绿洲慧写 | AI 辅助专利撰写专家

Introduction

The landmark ruling by the Guangzhou Internet Court in February 2024 on the first global case of Artificial Intelligence Generated Content (AIGC) copyright infringement marks a significant development in the intersection of copyright law and artificial intelligence technology. This case, revolving around the unauthorized generation of images akin to the Ultraman character through the TAB website, illuminates the legal challenges and responsibilities in the era of generative AI.

Detailed Overview of the Case

At the heart of this case lies the popular character “Ultraman,” owned by Tsuburaya Productions Co., Ltd., a character with worldwide recognition and registered copyrights. Tsuburaya Productions had exclusively authorized the plaintiff with the rights to enforce these copyrights. The defendant’s TAB website, equipped with AI-driven conversation and painting features, was found generating images strikingly similar to Ultraman upon user prompts. This unauthorized use for training the website’s AI model and for profit through additional services was deemed as copyright infringement by the plaintiff.

Court’s Analysis and Decision

1. Copyright Infringement Determination:
   • The court identified that the AI-generated images by the defendant, replicating Ultraman’s unique artistic expression, infringed on the plaintiff’s reproduction and adaptation rights.
   • It did not, however, extend this infringement to the plaintiff’s right to distribute the work over information networks, reasoning that the adjudged infringements of reproduction and adaptation rights were sufficient under the circumstances.
2. Liability for Damages:
   • The ruling underscored the importance of generative AI services acting with due diligence. The defendant failed in this regard by not implementing a complaint mechanism, neglecting to inform users about copyright infringement risks, and failing to clearly indicate the AI origin of generated images. Consequently, the court held the defendant liable for compensation.

Evaluating the Ruling

• The Question of Network Distribution Rights: The case prompts a reconsideration of whether the defendant’s actions also constituted an infringement of the right to distribute works over information networks. This aspect reflects the evolving dynamics of copyright law in the digital and AI domains, suggesting the need for separate legal considerations for reproduction, adaptation, and distribution rights in the context of AI-generated content.
• Responsibilities of AI Service Providers: The court’s decision highlights the nuanced responsibilities of AI service providers in preventing copyright infringement. It suggests a balanced approach where providers must attempt to filter copyrighted content based on user inputs and address infringements proactively, without necessitating exhaustive pre-screening of all user prompts.

Conclusion

The Guangzhou Internet Court’s decision in the Ultraman AIGC copyright infringement case sets a precedent for future legal challenges as AI technologies continue to evolve. By delineating the boundaries of copyright infringement in the age of AI and clarifying the duties of AI service providers, this ruling contributes to a legal framework that respects intellectual property rights while encouraging technological innovation. This case thus serves as a critical point of reference for stakeholders navigating the complexities of copyright law in the digital age.