The image generated by AI was suspected of infringement, and the court determined it to be a work - the first instance verdict of the AI ​​infringement case

According to news from this site on November 29, on August 24 this year, a copyright case related to "AI Vincent Pictures" was publicly heard in the Beijing Internet Court. The first-instance judgment of the case was recently After the announcement, the court ruled that the plaintiff owned the copyright of the pictures involved in the case, and the defendant's behavior constituted infringement and should bear corresponding legal liability. So far, this case is the first copyright case related to AI-generated images.

According to our understanding, the plaintiff used the Stable diffusion artificial intelligence large model to generate a picture of a character named "Spring Breeze Brings Tenderness" by inputting prompt words, and posted it on a certain online platform release. Soon after, he discovered that the defendant had used his picture as an article illustration on his personal account without retaining the watermark of the original picture. The plaintiff believed that the defendant had infringed on his right to authorize his works and the right to disseminate information online, so he sued the defendant to the Beijing Internet Court

The core of this issue is whether images generated by artificial intelligence are considered works, and Whether it is protected by copyright law. In China’s copyright law, determining whether a picture is considered a work requires consideration of important indicators such as originality and intellectual achievements. The court held that the process from the plaintiff’s conception, adjustment to final determination of the export of the picture covers For example, designing the presentation of characters, selecting prompt words, arranging the order of prompt words, setting relevant parameters, selecting which pictures meet expectations, etc., reflect the plaintiff's intellectual investment and can be recognized as intellectual achievements.

Regarding originality, the court pointed out that the plaintiff designed the picture through prompt words. After generating the first version of the picture, he continued to adjust and modify it by adding prompt words and modifying parameters, and finally obtained the picture involved in the case. . These processes reflect the plaintiff's aesthetic choices and personality judgments. "In the absence of contrary evidence, it can be concluded that the pictures involved in the case were independently completed by the plaintiff and reflect the plaintiff's personalized expression." the court pointed out.

At the same time, regarding the issue of who enjoys the copyright of the work, the court held that since my country’s copyright law stipulates that the author can only be a natural person, a legal person or an unincorporated organization, the AI ​​large model cannot be the author. The designer of the relevant model, on the one hand, does not claim the rights to the output content, and on the other hand, has no intention and practice of creating relevant pictures. He is only a producer of creative tools, and therefore does not belong to the author. The plaintiff who made a series of settings on the artificial intelligence model and finally selected the pictures involved in the case has invested in intellectual production and displayed personalized expression, and enjoys the copyright of the works involved in the case.

After confirming the plaintiff’s copyright, the court further determined that the defendant had intercepted, removed watermarks, and published the plaintiff’s pictures without the plaintiff’s permission, infringing upon the plaintiff’s right to authorize works and Information network dissemination rights constitute infringement. Therefore, the court ruled that the defendant should compensate the plaintiff for economic losses of 500 yuan and publicly apologize on the social media account involved within 7 days to eliminate the impact.

The above is the detailed content of The image generated by AI was suspected of infringement, and the court determined it to be a work - the first instance verdict of the AI ​​infringement case. For more information, please follow other related articles on the PHP Chinese website!