In 2023, the Beijing Internet Court delivered a ruling in the Spring Breeze Case , which has been widely recognized in the media as the "the first copyright infringement case in China concerning images generated by artificial intelligence." In the Spring Breeze Case, for the first time, the Beijing Internet Court provided clarification on whether content generated by artificial intelligence (referred to as "AIGC") qualifies as a work.
Just a few months later, the Guangzhou Internet Court issued another judgment regarding AIGC copyright infringement, the Ultraman Case, which is known as the "the first case of copyright infringement involving AIGC platforms" . In this case, the Guangzhou Internet Court stated for the first time that the AI platform operated by the defendant violated the plaintiff's rights to reproduce and adapt the Ultraman works while offering AIGC services. As a result, the defendant is deemed responsible for the associated civil liabilities.
As the use of AI for creating artistic and intellectual works continues to grow, we can expect to see more cases similar to the Spring Breeze Case and the Ultraman Case. Whether AIGC constitutes a work, the ownership of its copyright, and its implications for different parties have become new topics of discussion. It would be beneficial to delve deeper into the judgments to gain insights into the judicial reasoning behind the determination of AIGC-generated works, particularly from the standpoint of copyright protection and the promotion of technology.
Overview of Ultraman Case
1. Case background
The defendant operated the Tab website, which offered features for AI dialogue and AI-generated artwork. Tab's AI painting feature was exclusively available to members. Tab was launched in 2022, allowing paid users to access the membership version an unlimited number of times without restrictions on word count. Upon purchasing a membership, users received a designated amount of "computing power," which was utilized for AI painting, with each session consuming 3 units of "computing power." Once this resource was depleted, users must recharge separately.
The plaintiff raised concerns after discovering that when using Tab to create images related to Ultraman—such as by entering the request "generate an image of Dyna Ultraman"—the resulting images held a striking resemblance to the plaintiff's own Ultraman images. The plaintiff contended that the defendant had unlawfully utilized their copyrighted works without permission to train its large model, resulting in the generation of these similar images. Furthermore, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had profited illegally through the sale of membership subscriptions and "computing power" purchases as additional services. This situation had caused significant harm to the plaintiff, prompting them to file a lawsuit to safeguard their legal rights.
The plaintiff claimed that the Tab website, managed by the defendant, had the ability to produce images that closely resemble the Ultraman character, which is central to this case. They also argued that the AI drawing feature, available only to members, required specific "computing power" for each image generated. To support their case, the plaintiff presented screenshots of images created by the defendant's Tab website based on particular prompts. A comparison between the original composite image of Diga Ultraman and the primary screenshot generated by the Tab website reveals that the produced images retain the unique expressive qualities characteristic of the Ultraman artistic style.
2. Did the defendant infringe upon the plaintiff's rights to reproduction, adaptation, and information network dissemination?
In relation to the question of whether the defendant violated the plaintiff's right to reproduction.
The images submitted by the plaintiff, which were generated by the Tab website, either partially or fully replicate the original artistic expression of the character "Ultraman." Consequently, the defendant reproduced the Ultraman works without authorization, thereby infringing upon the plaintiff's right to reproduce these works.
Concerning the issue of whether the defendant infringed upon the plaintiff's right to adaptation.
The generated images in question retain elements of the original expression from the "Dyna Ultraman Composite" work while also exhibiting new characteristics derived from that original expression. As such, the defendant's actions can be classified as an adaptation of the Ultraman works. Therefore, the defendant adapted the Ultraman works without permission, infringing upon the plaintiff's right to adapt these works.
Regarding the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant infringed upon their right to disseminate information over networks.
Given the plaintiff's claim of a distinct infringement concerning the right to information network dissemination and considering that this case presents a novel situation of infringement related to generative artificial intelligence, the court has already upheld the claims regarding the infringement of reproduction and adaptation rights. Therefore, the court will refrain from conducting a redundant evaluation, as the same alleged infringing behavior has already been addressed under the reproduction and adaptation rights.
3. The Role of Third-Party Platforms in Generative Artificial Intelligence Services
A key aspect of the Ultraman copyright dispute centers on the function of third-party platforms in the generative artificial intelligence services. These platforms serve as more than just simple intermediaries for information exchange; they play a significant role in the integration of technology and innovative applications. The process of utilizing advanced Stable Diffusion technology demands not only precise technical alignment but also a deep understanding of the platform's business needs and usage scenarios, resulting in a series of intricate engineering operations. Rather than simply reusing open-source models, these platforms engage in targeted optimizations, modifications, and enhancements based on a thorough understanding of the model's characteristics and specific application contexts. This approach requires not only technical expertise but also a keen awareness of the target market to ensure that the services provided address users' actual needs. Consequently, the third-party platform services act as a vital link between open-source models and end users. By delivering customized solutions and tangible application results, they actively participate in the business and obtain the associated benefits.
Given their essential role in the commercial landscape and the economic advantages derived from content generated for specific applications, these service providers are expected to maintain a high level of awareness and understanding of the content relevant to the business scenarios they serve. From the perspectives of service types, business logic, and the costs associated with preventing infringement, they not only possess technological strengths and market insights but also bear a significant responsibility. This entails taking proactive measures to ensure that the generated content does not infringe upon others' intellectual property rights, including copyrights and trademarks, etc.
4. Comments from Guangzhou Internet Court
In cases involving generative artificial intelligence services, courts typically hold that third-party platforms should assume appropriate duties of care based on several factors, including the nature of the service, the importance of the infringement details, the platform's business model, and the potential repercussions of the infringement. These platforms are expected to implement reasonable preventive measures to mitigate the risk of infringing activities, in line with their information management capabilities. However, if a third-party platform clearly states in its user service agreement that it does not review user-uploaded content and fails to adequately demonstrate, during pre-litigation evidence preservation, that it has established effective complaint and reporting channels prominently on its website, this will be viewed as a failure to meet essential review and regulatory responsibilities.
It is important to highlight that when third-party platforms are notified of infringement lawsuits, they typically respond by taking actions such as blocking the relevant content and enhancing their intellectual property review processes. These measures illustrate that, within the day-to-day operations of the website, it is feasible to effectively manage and filter out infringing information using technical solutions that do not significantly increase operational costs. This demonstrates that third-party platforms possess the necessary technical capabilities to prevent infringement. However, if they have not actively utilized these capabilities in the past and have instead maintained a hands-off approach, this may be viewed as a failure to fulfill their responsibility to prevent infringement.
Consequently, third-party platforms that offer generative artificial intelligence services should not only acknowledge their responsibility to uphold the legality of online content but also proactively implement preventive measures that align with current technological advancements and are cost-effective. This will help ensure that user-uploaded content does not infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of others.
Opinions
With the rapid development of AI technology in China, the recognition of AIGC as works by the courts, led by the above two landmark cases is becoming a trend. This trend impacts not only AI users but also significantly involves third-party platforms, major AI model companies, and other related entities.
Firstly, AI users shall enhance their understanding of copyright and compliance practices.
While benefiting from AI technology, users should acknowledge the significance of copyright protection. They must strictly follow copyright laws and refrain from using unauthorized images, audio, videos, and other materials when utilizing AI tools to avoid copyright conflicts. Users should also familiarize themselves with the legal definition of works under Chinese law to ensure that the AIGC content they create qualifies for legal protection. Furthermore, users should focus on the originality and artistic quality of AIGC, improving the innovation and aesthetic value of their creations by refining their creative processes and skills.
Secondly, the third-party platforms shall improve their regulatory and compliance frameworks.
As key channels for distributing AIGC content, these platforms should take on regulatory responsibilities. They need to implement a thorough content review system, enhance oversight of generated content, and ensure that no infringing images or audio are produced. Additionally, platforms should eliminate infringing materials from training datasets to mitigate infringement risks. They should also establish user agreements and platform guidelines to clarify legal responsibilities, including copyright protection, and raise users' awareness of these issues. When working with rights holders, platforms should respect their intellectual property rights and foster communication and collaboration to support the compliant growth of AIGC.
Thirdly, it’s time for the large AI model companies to refine their algorithms and bolster data management.
While advancing AIGC technology, these companies should also embrace their social responsibilities. They should continually enhance algorithm design to improve the originality and artistic quality of AIGC, catering to users' diverse needs. Additionally, companies must strengthen the protection and management of user data to ensure the security and privacy of user information. In partnerships with third-party platforms, companies should clarify copyright ownership and responsibility distribution to minimize legal risks. Moreover, they should actively engage in industry self-regulation and standardization initiatives to promote the healthy evolution of AIGC technology.
Last but not least, the industry shall also collaboratively advance AIGC copyright protection.
Beyond AI users, third-party platforms, and large AI model companies, other entities such as copyright holders, industry associations, and government agencies should also play an active role in AIGC copyright protection. Copyright holders should enhance collaboration with AI users to explore reasonable copyright licensing models. Industry associations should advocate for the establishment of industry standards and norms, reinforcing self-regulation within the sector. Government bodies should refine relevant laws, regulations, and policies to provide robust support for the healthy development of AIGC.