The AI industry has risen rapidly in the past two years, and a number of AI creative products have emerged, including AI text-based pictures, AI picture-based text and other types. Users only need to enter some prompt words, and the large AI model can produce corresponding text, pictures, codes and other content.Is AI-generated content protected by copyright law? Who do the corresponding rights belong to? Can I freely use AI-generated content on the Internet? This problem has always troubled everyone.
Recently, the Beijing Internet Court concluded a case involving disputes between Li and Liu over infringement of authorship rights and information network dissemination rights.It clarifies the "work" attributes of images generated using artificial intelligence and the "creator" identity of the user.
According to reports, the plaintiff used the open source software StableDiffusion to generate the pictures involved in the case by inputting prompt words and then published them on the Xiaohongshu platform. The defendant published an article on Baijiahao, and the pictures involved in the article were used.
The plaintiff believed that the defendant used the pictures involved in the case without permission and cut off the plaintiff's signature watermark on the Xiaohongshu platform, causing relevant users to mistakenly believe that the defendant was the author of the work. This seriously violated the plaintiff's right of signature and information network dissemination rights, and demanded that the defendant make a public apology and compensate for economic losses.
The defendant argued that it was not sure whether the plaintiff had the rights to the pictures involved in the case. The main content of the article published by the defendant was original poetry, not the pictures involved in the case, and it had no commercial use and no infringement intention.
After trial, the court held that the pictures involved in the case met the definition of a work and belonged to the work
Judging from the appearance of the pictures involved in the case, they are no different from the photos and paintings that people usually see. They obviously belong to the field of art and have certain forms of expression. The pictures involved in the case were generated by the plaintiff using generative artificial intelligence technology. From the time when the plaintiff conceived the pictures involved in the case to the final selection of the pictures involved in the case, the plaintiff made a certain amount of intellectual investment, such as designing the presentation of characters, selecting prompt words, arranging the order of prompt words, setting relevant parameters, selecting which picture meets expectations, etc. The pictures involved in the case reflect the plaintiff’s intellectual investment, so the pictures involved in the case meet the requirements of “intellectual achievements”.
Judging from the pictures involved in the case, they show identifiable differences from previous works.
Judging from the generation process of the pictures involved in the case, the plaintiff designed the picture elements such as characters and their presentation through prompt words, and set the layout and composition of the picture through parameters, which reflected the plaintiff's choices and arrangements.
On the other hand, after the plaintiff obtained the first picture by inputting prompt words and setting relevant parameters, he continued to add prompt words, modify parameters, continuously adjust and modify, and finally obtained the picture involved in the case. This adjustment and modification process reflected the plaintiff's aesthetic choice and personality judgment.In the absence of contrary evidence, it can be concluded that the pictures involved in the case were independently completed by the plaintiff and reflected the plaintiff's personalized expression. Therefore, the pictures involved in the case meet the requirements of "originality".
The pictures involved in the case are graphic artistic works with aesthetic significance composed of lines and colors. They are works of fine art and are protected by copyright law.
In the end, the Beijing Internet Court made a first-instance judgment, ruling that the defendant apologized and compensated the plaintiff 500 yuan. Neither party filed an appeal, and the first-instance judgment has now taken effect.