Well that's sad :/

This is my new favorite struggle session.

Can't win 'em all, I guess. Even papa Xi is bound to miss sometimes.

checkmate tankies

Yeah but how are we supposed to steal IP if we don't recognize it as IP first? Ever think about that?

Joking aside, I hope it gets overturned or the government introduces legislation against it.

Machine translation of the non PDF part of the original source social media post (if anybody cares): https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/Wu3-GuFvMJvJKJobqqq7vQ

Judgment on the first case of copyright infringement of AI-generated images

knowledge center 2023-11-28 10:02 Posted on Zhejiang

Recently, the Beijing Internet Court involving artificial intelligence-generated images ( AI painting images) issued a first-instance judgment on a copyright infringement dispute AI-generated images . . It is reported that this case is the first copyright case in the field of

The plaintiff, Mr. Li, used AI to generate the pictures involved in the case and published them on the Xiaohongshu platform; the defendant, a blogger on Baijiahao, used the pictures generated by the plaintiff's AI to accompany the article, and the plaintiff sued.

The trial held that the artificial intelligence-generated pictures ( AI painting pictures) involved in the case met the requirements of "originality" and reflected people's original intellectual investment. They should be recognized as works and protected by copyright law .

Image

1. Regarding the identification of intellectual achievements: “ From the time when the plaintiff conceived the picture involved in the case to the final selection of the picture involved, the plaintiff has made a certain amount of intellectual investment, such as designing the presentation of characters, selecting prompt words, and arranging The order of prompt words, setting relevant parameters, selecting which picture meets expectations, etc. The picture involved reflects the plaintiff’s intellectual investment, so the picture involved meets the requirements of “intellectual achievement.”

2. Regarding the determination of "originality": " The plaintiff designed the picture elements such as the characters and their presentation through prompt words, and set the picture layout and composition through parameters, which reflected the plaintiff's choice and arrangement. Another On the other hand, after the plaintiff obtained the first picture by inputting prompt words and setting relevant parameters, he continued to add prompt words, modify parameters, continuously adjust and modify, and finally obtained the picture involved. This adjustment and modification process also reflects the plaintiff’s Aesthetic choice and personality judgment... The pictures involved in the case are not "mechanical intellectual achievements." In the absence of contrary evidence, it can be determined that the pictures involved in the case were independently completed by the plaintiff and reflect the plaintiff's personalized expression. In summary, The pictures involved in the case meet the requirements of "originality".

3. Regarding the identification of works: "When people use artificial intelligence models to generate pictures...it is still essentially people using tools to create , that is, it is people who make intellectual investment in the entire creation process, not artificial intelligence models. Encourage Creation is recognized as the core purpose of the copyright system... Artificial intelligence-generated images, as long as they can reflect people's original intellectual investment, should be recognized as works and protected by copyright law ."

4. Regarding the identification of works of art: " The pictures involved in the case are graphic art works with aesthetic significance composed of lines and colors, and are works of art. At the same time, when the pictures involved in the case can be attributed to a specific type of work, the "other works clause" does not apply "Necessity of protection, it does not belong to "other intellectual achievements consistent with the characteristics of the work."

5. Regarding the determination of copyright: “The plaintiff is the person who directly set up the artificial intelligence model involved in the case as needed and finally selected the pictures involved. The pictures involved were directly generated based on the plaintiff’s intellectual investment and reflected the plaintiff’s personality. expression, so the plaintiff is the author of the pictures involved and enjoys the copyright of the pictures involved .”