Network Security Internet Technology Development Database Servers Mobile Phone Android Software Apple Software Computer Software News IT Information

In addition to Weibo, there is also WeChat

Please pay attention

WeChat public account

Shulou

The first instance judgment of the first case of copyright infringement of AI generated pictures in China: the AI picture involved in the case was recognized as a work.

2024-02-27 Update From: SLTechnology News&Howtos shulou NAV: SLTechnology News&Howtos > IT Information >

Share

Shulou(Shulou.com)12/24 Report--

CTOnews.com, November 29 news, on August 24 this year, a copyright case related to "AI Literary Pictures" was publicly heard in the Beijing Internet Court. Recently, the first instance judgment of the case was issued, the court ruled that the plaintiff enjoyed the copyright of the pictures involved, and the defendant's behavior constituted infringement and should bear the corresponding legal liability. So far, this case is the first copyright case in the field related to the generation of pictures by AI.

According to CTOnews.com, the plaintiff used the Stable diffusion artificial intelligence model to generate a picture of a character named "Spring Wind sent gentleness" by entering prompts, which was posted on an online platform. Soon after, he found that the defendant used his picture as a picture of the article on his personal account, and did not retain the watermark of the original picture. The plaintiff thought that the defendant violated the right of authorship of his works and the right to disseminate information on the network, so he sued the defendant to the Beijing Internet Court.

The core question of this case is whether the pictures generated by artificial intelligence constitute works and whether they are protected by copyright law. In China's copyright law, to determine whether pictures belong to works, an important index to be considered is to judge whether they are original, whether they belong to intellectual achievements and so on.

The court held that the process of the plaintiff's conception and adjustment to the final determination of the exported picture covers, for example, the presentation of the design character, the selection of prompts, the arrangement of the order of prompts, the setting of relevant parameters, and the selection of which picture meets the expectations. It reflects the plaintiff's intellectual investment and can be considered as an intellectual achievement.

In view of originality, the court pointed out that the plaintiff designed the picture through prompts, and after generating the first version of the picture, through adding prompts, modifying parameters, and constantly adjusting and correcting, finally obtained the picture involved. These processes reflect the plaintiff's aesthetic choice and personality judgment. "in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it can be concluded that the picture involved in the case was independently completed by the plaintiff, reflecting the personalized expression of the plaintiff." The court pointed out.

At the same time, as for the question of who enjoys the copyright of works, the court held that because the copyright law of our country stipulates that the author can only be a natural person, legal person or non-legal person organization, so the AI model can not become the author. The designers of the relevant models, on the one hand, do not advocate the right to output content, on the other hand, they do not have the will and practice to create relevant pictures, they are only the producers of creative tools, so they do not belong to the author. The plaintiff who made a series of settings on the artificial intelligence model and finally selected the picture involved in the case invested in intellectual production and showed personalized expression, and enjoyed the copyright of the works involved.

After confirming the plaintiff's copyright, the court further held that the defendant intercepted, watermarked and published the plaintiff's picture without the plaintiff's permission, which infringed upon the plaintiff's right to sign the work and the right to disseminate information on the network. constitutes an infringement. As a result, the court ordered the defendant to compensate the plaintiff for economic losses of 500 yuan and made a public apology on the social media account involved in the case within 7 days to eliminate the impact.

Welcome to subscribe "Shulou Technology Information " to get latest news, interesting things and hot topics in the IT industry, and controls the hottest and latest Internet news, technology news and IT industry trends.

Views: 0

*The comments in the above article only represent the author's personal views and do not represent the views and positions of this website. If you have more insights, please feel free to contribute and share.

Share To

IT Information

Wechat

© 2024 shulou.com SLNews company. All rights reserved.

12
Report