In a recent decision, the Beijing Internet Court has ruled on the first-ever case of Artificial Intelligence Generated Content (AIGC) infringement. The case revolves around a dispute over the use of an AI-generated image in an online article. This decision has ignited a heated debate over the recognition of AI-generated content as protected “works” under copyright law and has raised questions about the responsibilities of AI content creators.
I. The Chinese court recognized the copyright of an AI-generated image.
In this case, the plaintiff initially used an open-source software called "Stable Diffusion" to generate an image by inputting prompt words on February 24th. The plaintiff then published the image on the Chinese social media platform on the same day. Later, on March 2nd, the defendant published an article on Baijiahao (Baidu's content platform), which included the AI-generated image without the plaintiff's watermark or attribution from Xiaohongshu. The plaintiff brough up a suit for copy infringement and demanded compensation.
The Beijing Internet Court concluded that the AI-generated image, from its appearance, falls within the domain of art and exhibits a certain level of creative expression. The court also noted that the plaintiff invested intellectual effort in the conceptualization and final selection of the image, meeting the criteria of an "intellectual creation." Furthermore, the plaintiff's actions, such as designing prompts, modifying parameters, and making adjustments, demonstrated personalization in the generated content. Consequently, the court recognized the plaintiff as the author of the AI-generated image, granting them copyright protection.
However, the court emphasized that, while the plaintiff is the author, they should prominently mark the use of AI technology or models as a matter of honesty and to protect the public's right to be informed.
II. Heat discussion was stimulated around the decision of the case.
The court's decision has sparked a contentious debate in legal circles and the broader public. Some argue that, according to current copyright law, "works" protected by copyright must be the result of human creativity. They contend that recognizing AI-generated content as "works" goes against the legislative intent of copyright law, which aims to incentivize human creativity. AI, being devoid of the ability to receive reasonable compensation for its creations and exhibit proactive creativity, should not be considered the author of works.
On the other hand, proponents of the court's decision argue that it signifies the legal recognition of the originality of AIGC works and grants them the right to seek compensation for infringement, aligning with the rapid advancements in technology. They view this as a positive step taken by lawmakers to keep pace with technological developments.
III. The implication of the case on AIGC practice in China.
Although China is not a precedent-based legal system country, similar judgments may arise in subsequent cases. The court's recognition of AI-generated content for copyright protection allows AI content creators to assert their economic interests and seek compensation for infringement. However, some key questions remain unanswered.
One critical issue is whether the creators of AIGC models have rights over the works generated by these models. In this case, the model's creator stated they do not claim rights over the output works. Another issue is that the materials utilized to train AIGC models could itself involve copyrighted content that if not used cautiously might lead to infringement claims.
While this case favors AIGC creators, it underscores the need for legal clarity and contractual agreements to address the uncertainties in AIGC rights and responsibilities in China. Staying informed and seeking legal guidance is essential for navigating this evolving landscape.
