April 2024
Jolene Chen and Teresa Huang
In February 2024, the Guangzhou Internet Court made a judgment on the world’s first infringement case involving the generative artificial intelligence AIGC platform (Case No.: (2024) Ao 0192 Min Chu No. 113). This case focuses on the infringement issue of AI-generated works of the well-known cartoon character “Ultraman”, which has significant legal significance and social impact. In the judgment, the court fully cited the relevant regulations of AIGC, deeply discussed the issue of whether the defendant was at fault, and elaborated in detail the reasonable duty of care owed by the AIGC platform. This article aims to provide an in-depth analysis and introduction of the judgment, with a view to providing useful reference and inspiration for the AIGC platform in improving its reasonable duty of care.
In this case, the plaintiff believed that the defendant used the plaintiff’s copyrighted works without authorization to train its large AI model and generate substantially similar pictures, and obtained illegal profits by selling value-added services such as membership recharge and hashrate purchase, the aforementioned behavior caused serious damage to the plaintiff, so it sued to protect its legitimate rights and interests.
The court held that the pictures involved in the case provided by the plaintiff and generated by the Tab website partially or completely reproduced the original expression of the artistic image of “Ultraman”. Therefore, the defendant copied the works of Ultraman without permission, infringing the plaintiff’s right to reproduce the works of Ultraman. In addition, the generated pictures involved in the case partially retained the original expression of the work of “Ultraman Tiga Composite”, and added new characteristics on the basis of retaining this original expression. The defendant’s above-mentioned actions constituted an adaptation of the works of Ultraman. Therefore, the defendant adapted the works of Ultraman without permission, infringing the plaintiff’s right to adapt the works of Ultraman.
In addition, when determining whether the defendant was at fault, the court relied on the relevant provisions of the “Provisional Measures for the Administration of Generative Artificial Intelligence Services” and the “Administrative Provisions on Deep Synthesis of Internet-based Information Services”. After analysis, the court held that the defendant failed to fulfill its reasonable duty of care, which was specifically reflected in the following aspects: first, the defendant violated Article 15 of the “Provisional Measures for the Administration of Generative Artificial Intelligence Services” and failed to establish a complaint and reporting mechanism; Secondly, the defendant failed to comply with the requirements of Article 4 of the “Provisional Measures for the Administration of Generative Artificial Intelligence Services” and failed to warn of potential risks (such as copyright infringement); finally, the defendant also violated Article 12 of “Provisional Measures for the Administration of Generative Artificial Intelligence Services” and Article 17 of the “Administrative Provisions on Deep Synthesis of Internet-based Information Services”, did not clearly indicate the distinctive signs showing that the products are generated by artificial intelligence on the generated products.
The court’s thinking should be that the defendant, as a provider of generative artificial intelligence services (hereinafter referred to as the “service provider”), violated its duty of care stipulated in relevant laws. Because it failed to comply with such statutory requirements, its behavior constituting negligence, and negligence and intentional behavior are both wrongful acts. Therefore, based on the above reasons, the court determined that the defendant should bear the corresponding liability for damages.
Judging from the circumstances of the trial, the court required the defendant, as a service provider, to fulfill the above-mentioned duty of care, such as establishing a complaint and reporting mechanism, warning of potential risks, clearly indicating the products with distinctive signs showing that the products are generated by artificial intelligence. Taking into account the purpose of not placing undue burdens on the generative artificial intelligence industry, service providers are only required to bear affordable and reasonable duties of care.
Given that service providers usually have a large user base, these users may use the content generated by the service provider to commit infringement and further spread it. Therefore, service providers should actively take practical and effective measures in accordance with relevant laws and regulations to reduce or exempt themselves from possible infringement liability. Otherwise, it may face huge litigation risks, which will not only have a negative impact on its reputation, but may also cause serious financial losses.
The contents of all newsletters of Shanghai Lee, Tsai & Partners (Content) available on the webpage belong to and remain with Shanghai Lee, Tsai & Partners. All rights are reserved by Shanghai Lee, Tsai & Partners, and the Content may not be reproduced, downloaded, disseminated, published, or transferred in any form or by any means, except with the prior permission of Shanghai Lee, Tsai & Partners.
The Content is for informational purposes only and is not offered as legal or professional advice on any particular issue or case. The Content may not reflect the most current legal and regulatory developments. Shanghai Lee, Tsai & Partners and the editors do not guarantee the accuracy of the Content and expressly disclaim any and all liability to any person in respect of the consequences of anything done or permitted to be done or omitted to be done wholly or partly in reliance upon the whole or any part of the Content. The contributing authors’ opinions do not represent the position of Shanghai Lee, Tsai & Partners. If the reader has any suggestions or questions, please do not hesitate to contact Shanghai Lee, Tsai & Partners.