Beijing court upholds copyright in AI-generated images
Judgment thought to be first of its kind in China | Creator used Stable Diffusion to make picture | Decision conflicts with precedent set in 'Zarya of the Dawn' judgment in the US.
A Beijing court has recognised copyright in AI-generated images, in a decision thought to be the first case of its kind in China (PRC).
The ruling marks a deviation from a judgment delivered by the US Copyright Office (USCO) earlier this year in the highly publicised case concerning Zarya of the Dawn.
In a development first reported by China IP Law Update, the Internet Court decided on Monday, November 27, that a blogger who used an AI tool, Stable Diffusion, to generate and publish images on the Xiaohongshu platform had secured sufficient IP rights to the images.
The case emerged after the plaintiff, surnamed Li, used Stable Diffusion to input prompt words, and then published the pictures on the Xiaohongshu platform under the name Spring Breeze Brings Tenderness.
After discovering that a rival blogger, surnamed Liu, had posted the same images on the Baijiahao account in an article titled Love in March, in the Peach Blossom, Li sued.
Sufficiently original
This week, the Beijing Internet court held that the AI-generated images were sufficiently original and could be safeguarded by copyright law.
As Aaron Weininger, director of the China IP law practice Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, notes in his blog: “This is the opposite of the decision reached by the US Copyright Office earlier this year when it declined to recognise copyright in AI-generated images.”
The court held that the AI-generated pictures involved in the case met the requirements of “originality” and reflected people's original intellectual investment.
“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,” said the court (translated).
Such investment includes designing the presentation of characters, selecting prompt words, and arranging the order of prompt words, setting relevant parameters, and selecting which picture meets expectations.
Intellectual achievement
The picture, added the court, reflects the plaintiff’s intellectual investment, so the picture involved meets the requirements of “intellectual achievement”.
It also noted that Li designed the characters and their presentation and other picture elements through prompt words, and set the picture layout and composition through parameters which reflected the plaintiff's choices and arrangements.
The adjustment and modification process also reflected Li’s aesthetic choices and were not merely "mechanical intellectual achievements", it noted.
It went on to say that: “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 personalised expression.
"In summary, the pictures involved in the case meet the requirements of originality.”
Plaintiff is author
In summing up, the court said that, as long as they can reflect people's original intellectual investment, AI-generated images should be recognised as works and protected by copyright law.
“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 [and] expression, so the plaintiff is the author of the pictures involved and enjoys the copyright of the pictures involved,” concluded the court.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox
