency, reduce costs, and provide users with a more personalized and diverse content experience. At the same time, AIGC also brings a series of challenges, with originality and copyright issues being one of the main problems faced by AIGC. With the rapid development of generative artificial intelligence technology, users only need to input some prompts, and the AI large model can produce corresponding text, images, code, and other content. The copyright ownership of “works” generated using artificial intelligence and the identification of infringement have thus become hot topics for discussion and worthy of exploration in legal issues.
In our country, according to copyright-related laws and regulations, to be recognized as a work, it must meet four conditions: it belongs to the fields of literature, art, and science, has originality, can be expressed in a certain form, and is an intellectual achievement. Recently, we have focused on judicial cases related to AIGC in various courts. The following examples reflect the pioneering exploration of judicial practice regarding the copyright issues of AIGC “works,” emphasizing the necessity for copyright theory to adapt to the technological development of AIGC. The rulings of these cases provide useful references for the copyright ownership of AIGC “works,” the identification of infringement, and the improvement of risk prevention mechanisms for service providers.
1. A copyright ownership, infringement, and commercial bribery unfair competition dispute concluded by a certain court in Shenzhen
The article in question was automatically generated by the plaintiff using a certain AIGC software and published online. The plaintiff obtained a non-exclusive license to use the software and the intelligent writing system, enjoying copyright over the works generated by the software within the authorized scope, as well as the right to independently protect their rights. The creation process of the article involved intellectual input from the plaintiff’s editorial team, product team, and technical development team, including data collection, article structure design, template iteration, trigger condition setting, and content review, etc. The end of the published article has noted: This article was automatically written by a certain AIGC software. The defendant published an article on their operating website that was identical in title and content to the article in question without permission.
The plaintiff’s claims include requiring the defendant to immediately stop disseminating the article to which the plaintiff holds copyright through information networks; requiring the defendant to compensate for economic losses of 10,000 yuan; requiring the defendant to compensate for reasonable expenses incurred in protecting rights (including attorney fees and notarization fees) of 9,000 yuan, etc. The defendant did not respond.
The court held that the article in question belongs to the literary expression field, has originality, and can be reproduced in a tangible form. The article generated by the plaintiff through AIGC software, through data selection, analysis, and judgment, involves intellectual activity and possesses originality. The plaintiff’s team’s personalized choices and arrangements during the generation process meet the requirements of copyright law for creation, reflecting the plaintiff’s needs and intentions. Therefore, it was recognized as a corporate work, and the copyright belongs to the plaintiff. The defendant, having published the article in question on their website without permission, infringed upon the plaintiff’s right to disseminate information over networks. Considering the type of work, reasonable use fees, the nature and consequences of the infringement, the court determined the compensation amount to be 1,500 yuan. The defendant has deleted the infringing article, thus the request for stopping the infringement is no longer supported, and the case acceptance fee of 275 yuan is to be borne by the defendant.
2. A copyright ownership dispute concluded by a certain court in Beijing
The image in question was automatically generated and published online by the plaintiff using a certain AIGC software, which states that it does not claim any rights to the outputs generated by users. The process of generating the image involved the plaintiff downloading and installing a certain model, inputting dozens of prompts in both forward and reverse prompts, modifying iteration steps, image height, prompt guiding coefficients, and random seeds to generate the first image; under the same parameters, modifying the weight parameters of one model to generate the second image; under the same parameters, modifying the random seed to generate the third image; and under the same parameters, adding forward prompts to finally generate the image. The published image included the plaintiff’s signature watermark and added an “AI illustration” tag. The defendant published this image as their original content without permission and removed the signature watermark.
The plaintiff’s claims include requiring the defendant to publish a public statement of apology to eliminate the impact; requiring the defendant to compensate for economic losses of 5,000 yuan, etc. The defendant argued that the image in question was obtained from the internet, could not provide a specific source, and could not explain the watermark situation, asserting that the main content published was their original work and not the image in question, and that there was no commercial use, etc.
The court held that since artificial intelligence models do not possess free will and are not legal subjects, they cannot become authors. It is still humans using them as tools for creation; the intellectual input during the entire creation process is by humans, not artificial intelligence. As long as the images generated by artificial intelligence reflect the intellectual input of human originality, they should be recognized as works and protected by copyright law. The plaintiff had intellectual input and personalized expression in the image, thus the image met the criteria for protection under copyright law. The copyright belongs to the plaintiff. The defendant, having removed the plaintiff’s signature watermark without permission, infringed upon the plaintiff’s right to attribution and information network dissemination rights, and should bear liability for infringement, supporting the plaintiff’s request for an apology to eliminate the impact; the evidence provided by both parties could not determine the amount of licensing fees for the image in question, and the economic loss was determined to be 500 yuan, with the case acceptance fee of 50 yuan to be borne by the defendant.
The rulings of these two cases provide a positive response to the frequent copyright issues of AIGC, asserting that artificial intelligence models do not possess free will and cannot become authors. Humans use artificial intelligence as tools for creation, and the intellectual input during the entire creation process is completed by humans rather than artificial intelligence. Therefore, as long as the images generated by artificial intelligence can reflect human intellectual input (such as the user inputting prompts or completing relevant settings and selecting output results), they should be recognized as works and protected by copyright law. This viewpoint applies the legislative logic of encouraging and protecting creation related to copyright law to judicial rulings, reasonably adapting to the technological development of artificial intelligence, and encouraging the use of AIGC tools for creation, which is beneficial for the healthy development of the artificial intelligence industry. At the same time, the above judicial rulings also emphasize that when determining the copyright ownership of AIGC, it is necessary to consider the extent of the user’s intellectual input in the generation process and the originality of the work. Whether the content generated by artificial intelligence constitutes a work cannot be generalized; it requires case-by-case judgment based on actual circumstances. It is worth noting that both judgments mentioned that copyright holders should prominently label their use of artificial intelligence technology in their works. AIGC users should pay attention to this requirement to help protect their related rights and the public’s right to know.
Regarding whether AIGC can receive intellectual property protection, relevant cases have also appeared abroad. Although there are certain differences with our country’s intellectual property legal system and rules, foreign courts generally follow reasoning and judgment standards similar to those of our courts on this issue, i.e., the degree and level of human intellectual input should be the core judgment factor for whether AIGC meets the relevant intellectual property protection standards. Outputs that are completely generated by artificial intelligence and lack human intellectual participation and contribution should not be granted intellectual property (whether copyright or patent) protection.
In addition, we believe that the contributions of AIGC designers should not be overlooked by the market, and their rights should not be completely limited to the software itself. We look forward to further laws and regulations being introduced in the future to adjust the rights and obligations of all parties in the AIGC industry chain, better balancing the relationship between technological development and creative protection.
3. A copyright infringement dispute concluded by a certain court in Guangzhou
The copyright holder of certain image series artworks granted the plaintiff exclusive copyright within the scope of authorization and granted them the right to independently protect their rights. The painting function of the defendant’s AIGC platform can generate images that are consistent or substantially similar to the image in question. This function is exclusive to members, and each time an image is generated, computing power is consumed, requiring users to recharge and purchase membership and computing power. Users can input relevant prompts in the painting function module to display images that are consistent or substantially similar to the image in question for viewing and downloading. The defendant did not provide relevant user agreements or platform rules informing users that the service must not infringe upon others’ copyrights or other legal rights, nor did they inform that generated images need to indicate that they were generated by artificial intelligence, and did not specify the service provider of their painting function.
To stop the infringement, the plaintiff paid notarization fees of 300 yuan and evidence collection fees of 1,405.7 yuan. The plaintiff’s claims include requiring the defendant to immediately stop generating images in question; compensating for economic losses and reasonable expenses incurred due to direct infringement of 300,000 yuan, etc. The defendant argued that they had already stopped the infringement when they received the materials for this case; that there was no subjective or objective training generating infringing images, and that the painting function of the AIGC platform was provided by a third party, which has nothing to do with the defendant; and that there is no evidence to directly prove that the defendant profited from the image in question.
The court held that the images generated by the AIGC platform operated by the defendant completely or partially replicated the original expression of the image in question, infringing upon the plaintiff’s copyright to the work, and should bear the responsibility to stop the infringement. The defense that the painting service function was provided by a third-party service provider was not accepted. During the trial, although the defendant had already taken measures such as keyword filtering, it was still possible to generate substantially similar images by inputting other keywords related to the image in question. They should take further measures to stop the infringement. Generative artificial intelligence has certain tool attributes, and service providers should fulfill their reasonable duty of care. According to the currently effective “Interim Measures for the Management of Generative Artificial Intelligence Services,” the defendant lacked a complaint reporting mechanism, lacked potential risk prompts, and lacked significant indications. Subjectively, they were at fault and should bear the liability for infringement compensation. The image in question has high recognition, but considering that the defendant actively took technical measures to prevent the continued generation of related images and achieved certain effects after responding to the lawsuit, the compensation was determined to be 10,000 yuan. The case acceptance fee of 2,900 yuan is to be borne by the plaintiff, while the defendant bears 1,500 yuan. The court also affirmed the important position of artificial intelligence in technological development, stating that considering the generative artificial intelligence industry is still in its early stages, it is necessary to balance rights protection and industry development, and not excessively increase the obligations of service providers. Service providers should actively fulfill reasonable and affordable obligations to promote the formation of a governance system for artificial intelligence in China that balances safety and development, inclusiveness and balance, and innovation and protection.
This case serves as a warning for AIGC platform service providers, clearly defining the duty of care they should fulfill when providing related services, emphasizing the importance of intellectual property protection mechanisms, and providing guidance for legal and compliant operation for AIGC platform service providers. AIGC platform service providers need to take effective measures to avoid infringement, proactively indicate that there is no intent to infringe, and promptly stop infringing actions after disputes arise. They also need to improve intellectual property protection mechanisms, including user agreements, infringement prompts, proactive reviews, and accepting complaints and reports. Additionally, companies need to actively use technical and legal means to prevent infringement results, which may include reviewing data, updating user agreements, establishing user reporting systems, improving internal policies, training employees, and conducting risk assessments. Using third-party technology interfaces does not exempt companies from liability for infringement. When cooperating with third parties, companies should carefully review cooperation agreements, especially regarding intellectual property and related liability and compensation clauses, and should strengthen prevention through legal consultation or due diligence, avoiding illegal and infringing actions, and jointly promoting the compliant and orderly development of the AIGC market with regulatory authorities.
The emergence of the above judicial cases also reflects the active development of the AIGC industry in our country, as well as the flexible application of relevant infringement principles and judgment standards by judicial authorities. This case is even referred to as the “world’s first case of infringement on AIGC platforms.” With the formation and improvement of laws and regulations related to AIGC and industry self-regulatory rules, we expect that more complex and diverse legal relationships and regulatory requirements will emerge in the field of AIGC in the future. How to formulate, interpret, implement, and apply rules in the unique context of the development of the AIGC industry will be a new challenge faced by all practitioners.
-
The copyright of this article belongs to Simmons & Simmons LLP and its affiliates, or is used under license or applicable law. For reprints, please contact us.
-
The information in this article (including information from linked third-party websites) is provided for your general reference only and does not constitute our legal advice or suggestions regarding specific matters.
