—Selected into the "Top 10 Nominated Cases Promoting Rule of Law Progress in the New Era for 2024"

Case Brief

The plaintiff used an AI model to generate the image involved in the case by inputting prompts and then posted it on an online platform. The defendant published an article on another online platform, using the image involved in the case as an illustration in the article. The plaintiff believes that the defendant used the image involved in the case without permission and removed the plaintiff's signature watermark on the online platform, making the relevant users mistakenly believe that the defendant is the author of the work, which seriously infringes the plaintiff's entitled rights of authorship and communication through information networks. The plaintiff demanded that the defendant make a public apology, compensate for the economic losses, etc.

After a hearing, the Court held that, from the image involved in the case itself, it embodies a recognizable difference from the prior work. From the process of generating the image involved in the case, the plaintiff has designed the image elements, such as the character and the presentation thereof through the prompts and set the layout and composition of the image and the like through parameters, reflecting the plaintiff's choices and arrangements. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it can be concluded that the image involved in the case was created independently by the plaintiff, reflecting the plaintiff's personalized expression, so the image involved in the case has the element of "originality." The image in this case is a graphic artwork of aesthetic significance composed of lines and colors, a fine artwork protected by copyright law. In terms of the attribution of rights to the work involved in the case, the image involved in the case is generated directly based on the plaintiff's intellectual input, reflecting the plaintiff's personalized expression. Therefore, the plaintiff is the author of the image involved and enjoys the copyright of the image involved. The defendant infringed on the plaintiff's entitled rights and should be held liable for the infringement of rights. Finally, the court ruled that the defendant should apologize and compensate for the damages.

Reasons for Being Selected

This case is a meaningful exploration of the legal protection of AI-generated content. The judgment in this case insisted on the view that copyright law only protects the "creation of natural persons," and by recognizing the attribute of "work" of AI-generated images and the identity of the user as the "author," the judgment encourages the users to use AI tools to create with enthusiasm, thus realizing the internal goal of the copyright law to "stimulate the creation of works" and reinforcing the dominant position of human beings in the development of AI.

(Source: Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China)