Chen and HeNan Yimou Network Technology Co., Ltd. Dispute over Infringement of Work Information Network Transmission Rights

First instance: Jiading District People's Court, HeNan (2024) Hu 0114 Min Chu No. 1326

【 Expert Review 】

Wan Yong, Director and Professor of the Intellectual Property Law Teaching and Research Office at Renmin University of China Law School

With the vigorous rise of a new round of technological revolution and industrial transformation, technological innovation has entered an unprecedentedly intensive and active period. New technologies and formats continue to expand the legal boundaries, and new intellectual property issues related to cutting-edge fields of science and technology continue to emerge. The "Outline for Building a Strong Intellectual Property Country (2021-2035)" points out the need to "establish and improve intellectual property protection rules for new technologies, new industries, new formats, and new models", which provides action guidelines for intellectual property judiciary to respond to new technologies and new formats.

This case is another typical example of the people's court's proper handling of disputes related to artificial intelligence in accordance with the law, using the rule of law to clarify legal boundaries, and promoting the cultivation of new quality productivity and the healthy development of digital economy enterprises. The defendant is a small and micro startup in the field of digital economy, which replaced the plaintiff's copyrighted videos with facial portraits using AI technology and provided them to users through a mini program. The user used the platform, materials, and technology provided by the defendant to select the video involved in the case and create a "face swapping" video on their own. The defendant used "AI face swapping" as a selling point to use the video for commercial gain, without authorization or payment of remuneration. Their behavior does not fall under the reasonable use situation stipulated by the Copyright Law, nor does it apply to the defense of technological neutrality, which infringes on the plaintiff's right to network dissemination of work information. The judgment in this case clarifies the legal boundaries of the application of artificial intelligence technology, balancing technological innovation and development with the protection of rights in accordance with the law, and escorting artificial intelligence towards excellence. The judgment also emphasizes that artificial intelligence technologies such as algorithms are of great significance in promoting the development of new quality productivity and digital economy, but the application of technology must not infringe on the legitimate rights and interests of others or damage the market competition order. The conclusions established by the judgment on the recognition of information network dissemination rights, the application of the principle of reasonable use, the establishment of technology neutrality defenses, and the determination of reasonable care obligations have important reference value for the judgment of copyright related cases in the future AI field. At the same time, the people's courts have not limited themselves to resolving individual conflicts, but have expanded their horizons, focused on innovative applications of emerging technologies and algorithmic governance needs, and provided judicial recommendations to enterprises to standardize the application of artificial intelligence technology. This has prompted enterprises to strengthen the legality review of material sources and generated content, as well as algorithmic security assessments, achieving a good effect of "handling one case and governing one area".