Recently, the remarkable performance of generative AI (e.g., Chat GPT, Midjourney) has garnered attention. Alongside this, there is global debate on the legal issues regarding copyright infringement when generative AI produces works similar to those of others. In Japan, this issue is being examined by the Subcommittee on Legal Systems of the Cultural Affairs Council in their “Concept on AI and Copyright.”
In contrast, on February 8, 2024, the Guangzhou Internet Court in China delivered its first ruling recognizing copyright infringement by an image-generating AI. This article introduces the outline of this ruling and compares it with Japan’s “Concept,” discussing the commonalities and differences between the two.
Outline of the Chinese Ruling
The Guangzhou Internet Court recognized copyright infringement by the provider of an AI image generation service concerning images of Ultraman generated by the AI. Specifically, the issue was that the defendant’s AI image generation function was used to create images of Ultraman that infringed on the plaintiff’s copyright.
The ruling acknowledged that the generated images had a very high similarity to the plaintiff’s Ultraman images and retained their original creative expression. Additionally, it was noted that the defendant had failed to take preventive measures against copyright infringement, resulting in an order for damages and the suspension of the generation function.
Comparison with Japan’s “Concept”
In Japan’s “Concept,” the possibility of copyright infringement by the creation or use of works by generative AI is examined. This includes considerations on whether AI developers or service providers can be held responsible as the main actors of copyright infringement.
A common point between the two is the use of similarity and reliance on the suspected infringing work as criteria for recognition. Both also show a similar view on the duty of care required by AI service providers.
Future Prospects
As such rulings and concepts are presented, legal issues related to generative AI will become increasingly important. As AI technology advances, legal systems must also continue to evolve. A balance is needed to prevent copyright infringement while supporting technological innovation in generative AI.
Through such discussions, a deeper understanding of the state of copyright law in the AI era is required. It will be essential to continue observing the issues related to generative AI from a legal perspective.
