In 2023, the Beijing Internet Court delivered a ruling in case number (2023) Jing 0491 Minchu 11279, namely, 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 numbered (2024) Yue 0192 Minchu 113 regarding AIGC copyright infringement, namely, 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.
The two judgements regarding AIGC copyright infringement have sparked significant discussions in both the theoretical and practical fields of copyright law in China. 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 two 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 the Spring Breeze Case
-
Case Background
The plaintiff generated a series of images based on this model by installing a network open-source Stable Diffusion package and generated the image titled “Spring Breeze Brings Gentle Warmth”, then later uploaded the image to Xiaohongshu. Then the plaintiff discovered an AIGC portrait model that was redeveloped by a domestic blogger while browsing a video website.
The defendant, a poetry enthusiast, used the images published by the plaintiff in his personal articles and removed the watermark indicating the source of the images. The plaintiff accused the defendant of infringing on the rights of attribution and the right of information network dissemination.
-
The plaintiff image generation process by using the Stable Diffusion
Based on publicly accessible information and relevant studies, the Stable Diffusion model is trained on a vast array of images and their associated textual descriptions sourced from the internet. This model is designed to create images that correspond to textual information by leveraging the relationship between the semantic content of the text and the visual elements of the image.
In this scenario, the plaintiff aimed to create a close-up image of a beautiful woman, utilizing a photographic style that captures the essence of dusk lighting. They entered specific prompt words into the Stable Diffusion model, designating the art type as “hyper-realistic photo” and “color photo,” with the subject identified as a “Japanese idol.” The plaintiff provided detailed descriptions regarding skin condition, eye color, and braid color, while the setting was characterized as “outdoor,” “golden hour,” and “dynamic lighting.” The subject’s presentation was described as having a “cool pose” and “looking at the camera,” incorporating styles such as “film texture” and “film simulation.” After establishing relevant parameters and reviewing the initially generated images, the plaintiff refined their prompts and adjusted the parameters, ultimately selecting an image that met their satisfaction.
-
Whether the generated image of Stable Diffusion qualified as intellectual achievement
“Intellectual achievements” encompass the outcomes of intellectual endeavors, and as such, the works produced should demonstrate the intellectual contributions of individuals. In the Spring Breeze Case, the entire process, from the initial conception of the image to the final selection, involved significant intellectual investment. This included designing the character’s presentation, choosing and ordering prompt words, setting parameters, and determining which image aligned with their vision. As such, the resulting image reflects the plaintiff’s intellectual effort, qualifying it as an “intellectual achievement.”
However, the determination of whether images generated by artificial intelligence embody the author’s personalized expression must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, rather than generalized. Generally, when individuals utilize models like Stable Diffusion to create images, the more distinct their requests are from others, along with the clarity and specificity of their visual descriptions and layout compositions, the more likely they are to reflect their individual expression.
-
Comments from Beijing Internet Court
The Beijing Internet Court provided a summary of its judgment, which can be outlined as follows:
It’s important to recognize that generative AI is transforming the creative process in a manner akin to many historical technological innovations. The evolution of technology often involves delegating tasks traditionally performed by humans to machines. As technology continues to evolve and tools become increasingly sophisticated, the reliance on human input may diminish. However, this shift does not undermine our commitment to the copyright system, which plays a vital role in fostering the creation of new works. The primary objective of the copyright system is to encourage creativity. By effectively applying copyright principles and leveraging appropriate legal frameworks, we can inspire more individuals to create using the latest technologies, thereby promoting both artistic expression and advancements in artificial intelligence. In this context, as long as AI-generated images reflect the original intellectual contributions of a person, they should be acknowledged as works deserving of copyright protection.
Overview of Ultraman Case
-
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 Content of Images Produced by Tab Website
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.
According to the judgement, it was noted that when a prompt containing “Ultraman” was entered into the AI drawing module on the Tab website, a notification appeared stating, “The information you sent contains non-compliant content,” preventing any image generation from occurring. Conversely, when the term “Diga” was used, the resulting image generated by Tab’s AI drawing module bore a striking resemblance to the original Ultraman character involved in the case. It was observed that there were no user agreements or platform guidelines available on the defendant’s Tab website. Furthermore, there was no indication for users regarding the importance of respecting copyright or other legal rights while utilizing the service. Additionally, the website did not clarify that the images produced were generated by AI, nor did it inform users that the AI drawing feature was powered by a third-party service provider.
-
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.
China Landmark AIGC Cases
In the Spring Breeze Case and the Ultraman Case, both the Beijing Internet Court and the Guangzhou Internet Court acknowledged that AIGC, which qualifies as a work, deserves protection. The Spring Breeze Case offered a comprehensive rationale for this protection, which can be summarized as follows:
Initially, the court evaluated the extent of human intellectual input involved in the creation of the image titled “Spring Breeze Brings Gentle Warmth” and whether it meets the criteria for being classified as an intellectual achievement. In this context, the court will assess whether the plaintiff contributed intellectually while utilizing AI to produce the image. This includes aspects such as designing character presentations, selecting prompt words, organizing the sequence of those words, and establishing relevant parameters. If the plaintiff actively participated in these intellectual processes during the image generation, the image may indeed be recognized as an intellectual achievement.
Second, the court also considered whether the image “Spring Breeze Brings Gentle Warmth” possesses originality. Originality means that the work must be independently created by the author and reflect the author’s personalized expression. The court would review whether the plaintiff designed the visual elements, layout, and composition when using AI to generate the image, and whether it reflects the plaintiff’s choices and arrangements. If the plaintiff personalized the intervention and adjustments in the AI image generation process, resulting in a unique artistic style and creativity, then the image could be deemed original.
Finally, the court would consider whether the AI-generated image belongs to the realm of artistic works. Works in the artistic domain typically possess certain aesthetic value and artistry, capable of evoking aesthetic feelings and emotional resonance in people. In this case, the court would examine whether the AI-generated image has artistic qualities and aesthetic value, and whether it conforms to the rules and characteristics of artistic creation. If the AI-generated image has originality and aesthetic value in art, then it could be considered a work within the artistic domain.
Recommendations for AI Users and Right Holders
With the rapid development of AI technology in China, the recognition of AIGC as works by the courts, led by the above two milestone cases is becoming a trend. The author suggests that AI users, rights holders, and AI platforms should align their responses with the judicial trends observed in the two cases.
For AI users, it is essential to comply with copyright law when using AI tools. AI users should avoid using unauthorized images, materials, etc., during the creative process to prevent copyright infringement issues. Additionally, AI users should pay attention to whether AIGC meets the definition of a work as stipulated by Chinese regulations, ensuring that the AIGC they produce can be protected as a work.
For rights holders, the court has confirmed their legitimate rights and interests in original works. When rights holders discover infringement, they should actively take measures to protect their rights, such as reporting to relevant authorities or filing lawsuits. Furthermore, rights holders should enhance the protection and management of original works to increase their visibility and commercial value.
For AI platforms, they should strengthen the supervision of generated content to ensure that no infringing images are produced. Additionally, they should remove relevant materials from training datasets to avoid infringement risks. Moreover, AI companies should enhance cooperation and communication with rights holders to jointly promote the compliant development of AIGC.
