On August 24 of this year, a case involving "AIThe copyright case of "Wenshengtu" was heard in Beijing Internet Court. Recently, the first instance judgment of the case has been released, the court ruled that the plaintiff enjoys the copyright of the picture in question, and the defendant's behavior constitutes infringement and should bear the corresponding legal responsibility. This case has become the first case of copyright infringement of AI-generated images in China, and has attracted widespread attention.
It is understood that Plaintiffs utilized Stablediffusionartificial intelligence (AI)The defendant used a large model to generate a picture of a character named "Spring Breeze Sends Tenderness" by entering a prompt word, and published it on an online platform. Soon after, he found that the defendant used his picture as the picture of the article on his personal account, and did not keep the watermark of the original picture. The plaintiff believed that the defendant had violated his right of authorship and right of information network dissemination, so he sued the defendant to Beijing Internet Court.
The central issue in this case is whether the pictures generated by artificial intelligence constitute works and are protected by the copyright law. In China's copyright law, the important indicators to be considered in determining whether a picture, etc., is a work are judging whether it is original and whether it is an intellectual achievement.
In this case, the court held that the plaintiff's process of generating pictures using a large model of artificial intelligence covered a number of links, such as designing the presentation of the characters, selecting the cue words, arranging the order of the cue words, setting the relevant parameters, and selecting which picture meets the expectations, etc. The court held that the plaintiff's process of generating pictures using a large model of artificial intelligence covered many links. These links reflect the intellectual input of the plaintiff and can be recognized as intellectual achievements. At the same time, the Court pointed out that the Plaintiff designed the picture through the cue words, and after generating the first version of the picture, then adjusted and amended it by adding cue words and modifying parameters, and finally obtained the picture in question. These processes reflected the plaintiff's aesthetic choices and individual judgment. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it can be concluded that the picture in question was independently completed by the plaintiff, reflecting the plaintiff's personalized expression.
In response to the question of who enjoys the copyright of the work, the court held that, as the copyright law of China stipulates that the author can only be a natural person, a legal person or an unincorporated organization, the big AI model cannot be the author. The designer of the model in question, on the one hand, did not claim the right to the output content, and on the other hand, did not have the will and practice to create the relevant images, and was only the producer of the creation tool, and thus did not belong to the author either. The plaintiff, who made a series of settings for the AI model and finally selected the picture in question, invested in intellectual production and showed personalized expression, and enjoys the copyright of the work in question.
After confirming the plaintiff's copyright, the court further found that the defendant, without the plaintiff's permission, had intercepted, de-watermarked and published the plaintiff's images, which infringed the plaintiff's right of authorship of the work and the right of dissemination of the work on the information network, and constituted an infringement of the copyright. Therefore, the court ruled that the defendant should compensate the plaintiff for the economic loss of 500 yuan, and publicly apologize on the social media account in question within 7 days to eliminate the impact.
The outcome of this case has important implications for the copyright protection of AI-generated images. First, it clarifies the copyright attribution of AI-generated images, that is, AI-generated images can become works and be protected by copyright law. This provides legal protection for the development of AI-generated images in the future. Second, the judgment determined that AI macromodels are only producers of creative tools and cannot be authors. This provides a legal reference for distinguishing the attribution of rights between human authors and AI tools. Finally, the judgment provides strong legal support for the protection of intellectual property rights by identifying and compensating for the infringement of the copyright of AI-generated images.
In short, the outcome of this case is a landmark for the copyright protection of AI-generated images. It not only clarifies the issue of copyright attribution of AI-generated images, but also provides a legal reference for distinguishing the attribution of rights between human authors and AI tools. At the same time, it recognizes and compensates for the infringement of the copyright of AI-generated images, providing strong legal support for the protection of intellectual property rights. In the future, with the continuous development of AI technology, we expect to see more similar cases to continuously improve and protect the copyright legal system of AI-generated images.
This article comes from users or anonymous contributions, does not represent the position of Mass Intelligence; all content (including images, videos, etc.) in this article are copyrighted by the original author. Please refer to this site for the relevant issues involvedstatement denying or limiting responsibilityPlease contact the operator of this website for any infringement of rights (Contact Us) We will handle this as stated. Link to this article: https://dzzn.com/en/2023/1830.html
