The Beijing Internet Court recently heard four cases in which illustrators sued AI painting software for copyright infringement, attracting widespread attention in the industry. The plaintiffs in the case are all well-known illustrators. They believe that the AI painting software uses their original works as training materials without authorization and uses the paintings generated by it for commercial purposes, which constitutes infringement. This move not only infringes on the copyright of illustrators, but also has a serious impact on their market, highlighting the urgency and challenge of copyright protection in the AI era. This article will introduce in detail the trial process of the case and the views of all parties.
News from ChinaZ.com on June 20: Recently, the Beijing Internet Court held online hearings on four copyright infringement cases in which illustrators sued AI painting software developers and operators. The plaintiffs in these four cases are all well-known illustrators. They found that their original works published on a content sharing platform were heavily imitated by AI painting software and used as training materials to generate new paintings. These AI-generated paintings are not only highly similar in style to the plaintiff’s works, but are also widely used for commercial purposes, causing serious infringement to the plaintiff’s interests.
The plaintiff believes that the defendant used the plaintiff's works to train AI models without permission and used the generated works for commercial purposes, which far exceeded the scope of fair use. They claimed that the defendants violated their rights of reproduction, adaptation and the right of the works to be used as training AI models. In addition, the plaintiffs are worried that these AI-generated paintings will replace their original works, causing a devastating blow to their market.
During the trial, the plaintiffs provided sufficient evidence to prove their claims, including the AI painting software user agreement, promotional materials, and the defendant’s official homepage on the content sharing platform. At the same time, the plaintiff also applied for technical assistants to appear in court to explain technical issues related to AI large model training.
However, the defendant insisted that its actions did not constitute infringement. They stated that there was no substantial similarity between the plaintiff’s work and the AI-generated paintings, and that large model training should constitute fair use even if the plaintiff’s work was used. In addition, the third defendant also denied that he had provided the plaintiff’s works to other defendants and emphasized that he had not committed any infringement.
Currently, the case is still under further review.
The outcome of this case will have a profound impact on the development of the AI painting industry and digital copyright protection, and deserves continued attention. How to balance the development of AI technology and the protection of artists’ rights is an important issue facing society. We hope that the court will make a fair decision and provide a useful reference for copyright protection in the AI era.