Hotspot · Analysis

Is the content generated by artificial intelligence protected by copyright law?

The highly anticipated first case of copyright infringement in AI generated images was settled by the end of 2023. According to the judgment document of the first instance judgment of "(2023) Jing 0491 Early Republic 11279" issued by the Beijing Internet Court, the court held that "the pictures involved in the case belong to art works and are protected by the copyright law", and sentenced the defendant Liu to compensate the plaintiff Li for 500 yuan of economic losses.

Basic information of the case

On February 24, 2023, the plaintiff Li used the open-source software Stable Diffusion to generate a picture of the case by entering prompt words, and later posted the picture on the Xiaohongshu platform under the name "Spring Breeze Brings Gentleness". Later, the plaintiff Li discovered that on March 2, 2023, the Baijiahao account "I am Yunkai Sunrise" published an article titled "Love in March, in Peach Blossoms", which used the images involved in the case. Li believes that the defendant Liu did not obtain his permission and intercepted his signature watermark on the Xiaohongshu platform, causing relevant users to mistakenly believe that the defendant is the author of the work, seriously infringing on the plaintiff's right to authorship and information network dissemination.

Court Trial

The first instance judgment shows that the focus of controversy in this case is: 1. whether the "gentle spring breeze sent" image constitutes a work, and what type of work it constitutes; 2、 Does the plaintiff enjoy the copyright of the images involved in the case; 3、 Whether the accused behavior constitutes infringement, and whether the defendant should bear legal responsibility.

The Beijing Internet Court held that the pictures involved were generated by the plaintiff using generative AI technology. From the time the plaintiff conceived the picture to the time when the picture was finally selected, the plaintiff made certain intellectual investment. The images involved in the case possess the elements of "intellectual achievement". From the images involved in the case, there are identifiable differences from the previous works, and the plaintiff's process of adjustment and correction reflects their aesthetic choices and personal judgments. The images involved in the case were independently completed by the plaintiff, reflecting their personalized expression. Therefore, the images involved in the case possess the element of originality.

The images involved in the case are aesthetically significant graphic art works composed of lines and colors, which belong to the category of art works and are protected by copyright law.

Not all "artificial intelligence generated images" are protected by copyright law

The judgment of Beijing Internet Court mentioned that not all intellectual achievements are works, and only intellectual achievements with "originality" can constitute works. Generally speaking, "originality" requires the work to be independently completed by the author and reflect their personalized expression. Mechanical intellectual achievements should be excluded. For example, works completed in a certain order, formula, or structure will yield the same result to different people, but due to the uniqueness of expression, they do not have originality. Whether the use of artificial intelligence to generate images reflects the author's personalized expression needs to be judged on a case by case basis and cannot be generalized.

In summary, this case comprehensively identifies art works within the meaning of copyright law through the use of artificial intelligence software as a creative tool, combined with factors such as intellectual achievements and originality generated by the author's creative activities, rather than a unified recognition that the content generated by artificial intelligence is protected by copyright law. Therefore, in practice, specific analysis and identification of individual cases are necessary.

Industry · New Policies

Draft Measures for the Administration of Online Games (Draft for Comments)

On December 22, 2023, the website of the State Administration of Press and Publication announced the "Draft Measures for the Administration of Online Games (for soliciting opinions)", and the deadline for feedback is January 22, 2024.

The Measures consist of eight chapters and sixty-four articles, and Article 16 specifies twelve types of prohibited content, among which it is clear that online games shall not contain situations that harm the physical and mental health of minors, such as terror and cruelty. In addition, it is stipulated that online game publishing and operation units shall not set mandatory battles in online games, and online games shall not set inducement rewards such as daily login, first recharge, and continuous recharge. All online games must set user recharge limits.

Before the online game is approved for publication, those who conduct online game technology testing should ensure that the content of the online game meets the relevant requirements of the regulations, with a limit of no more than 20000 test users. The testing should not publicly provide client software that can be directly registered and logged into the server, nor charge fees, nor obtain profits through commercial cooperation, advertising sales, and other means.

Safety Technical Regulations for Large Amusement Facilities

On December 6th, the website of the State Administration for Market Regulation released a notice on the release of the Safety Technical Regulations for Large Amusement Facilities.

The announcement clearly states that the regulations will come into effect on March 1, 2024, with a transitional period of one year from the date of implementation. During the transition period, for the identification and type testing of design documents for large amusement facilities, the inspection agency shall conduct them in accordance with this regulation; For supervision and regular inspections, manufacturing units and operating units should redefine the level of large amusement facilities in accordance with this regulation and apply for corresponding inspections. They can choose to inspect according to this regulation or the original "Regulations on Supervision and Inspection of Amusement Facilities (Trial)"; The original design document identification and type test report remain valid. The cliff swing is included in the supervision of large-scale amusement facilities under the special equipment category, and is classified as a series of flying people in unpowered amusement facilities.