Is the AIGC Platform an ‘Ultraman’ or a Normal Man? Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Infringement under Chinese Law

Summary

• AI-generated content raises the challenging issue of identifying the author and, by extension, the copyright owner
• There are a number of perspectives on this issue, under which ownership could be attributed to an AI tool’s users, developers, or both
• In a case adjudicated by Guangzhou Internet Court, the issue of copyright ownership was decided
• A number of issues were, however, left open, including whether liability could extend further upstream to entities such as the AI platform, programmers or model trainers
• The court’s symbolic damages award can be a seen as a cautious step forward, confirming the need for further legislative and court guidance in this fast developing area

Shanghai Character License Administrative Co., Ltd. (SCLA) v. Company A (Guangzhou Internet Court (2024) Guangdong 0192 Civil Judgment No. 113) is the world’s first case with final judgment arising from copyright infringement of Artificial Intelligence Generated Content (AIGC) platform. In February 2024, Guangzhou Internet Court adjudicated this inaugural case, marking a significant point in the development of the AIGC industry. In this case, the defendant, a text-to-image AIGC platform, was held liable for infringing various copyrights of the famous Ultraman IP; however, heated debates continue even after this judgment has come into effect. The court found the defendant’s AI generated content to be the “work” under copyright law without detailed analysis, and this therefore may not be a universal standard. The court also held the defendant AIGC platform company liable, while the ownership of AI generated content may in practice vary widely. Infringement remains a complex question regarding the criteria and classification of copyrights infringed, including the right of reproduction, the right of adaptation‌‌ and the right of information network dissemination. In terms of remedies, the court decided the defendant should “take technical measures to prevent users from generating identical or similar images” of the Ultraman works, while not deleting the infringing images, which is arguably not entirely reasonable.