On February 26, according to the exclusive disclosure of the 21st Century Business Herald, the Guangzhou Internet Court made a landmark judgment, finding that an artificial intelligence company infringed the copyright of "Ultraman" works in the process of providing AI painting services, becoming the world's first effective judgment against generative AI services infringing the copyrights of others. In this high-profile case, the plaintiff holds the exclusive license to the copyright of the "Ultraman" series of works, and the defendant's TAB**, with its AI painting function, can generate the corresponding ** based on the prompt words entered by the user.
When a user requests the generation of "Ultraman"-related**, the generated image is substantially similar to the copyrighted image owned by the plaintiff, and this service relies on the user's paid membership and additional "computing power" consumption.
Picture: ** in 21st Century Business Herald.
During the trial, the court focused on the issue of whether the creation constituted copyright infringement. Through a comparative study of the genres involved in the case, the court found that some ** had a high degree of similarity with the original work in a number of key features while retaining the original expression of the original work, so as to meet the infringement criteria of "contact" and "substantial similarity".
This means that the defendant has copied the work without permission, infringing the plaintiff's right of reproduction; At the same time, because it was generated and innovated on the basis of retaining the characteristics of the original work, it also constituted an adaptation of the work and infringed the plaintiff's adaptation right.
The judgment clearly points out that relevant laws and regulations, such as the Interim Measures for the Administration of Generative AI Services, put forward specific requirements for the responsibilities of service providers.
After confirming the infringement, the defendant company not only needs to immediately stop generating ** that is substantially similar to the work of "Ultraman", but also needs to further upgrade its keyword filtering system to ensure that any prompt words related to "Ultraman" cannot generate infringement**. Although the defendant has taken certain filtering measures before the trial, the filtering accuracy still needs to be improved.
The deeper significance of this judgment lies in the fact that it clarifies for the first time the duty of care of generative AI service providers in terms of copyright protection. The court required such service providers to establish a robust reporting mechanism, clearly identify potential infringement risks, and prominently mark the product when it is likely to cause confusion or misidentification among the public.
In addition, the service provider should clearly warn users in the service agreement not to infringe on the copyrights of others, and set up convenient channels for complaints and reports, so as to effectively protect the legitimate rights and interests of copyright owners.
In its judgment, the Guangzhou Internet Court emphasized the importance of AI technology for future development, and also pointed out that in the field of AI, especially in the initial stage of the generative AI industry, it is necessary to find a balance between protecting the rights and interests of rights holders and promoting the development of the industry.
The court recommended that service providers should actively perform appropriate and feasible duty of care to help build a safe, balanced and inclusive Chinese-style AI governance system.
In terms of damages, the court comprehensively considered the high popularity of the "Ultraman" work, the defendant's corrective attitude after responding to the lawsuit, and the actual effect, and finally ruled that the defendant should compensate the plaintiff for economic losses of 10,000 yuan (including reasonable expenses such as evidence collection fees).
This judgment not only strongly responds to the demand for copyright protection in the era of generative AI, but also sets a judicial precedent for the trial of similar cases in the future, guiding the industry and the public to pay attention to and respect intellectual property rights, and ensuring the harmonious coexistence of scientific and technological innovation and legal order.
In the context of the global focus on the risk of generative AI infringement, China's judicial system has recently taken a solid step. However, for AI painting service providers in the market, they may face various legal risks of IP copyright.
Materials** on the Internet, if there is any infringement, please contact to delete.