Li v. Liu, Case of Infringement against the Right of Authorship and the Right to Network Dissemination of Information
Instrument Type： Judgment
Procedural Status： Trial at First Instance
Judgment Date：11-27-2023
李某某诉刘某某侵害作品署名权、信息网络传播权纠纷案北京互联网法院民事判决书
Beijing Internet Court A Civil Judgment of Li v. Liu (Case of Infringement against the Right of Authorship and the Right to Network Dissemination of Information)
(2023)京0491民初11279号
(2023) Jing 0491 Min Chu No. 11279 (2023)
原告：李某某，男。
Plaintiff: LI, male
委托诉讼代理人：孙彦，北京市天元律师事务所律师。
Agent ad litem 1: Sun Yan, lawyer at Beijing Tian Yuan Law Firm
委托诉讼代理人：李宇凡，北京市天元律师事务所律师。
Agent ad litem 2: Li Yufan, lawyer at Beijing Tian Yuan Law Firm
被告：刘某某，女。
Defendant: LIU, female
原告李某某与被告刘某某侵害作品署名权、信息网络传播权纠纷一案，本院于2023年5月25日立案后，依法组成合议庭，适用普通程序，经庭前会议后，于2023年8月24日公开开庭进行审理。原告李某某及其委托诉讼代理人孙彦、李宇凡，被告刘某某通过本院电子诉讼平台在线参加诉讼。本案现已审理终结。
The case of LI (the plaintiff) v. LIU (the defendant) over infringement of the right of authorship and the right of dissemination on the information network was filed by the Court on May 25, 2023. A collegial panel was formed in accordance with the law, with ordinary procedures being applied. After a pre-trial meeting, a public hearing was held on August 24, 2023. The plaintiff LI and his agents Sun Yan and Li Yufan, and the defendant LIU attended the trial via the e-litigation platform of the Court. The case has now been concluded.
原告李某某向本院提出诉讼请求：1.请求判令被告在涉案百家号发布公开声明向原告赔礼道歉，消除其侵权行为给原告造成的影响；2.请求判令被告赔偿原告经济损失5000元。事实与理由：2023年2月24日，原告使用开源软件Stable Diffusion通过输入提示词的方式生成涉案图片，后将该图片以“春风送来了温柔”为名发布在小红书平台。近日，原告发现，百家号账号“我是云开日出”在2023年3月2日发布了名为《三月的爱情，在桃花里》的文章，该文章配图使用了涉案图片。被告未获得原告的许可，且截去了原告在小红书平台的署名水印，使得相关用户误认为被告为该作品的作者，严重侵犯了原告享有的署名权及信息网络传播权。被告应当赔偿原告的经济损失并进行赔礼道歉以消除影响。综上，原告特依法向法院提起诉讼，请求法院判如所请。
The plaintiff LI requested that: 1. The defendant issue a public statement on the baijiahao account involved to apologize to the plaintiff and eliminate the impact of the infringement; 2. The defendant compensate 5,000 yuan for the plaintiff's economic losses. Facts and cause of case: On February 24, 2023, the plaintiff generated the picture involved by inputting prompt words in Stable Diffusion, an open source software, and then published the picture on Little Red Book, a social media platform, under the title “Spring Breeze Brings Tenderness.” Later, the plaintiff found that the picture was used in an article titled “Love in March, in the Peach Blossoms,” which was published by the defendant under the baijiahao account “******” on March 2, 2023. The defendant had used the picture without the plaintiff's permission and even removed the plaintiff's watermark on Little Red Book, causing viewers to believe that the defendant was the author of the picture. The defendant's behavior seriously violated the plaintiff's right of authorship and of dissemination on the information network. The defendant should compensate the plaintiff for his economic losses and make an apology to eliminate the impact. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit to the Court and requested the above.
被告刘某某辩称，被告通过网络检索获取涉案图片，用作原创诗歌《三月的爱情，在桃花里》的配图，涉案图片具体来源已无法提供，亦无法说明涉案照片的水印情况，不确定原告是否享有涉案图片的权利；被告所发布主要内容为原创诗文，而非涉案图片，且没有商业用途，不具有侵权故意；如果法院认定涉案行为构成侵权，被告愿意向原告赔礼道歉，但是原告主张的经济赔偿数额过高，AI生成图片市场价格很低，且被告身患重病，无力赔偿。综上，请求法院考虑实际情况进行判决。
The defendant LIU argued that: 1. The defendant searched the Internet and obtained the picture involved and used it as an illustration for his original poem “Love in March, in the Peach Blossoms.” The defendant cannot provide the specific source of the picture, nor can he explain the watermark on it. It is uncertain whether the plaintiff has the right to the picture involved; 2. The content published by the defendant is mainly about the original poem, not the picture involved. The picture is not for commercial use, so the defendant has no intention of infringement; 3. If the Court determines that the defendant's behavior constitutes infringement, the defendant will apologize to the plaintiff. However, the amount of economic compensation claimed by the plaintiff is too high; the market price of AI-generated images is rather low. The defendant is seriously ill and unable to pay the compensation. Accordingly, the defendant requested the Court to consider the actual situation while making a judgment.
当事人围绕诉讼请求依法提交了证据，本院组织当事人进行了证据交换和质证。对当事人无异议的证据，本院予以确认并在卷佐证。对案件的事实，本院认定如下：
The parties submitted evidence based on their statements, and the Court organized the parties to conduct evidence exchange and cross-examination. The Court confirmed the evidence that the parties had no objection to and corroborated it in the file. Regarding the facts of the case, the Court found that:
2023年2月26日，原告将涉案图片(见图6)发布在其小红书账号“董二千”(小红书号为×××××)中，发布内容的标题为“春风送来了温柔”，该标题下除涉案图片外亦包含其他5张案外图片，标签为“#AI#[话题]# #AI插画 #AI绘画 #写真 #少女 #摄影 #春天 #美女”。经法院组织双方勘验，原告通过手机号码获取验证码的方式可以登录该账号并查看涉案图片的发布情况。
On February 26, 2023, the plaintiff posted the picture involved (see Figure 6) on his Little Red Book account “****” (Little Red Book ID: ******), and the title of the post was “Spring Breeze Brings Tenderness.” Apart from the picture involved, the post included five other pictures,with hashtags #AI#[topic]# #AIillustration#AIpainting#photo#girl#photography#spring#beauty. Through investigation, it is found that the plaintiff is able to log in to the account and check the picture involved by obtaining a verification code through his mobile phone.
原告主张该图片系其于2023年2月24日通过软件Stable Diffusion生成，其提交再现涉案图片生成过程的视频，具体操作步骤如下：
The plaintiff claimed that the picture was generated via Stable Diffusion on February 24, 2023. He submitted a video that demonstrates the process of generating the picture involved. The steps are as follows:
1.打开bilibili网站，搜索用户“秋葉aaaki”，打开标题为“【AI绘画】Stable Diffusion整合包v4.2发布!全新加速解压即用 防爆显存 三分钟入门AI绘画……”的视频，打开视频下方提供的网盘链接“https://pan.baidu.com/s/1sVmVqA2CGUsZwyRdjoA5Vg”，下载“sd-webui-aki-V4.2.7z”压缩包。解压缩，打开文件“A用户协议.txt”，显示：“本整合包仅用作AIGC技术学习，基于Github上开源项目Stable Diffusion Webui制作，提供了算法的运行环境。使用本整合包即代表您已阅读并同意以下用户协议：您不得实施包括但不限于以下行为，也不得为任何违反法律法规的行为提供便利：反对宪法所规定的基本原则的。危害国家安全，泄露国家秘密，颠覆国家政权，破坏国家统一的。损害国家荣誉和利益的。煽动民族仇恨、民族歧视，破坏民族团结的。破坏国家宗教政策，宣扬邪教和封建迷信的。散布谣言，扰乱社会秩序，破坏社会稳定的。散布淫秽、色情、赌博、暴力、凶杀、恐怖或教唆犯罪的。侮辱或诽谤他人，侵害他人合法权益的。实施任何违背“七条底线”的行为。含有法律、行政法规禁止的其他内容的。因您的数据的产生、收集、处理、使用等任何相关事项存在违反法律法规等情况而造成的全部结果及责任均由您自行承担。”。
2.打开“A启动器.exe”，主页面如图1所示。选择版本后，点击一键启动。
2. Open “A launcher.exe”, and the homepage is shown in Figure 1. Select version, and click Start.
3.返回bilibili网站，搜索用户“K43”，打开标题为“Stale Diffusion个人制做写实向融合模型 让你绘制出更美丽的亚洲，中国风少女人像”的文章，在文章中复制网址“https://huggingface.co/dcy/AsiaFacemix/tree/main”并在浏览器中打开，下载模型包“AsiaFacemix-pruned-fix.safetensors”“lora-hanfugirl-v1-5.safetensors”。
3. Go to bilibili.com again, search for the user “K43”, open the article titled “Stable Diffusion Art Models help you get the beautiful Asian/Chinese girl portraits”, copy the URL “https: //huggingface.co/dcy/AsiaFacemix/tree/main” in the article and open it in the browser, download the model packages “AsiaFacemix-pruned-fix.safetensors” and “lora-hanfugirl-v1-5.safetensors”.
4.在正向提示词(Prompt)输入：“(ultra photorealistic:1.3)，extremely high quality highdetail RAW color photo，in locations，japan idol，highly detailed symmetrical attractive face，angular simmetrical face，perfectskin，skin pores，dreamy black eyes，reddish-brown plaits hairs，uniform，long legs，thighhighs，soft focus，(film grain，vivid colors，film emulation，kodak gold portra 100，35mm，canon50 f1.2)，Lens Flare，Golden Hour，HD，Cinematic，Beautiful Dynamic Lighting”。中文译文为：(超逼真照片1:3)，超高品质高细节的原始图像数据处理格式彩色照片，外景，日本偶像，高度细节对称且迷人的脸，棱角匀称的脸，完美的皮肤，皮肤毛孔，梦幻般的黑眼睛，红褐色的辫子，均匀，长腿，长筒袜，软对焦，(胶片纹理，生动的色彩，胶片仿真，柯达黄金肖像100.35mm，佳能50f1.2)，镜头光晕，黄金时间，高清，电影，美丽的动态灯光。在反向提示词(Negative Prompt)输入“((3d，render，cg，painting，drawing，cartoon，anime，comic:1.2))，bad anatomy，bad hands，text，error，missing fingers，extra digit，fewer digits，cropped，worst quality，signature，watermark，username，blurry，artist name，(long body)，bad anatomy，liquid body，malformed，mutated，bad proportions，uncoordinated body，unnatural body，disfigured，ugly，gross proportions，mutation，disfigured，deformed，(mutation)，(child:1.2)，b&w，fat，extra nipples，minimalistic，nsfw，lowres，badanatomy，bad hands，text，error，missing fingers，extra digit，fewer digits，cropped，worst quality，low quality，normal quality，jpeg artifacts，signature，watermark，username，blurry，disfigured，kitsch，ugly，oversaturated，grain，low-res，Deformed，disfigured，poorly drawn face，mutation，mutated，extra limb，ugly，poorly drawn hands，missing limb，floating limbs，disconnected limbs，malformed hands，blur，out of focus，long neck，long body，ugly，disgusting，poorly drawn，childish，mutilated，mangled，old，surreal，text，b&w，monochrome，conjoined twins，multiple heads，extra legs，extra arms，meme，elongated，twisted，fingers，strabismus，heterochromia，closed eyes，blurred，watermark，wedding，group，dark skin，dark-skinned female，tattoos，nude，lowres，badanatomy，badhands，text，error，missing fingers，extra digit，fewer digits，cropped，worst quality，low quality，normal quality，jpeg artifacts，signature，watermark，username，blurry”。中文译文为：((3d，渲染，例如：绘画，素描，卡通，动漫，漫画1.2))，糟糕的解剖结构，糟糕的手，文字，错误，缺失的手指，多余的数字，更少的数字，裁剪，最差的质量，签名，水印，用户名，模糊，艺术家的名字，(长体)，糟糕的解剖结构，液体，畸形，突变，糟糕的比例，不协调的身体，不自然的身体，毁损，丑陋，粗大的比例。突变，毁损，变形，(突变)，(儿童：1.2)，黑与白，脂肪，多余的乳头，极简主义，不适宜工作场所，低分辨率，糟糕的解剖结构，糟糕的手，文字，错误，缺失的手指，多余的数字，更少的数字，裁剪，最差的质量、低质量，正常质量，jpeg伪影，签名，水印，用户名，模糊，毁容，媚俗，丑陋。过饱和，纹理，低分辨率，变形，毁容，没画好的脸，突变，突变，多余的肢体，丑陋，没画好的手，缺失的肢体，漂浮的肢体，断开的肢体，畸形的手，模糊，失焦，长脖子，长身体，丑陋，恶心，画得不好，幼稚，残缺，支离破碎，显老。超现实的，文本。黑和白单色，连体双胞胎，多个头部，多余的腿，多余的手臂，模因，拉长，扭曲，手指，斜视，异色，闭上眼睛，模糊，水印，婚礼，团体，深色皮肤，深色皮肤的女性，纹身，裸体，低分辨率，糟糕的解剖结构，糟糕的手，文字，错误，缺失的手指，多余的数字，少的数字，裁剪，最差的质量，低质量，正常质量，Jpeg伪影，签名，水印，用户名，模糊。其中，反向提示词中的“((3d，render，cg，painting，drawing，cartoon，anime，comic:1.2))”系其自行编辑外，其余所有的反向提示词均系其直接复制于某论坛中用户分享的提示词内容。
4. Enter the following prompt words:“(ultra photorealistic:1.3)，extremely high quality highdetail RAW color photo,in locations,japan idol,highly detailed symmetrical attractive face,angular simmetrical face,perfectskin,skin pores,dreamy black eyes,reddish-br- own plaits hairs,uniform,long legs,thighhighs,soft focus,(film grain,vivid colors,film emulation,kodak gold portra 100, 35mm, canon50 f1.2)，Lens Flare,Golden Hour,HD,Cinematic,Beautiful Dynamic Lighting”. Enter the following negative prompt words:“((3d,render,cg,painting,drawing,cartoon,anime,comic:1.2))，bad anatomy,bad hands,text,error,missing fingers,extra digit,fewer digits,cropped,worst quality,signature,watermark,username,blurry,artist name,(longbody)，bad anatomy,liquid body,malformed,mutated,badproportions, uncoordinated body,unnaturalbody,disfigured,ugly,gross proportions,mutation,disfigured,deformed,(mutation),(child:1.2)，b&w,fat,extra nipples,minimalistic,nsfw,lowres,badanatomy, bad hands,text,error,missing fingers,extra digit,fewer digits,cropped,worst quality,low quality,normal quality,jpeg artifacts,signature,watermark,username,blurry,disfigured,kitsch,ugl- y,oversaturated,grain,low-res,Deformed,disfigured,poorly drawn face,mutation,mutated,extr- a limb,ugly,poorly drawn hands,missing limb,floating limbs,disconnected limbs,malformed hands,blur,out of focus,long neck,long body,ugly,disgusting,poorly drawn,childish,mutilated,mangled,old,surreal,text,b&w,monochrome,conjoined twins,multiple heads,extra legs, extra arms,meme,elongated,twisted,fingers,strabismus,heterochromia,closed eyes,blurred,watermark,wedding,group,dark skin,dark-skinned female，，tattoos,nude,lowres,badanatomy, badhands,text,error,missing fingers,extra digit,fewer digits,cropped,worst quality,low quality,normal quality,jpeg artifacts,signature,watermark,username,blurry”. Among them, “((3d render, CG, painting, drawing, cartoon, anime, comic: 1.2))” comes from the defen- dant himself, and the rest are directly copied from an online forum.
5.将迭代步数修改为33，高度修改为768，提示词引导系数修改为9，随机数种子修改为2692150200，点击“生成”按键。操作界面如图2所示，生成结果如图3所示。
5. Change the number of iteration steps to 33, height to 768, CFG scale to 9, random seed to 2692150200, and click the “Generate” button. The operation interface is shown in Figure 2, and the result generated is shown in Figure 3.
6.在上述参数不变的情况下，将“Additiona1-Networks”中的模型“lord-hanfugirl-v1-5.safetensors”的权重修改为0.75。生成结果如图4所示。
6. With the above parameters unchanged, modify the weight of “lord-hanfugirl-v1- 5.safetensors” in “Addition-Networks” to 0.75. The result is shown in Figure 4.
7.在上述参数不变的情况下，将随机种子修改为2692150199。生成结果如图5所示。
7. With the above parameters unchanged, modify random seed to 2692150199. The result is shown in Figure 5.
8.在上述参数不变的情况下，在正向提示词(Prompt)增加“shy，elegent，cute，lust，cool pose，teen，viewing atcamera，masterpiece，best quality”，中文译文为：害羞、优雅、可爱、情欲、酷姿势、青少年、机前浏览、杰作、最佳质量。生成结果如图6所示，该图片即涉案图片。
8. With the above parameters unchanged, add the following prompt words: “shy,elegent,cute,lust,cool pose,teen,viewing at camera,masterpiece,best quality”, The result is shown in Figure 6, which is the picture involved.
经当庭勘验，原告通过变更个别提示词或者变更个别参数，其生成的图片结果不同。
原告主张涉案图片为美术作品，如果法院认为不构成美术作品，则主张其为“符合作品特征的其他智力成果”。原告认为涉案图片在以下几方面体现出独创性，构成美术作品：
原告认为被告未经其许可使用涉案图片且截去了其在小红书平台的署名水印，侵害原告对涉案图片享有的署名权和信息网络传播权。
经询，原告表示其主张经济损失的依据为法定赔偿，考量了学习软件成本、原告的智力投入、涉案图片的美感、被告粉丝数量和侵权情节等因素。
1.闲鱼平台商品信息截图，显示商品“12000+张AI美女图片素……”售价9.9元；商品“近2万余张AI人物图片素……”售价4.99元；商品“3元一组AI代出图，单发一……”售价3元；
1. A screenshot of product information on goofish.com, which shows that product: “12,000+ AI-generated pictures of beautiful women...”, price: 9.9 yuan; product: “nearly 20,000 AI-generated pictures of persons...”, price: 4.99 yuan; product: “AI-generated pictures (3 yuan/set)...”, price: 3 yuan;
2.拼多多平台商品信息截图，商品“ai头像定制真人照片3D人像动漫Q版卡通转手绘头像制作迪士尼风格”售价5元起；
2. A screenshot of product information on pinduoduo.com, which shows that product: “AI-generated avatar, real-person photo, 3D portrait animation, cartoon converted to hand-painted avatar, Disney style”, price: 5 yuan (min.);
3.知乎用户“圈圈”文章截图“100张AI美女壁纸图片，无水印自取”；
3. A screenshot of article posted by Zhihu user Quanquan, which says that “100 AI-generated wallpapers of beautiful women with no watermarks, help yourself”;
4.图虫网截图，显示：1张图片售价为40元、5张图片售价为130元、10张图片售价为230元。
4. A screenshot of tuchong.com, which shows that one picture is priced at 40 yuan, five pictures are priced at 130 yuan, and ten pictures are priced at 230 yuan.
1. Whether the picture “Spring Breeze Brought Tenderness” constitutes a work and what type of work it constitutes
《中华人民共和国著作权法》(以下简称著作权法)第三条规定：“本法所称的作品，是指文学、艺术和科学领域内具有独创性并能以一定形式表现的智力成果。”根据上述规定，审查原告主张著作权的客体是否构成作品，需要考虑如下要件：1.是否属于文学、艺术和科学领域内；2.是否具有独创性；3.是否具有一定的表现形式；4.是否属于智力成果。本案中，从涉案图片的外观上来看，其与通常人们见到的照片、绘画无异，显然属于艺术领域，且具有一定的表现形式，具备了要件1和要件3。
According to Article 3 of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Copyright Law), “The works mentioned in this Law refer to intellectual achievements that are original and can be expressed in a certain form in the fields of literature, art, and science,” when examining whether the object for which the plaintiff claims copyright constitutes a work, the following elements should be considered: 1. Whether it falls under the realm of literature, art, or science; 2. Whether it is original; 3. Whether it is expressed in a certain form; 4. Whether it is an intellectual achievement. In this case, the pictures involved is no different from the photos and paintings that people usually see; obviously it falls under the category of art and is expressed in a certain form, so elements 1 and 3 are met.
关于“智力成果”要件，“智力成果”是指智力活动的成果。因此，作品应当体现自然人的智力投入。本案中，原告发布涉案图片时已经标注为“AI插画”，且原告可以利用Stable Diffusion模型根据自己设定的提示词和参数还原该图片的生成过程，在无相反证据的情况下，可以认定涉案“春风送来了温柔”图片系原告利用生成式人工智能技术生成的。根据公开资料和相关调研显示，Stable Diffusion模型是由互联网上大量图片和其对应文字描述训练而来，该模型可以根据文本指令，利用文本中包含的语义信息与图片中包含的像素之间的对应关系，生成与文本信息匹配的图片。该图片不是通过搜索引擎调用已有的现成图片，也不是将软件设计者预设的各种要素进行排列组合。通俗来讲，该模型的作用或者功能类似于人类通过学习、积累具备了一些能力和技能，它可以根据人类输入的文字描述生成相应图片，代替人类画出线条、涂上颜色，将人类的创意、构思进行有形呈现。本案中，原告希望画出一幅在黄昏的光线条件下具有摄影风格的美女特写，其随即在Stable Diffusion模型中输入了提示词，提示词中艺术类型为“超逼真照片”“彩色照片”，主体为“日本偶像”并详细描绘了人物细节如皮肤状态、眼睛和辫子的颜色等，环境为“外景”“黄金时间”“动态灯光”，人物呈现方式为“酷姿势”“看着镜头”，风格为“胶片纹理”“胶片仿真”等，同时设置了相关参数，根据初步生成的图片，又增加了提示词、调整了参数，最终选择了一幅自己满意的图片。从原告构思涉案图片起，到最终选定涉案图片止，这整个过程来看，原告进行了一定的智力投入，比如设计人物的呈现方式、选择提示词、安排提示词的顺序、设置相关的参数、选定哪个图片符合预期等等。涉案图片体现了原告的智力投入，故涉案图片具备了“智力成果”要件。
“Intellectual achievements” refer to the results of intellectual activities, so the work should reflect the intellectual input of a natural person. In this case, the plaintiff used the hashtag “AI illustration” when publishing the picture involved; and the plaintiff could reproduce the process of generating the picture involved using the Stable Diffusion model and the prompt words and parameters set by himself. Unless there is contrary evidence, it can be found that the picture “Spring Breeze Brings Tenderness” is generated by the plaintiff using AI. According to public information and relevant research, the Stable Diffusion model is trained from a large number of pictures and their corresponding text descriptions on the Internet. Based on the text instructions, the model can use the correspondence between the semantic information in the text and the pixels in the picture to generate a picture that matches the text. This picture is not a ready-made one that can be obtained through a search engine, nor is it an arrangement or combination of various elements preset by the software designer. In layman's terms, the Stable Diffusion model works in a way that a human does: it acquires some abilities and skills through learning and accumulation, and it can generate a picture based on the text descriptions input by humans - drawing the lines and doing the colors, and presenting man's creative ideas in a tangible way. In this case, the plaintiff wanted a close-up of a beautiful woman under dusk light, so he entered the following prompt words into the Stable Diffusion model: “ultra photorealistic” and “color photo” for the art type; “Japan idol” for the subject, along with detailed description of the character such as skin, eyes, and braid color; “in locations”, “golden hour”, and “dynamic lighting” for the environment; “cool pose” and “viewing at camera” for the way the character is presented; and “film texture” and “film simulation” for the style. The parameters were also set. Based on the initially generated picture, the plaintiff added some prompt words, modified the parameters, and finally got the picture he wanted. From the time the plaintiff had an idea about the picture to his final selection of the picture involved, the plaintiff did some intellectual investment, such as designing the presentation of the character, selecting prompt words, arranging the order of prompt words, setting parameters, and selecting the picture that he wanted. The picture involved reflects the plaintiff's intellectual investment, so it meets the element of “intellectual achievement”.
当然，并非所有智力成果都是作品，只有具备“独创性”的智力成果才能构成作品。通常来讲，“独创性”要求作品由作者独立完成，并体现出作者的个性化表达。“机械性智力成果”应当被排除在外。比如按照一定的顺序、公式或结构完成的作品，不同的人会得到相同的结果，因表达具有唯一性，因此不具有独创性。而利用人工智能生成图片，是否体现作者的个性化表达，需要个案判断，不能一概而论。一般来说，人们利用Stable Diffusion类模型生成图片时，其所提出的需求与他人越具有差异性，对画面元素、布局构图描述越明确具体，越能体现出人的个性化表达。本案中，从涉案图片本身来看，体现出了与在先作品存在可以识别的差异性。从涉案图片生成过程来看，一方面，虽然原告并没有动笔去画具体的线条，甚至也没有百分之百的告知Stable Diffusion模型怎样去画出具体的线条和色彩，可以说，构成涉案图片的线条和色彩基本上是Stable Diffusion模型“画”的，这与人们之前使用画笔、绘图软件去画图有很大的不同。但是，原告对于人物及其呈现方式等画面元素通过提示词进行了设计，对于画面布局构图等通过参数进行了设置，体现了原告的选择和安排。另一方面，原告通过输入提示词、设置相关参数，获得了第一张图片后，其继续增加提示词、修改参数，不断调整修正，最终获得了涉案图片，这一调整修正过程亦体现了原告的审美选择和个性判断。在庭审中，原告通过变更个别提示词或者变更个别参数，生成了不同的图片，可以看出，利用该模型进行创作，不同的人可以自行输入新的提示词、设置新的参数，生成不同的内容。因此，涉案图片并非“机械性智力成果”。在无相反证据的情况下，可以认定涉案图片由原告独立完成，体现出了原告的个性化表达。综上，涉案图片具备“独创性”要件。
Of course, not all intellectual achievements are works; only those with “originality” are. Generally speaking, “originality” requires that the work be completed independently by the author and reflect the author's personalized expression. “Mechanical intellectual achievements” are excluded. For example, if a work is completed based on a certain order, formula, or structure, different people will get the same result; as the expression is singular, the work does not have originality. And one has to decide according to the specific situation whether an AI-generated picture reflects the author's personalized expression. Generally speaking, when people use the Stable Diffusion model to generate pictures, the more different their needs are and the more specific the description of picture elements, layout, and composition is, the more personalized the picture will become. In this case, there are identifiable differences between the picture involved and the prior works. In terms of the generation process of the picture involved, the plaintiff did not draw the lines himself, or instruct the Stable Diffusion model everything on how to draw the lines and do the colors; the lines and colors that constitute the picture involved are basically done by the Stable Diffusion model, which is very different from the conventional way of people using brushes or software to draw pictures. However, the plaintiff used prompt words to work on the picture elements such as the character and how to present it, and set parameters to work on the picture layout and composition, which reflects the plaintiff's choice and arrangement. The plaintiff input prompt words and set parameters and got the first picture; then he added some prompt words, modified the parameters, and finally got the picture involved. Such adjustment and modification also reflect the plaintiff's aesthetic choice and personal judgment. During the trial, the plaintiff generated different pictures by changing the prompt words or the parameters. One can infer that with this model, different people can generate different pictures by entering different prompt words and setting different parameters. Therefore, the picture involved is not a “mechanical intellectual achievement”. Unless there is contrary evidence, it can be found that the picture involved is independently completed by the plaintiff and reflects the plaintiff's personalized expression. In summary, the picture involved meets the element of “originality”.
当前，新一代生成式人工智能技术正在被越来越多的人用来进行创作，Stable Diffusion模型和与之类似功能的模型，可以根据文字描述生成精美图片。包括没有绘图技艺的人士在内，很多人在尝试运用这些新的模型来生成内容，把自己的创意、设计进行有形呈现，使创作图片的效率大幅提高。应当讲，生成式人工智能技术让人们的创作方式发生了变化，这与历史上很多次技术进步带来的影响一样，技术的发展过程，就是把人的工作逐渐外包给机器的过程。照相机产生之前，人们需要运用高超的绘画技艺才能再现客观物体形象，而照相机的产生让客观物体形象可以更简单地被记录，现在，智能手机的照相功能越来越强大，使用越来越简单，但是只要运用智能手机拍摄的照片体现出了摄影师的独创性智力投入就仍然构成摄影作品，受到著作权法保护。由此可见，技术越发展，工具越智能，人的投入就越少，但是这并不影响我们继续适用著作权制度来鼓励作品的创作。在上述人工智能模型出现以前，人们需要花费时间精力去学习一定的绘画技能，或者需要委托他人，才能获得一幅绘画作品。在委托他人绘画的场景下，委托人会提出一定的需求，受托人根据委托人的需求动笔去画出线条、填充色彩进而完成一幅美术作品。在委托人与受托人之间，一般来讲，动笔去画画的受托人被认为是创作者。这种情形与人利用人工智能模型生成图片的情形类似，但是两者有一个重大的区别，即受托人有自己的意志，其在完成委托人委托的绘画工作时，会在绘画中融入自己的取舍和判断。而现阶段，生成式人工智能模型不具备自由意志，不是法律上的主体。因此，人们利用人工智能模型生成图片时，不存在两个主体之间确定谁为创作者的问题，本质上，仍然是人利用工具进行创作，即整个创作过程中进行智力投入的是人而非人工智能模型。鼓励创作，被公认为著作权制度的核心目的。只有正确地适用著作权制度，以妥当的法律手段，鼓励更多的人用最新的工具去创作，才能更有利于作品的创作和人工智能技术的发展。在这种背景和技术现实下，人工智能生成图片，只要能体现出人的独创性智力投入，就应当被认定为作品，受到著作权法保护。
A new generation of generative AI technology is being used by more people for creation. The Stable Diffusion model and models with similar functions can generate beautiful pictures based on text descriptions. Many people, including those without drawing skills, are trying to use these new models to present their creativity and designs in a tangible way; and the models have greatly improved the efficiency of picture creation. The generative AI technology has changed the way people create. Just like many other technological advances in history, the process of technological development is the process of outsourcing human work to machines. Before the advent of cameras, people needed superb painting skills to reproduce an object perfectly; then the cameras made it easier to record the image of an object. Nowadays, the camera of smartphones is getting better and easier to use. However, as long as the photos taken with a smartphone reflect the photographer's original intellectual investment, they will constitute photographic works and are protected by the Copyright Law. The development of technologies and tools require less human investment, but the copyright system should remain in use in order to encourage the creation of works. Before the emergence of the AI model involved, people needed to spend time and energy learning how to paint, or to consign others to paint for them. In the second scenario, the painter will draw the lines and fill in the colors upon the client's request to complete a work of fine art. And the person who draws is normally considered a creator. This is similar to the use of AI models to generate pictures, but there is one major difference here: the creator has his own will and he will use some judgment when painting for the client. Currently, the generative AI model has no free will and is not a legal subject. Therefore, when people use an AI model to generate pictures, there is no question about who is the creator. In essence, it is a process of man using tools to create, that is, it is man who does intellectual investment throughout the creation process, the not AI model. The core purpose of the copyright system is to encourage creation. And creation and AI technology can only prosper by properly applying the copyright system and using the legal means to encourage more people to use the latest tools to create. Under such context, as long as the AI-generated images can reflect people's original intellectual investment, they should be recognized as works and protected by the Copyright Law.
综上所述，涉案图片符合作品的定义，属于作品。具体到构成何种类型作品，原告主张涉案“春风送来了温柔”图片为美术作品，如果法院认为其不构成美术作品，则主张其为“符合作品特征的其他智力成果”。司法实践中，判断客体的作品类型时，首先需要判断其是否为著作权法明确列举的作品类型，即根据客体的特征以及表达，与著作权法第三条前八项列举的作品类型的特征与要件进行对比比较，如果该客体可以被包含在前八项所列举的作品类型中，就将其认定为明确的作品类型，不再适用第九项“符合作品特征的其他智力成果”条款。根据《中华人民共和国著作权法实施条例》第四条规定：“美术作品，是指绘画、书法、雕塑等以线条、色彩或者其他方式构成的有审美意义的平面或者立体的造型艺术作品。”本案中，涉案图片是以线条、色彩构成的有审美意义的平面造型艺术作品，属于美术作品。同时，涉案图片在可以归属到具体作品类型时，没有适用“其他作品条款”保护的必要性，其不属于“符合作品特征的其他智力成果”。综上，涉案图片属于美术作品，受到著作权法的保护。
To sum up, the picture involved meets the definition of a work and should be considered as such. As to what type of work it constitutes, the plaintiff claims that it is a work of art; and if the Court does not think so, then it should be seen as “other intellectual achievements that have the characteristics of a work”. In judicial practice, when judging the type of a work, the first thing is to determine whether it falls under the types of work listed in the Copyright Law. Specifically, the Court should compare the characteristics and expression of the work involved with those listed in the first eight items of Article 3 of the Copyright Law. If the work falls under any of the types of works listed in the first eight items, then the Court will identify it as that type of work; and the ninth item “other intellectual achievements consistent with the characteristics of a work” will no longer apply. According to Article 4 of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China: “Fine art refers to paintings, calligraphy, sculptures and other aesthetically significant two-dimensional or three-dimensional works composed of lines, colors, or other methods.” In this case, the picture involved is a graphic art work that is composed of lines and colors and is of aesthetic significance, so it is fine art. As there is no need to apply the “other works clause” to protect the picture involved, it is not “other intellectual achievements that have the characteristics of a work”. To sum up, the picture involved is fine art and shall be protected by the Copyright Law.
2. Whether the plaintiff owns the copyright on the picture involved
著作权法第十一条第一款规定：“著作权属于作者，本法另有规定的除外。”关于“作者”，著作权法第十一条规定：“创作作品的自然人是作者。由法人或者非法人组织主持，代表法人或者非法人组织意志创作，并由法人或者非法人组织承担责任的作品，法人或者非法人组织视为作者。”根据该条规定，作者限于自然人、法人或非法人组织，这与民法典规定的民事主体一致。故人工智能模型本身无法成为我国著作权法上的作者。正因如此，虽然涉案图片是涉案人工智能模型所“画”，但是该模型无法成为涉案图片的作者。
Paragraph 1 of Article 11 of the Copyright Law stipulates that: “Copyright belongs to the author, unless otherwise provided for in this Law.” Article 11 of the Copyright Law stipulates that: “An author is a natural person who creates a work. The author is the natural person who creates the work. For works hosted by a corporate or unincorporated organization, created on behalf of the will of the corporate or unincorporated organization, and for which the corporate or unincorporated organization assumes responsibility, the corporate or unincorporated organization shall be regarded as the author.” It suggests that an author can only be a natural person, a corporate or unincorporated organization; that is consistent with the civil subjects stipulated in the Civil Code. Therefore, an artificial intelligence model cannot be deemed as an author under China's copyright law. As a result, although the picture involved is “drawn” by the artificial intelligence model involved, the model is not the author of the picture.
而涉案人工智能模型设计者既没有创作涉案图片的意愿，也没有预先设定后续生成内容，其并未参与到涉案图片的生成过程中，于本案而言，其仅是创作工具的生产者。其通过设计算法和模型，并使用大量数据“训练”人工智能，使人工智能模型具备面对不同需求能自主生成内容的功能，在这个过程中必然是进行了智力投入，但是设计者的智力投入体现在人工智能模型的设计上，即体现在“创作工具”的生产上，而不是涉案图片上。故涉案人工智能模型设计者亦不是涉案图片的作者。
The designer of the artificial intelligence model involved neither had the intention to create the picture involved, nor did he preset the content generated afterwards. He did not involve in the generation process of the pictures involved; so in this case, he is only a producer of the creation tool. By designing the algorithm and model and using a large amount of data to “train” it, the designer has equipped the AI model with the ability to autonomously generate content in response to different needs. The designer has undoubtedly done some intellectual investment during that process, but such investment has gone to the design of the AI model, that is, the production of a “creation tool”, not the picture involved. Therefore, the designer of the AI model involved is not the author of the picture involved.
此外，本案中，从相关主体的约定来看，根据在案证据，涉案人工智能模型的设计者，在其提供的许可证中表示，“不主张对输出内容的权利”，可以认定设计者亦对输出内容不主张相关权利。
In addition, according to the evidence in record, the designer of the AI model involved states in the license it provided that it “does not claim rights to the output [of the model].” It can be determined that the designer claims no right in relation to the output of the model.
如前所述，原告是直接根据需要对涉案人工智能模型进行相关设置，并最终选定涉案图片的人，涉案图片是基于原告的智力投入直接产生，且体现出了原告的个性化表达，故原告是涉案图片的作者，享有涉案图片的著作权。
As mentioned above, the plaintiff is the one who directly set up the AI model involved as needed and finally selected the picture involved. The picture involved is generated directly due to the plaintiff's intellectual investment and it reflects the plaintiff's personalized expression. Therefore, the plaintiff is the author of the picture involved and owns the copyright on it.
需要说明的是，虽然本案中本院认定，原告作为作者享有著作权，但是根据诚实信用原则和保护公众知情权的需要，原告应该显著标注其使用的人工智能技术或模型。本案中，原告以“AI插画”方式进行标注，已经足以让公众知晓该内容为原告利用人工智能技术生成，本院对此予以肯定。
It should be noted that although the Court finds that the plaintiff, as the author, owns the copyright on the picture involved, the plaintiff should prominently mark the AI technology or model used in line the principle of good faith and the need to protect the public's right to know. In this case, the plaintiff uses the hashtag “AI illustration”, which is enough to let the public know that the content is generated by the plaintiff using AI technology. The Court recognizes this to be a proper practice.
3. Whether the accused behavior constitutes infringement and whether the defendant should bear legal responsibility
本案中，原告认为被告未经其许可使用涉案图片且截去了其在小红书平台的署名水印，侵害原告对涉案图片享有的署名权和信息网络传播权。
著作权法第十条规定：“信息网络传播权，即以有线或者无线方式向公众提供，使公众可以在其选定的时间和地点获得作品的权利”。本案中，被告未经许可，使用涉案图片作为配图并发布在自己的账号中，使公众可以在其选定的时间和地点获得涉案图片，侵害了原告就涉案图片享有的信息网络传播权。
Article 10 of the Copyright Law stipulates that: “The right of dissemination on the information network refers to the right to provide the public with works through wired or wireless means so that the public can obtain the works at the time and place of their choice.” In this case, the defendant used, without permission, the picture involved as an illustration and posted it on his own account and made it possible for the public to obtain the picture involved at a time and place of their choice, which infringed the plaintiff's right to disseminate the picture involved on the information network.
著作权法第十条规定：“署名权，即表明作者身份，在作品上署名的权利”。作者有权署真名，也有权署假名或者不署名。本案中，关于去除水印一节，根据原告提交的证据以及行业惯例，涉案图片从小红书平台上下载后应当加载有平台和用户编号的水印，而被告使用的被诉图片未显示有上述水印，可以推定上述水印已被消除，且被告作为被诉图片的使用者无法说明被诉图片的具体来源和去除水印相关情况，可以认定水印系被告去除。虽然该水印中的用户编号是平台分配，而添加水印的行为亦是平台实施，但因该用户编号与原告存在对应关系，该用户编号以水印的形式添加在涉案图片上，亦可起到表明其作者身份的作用。本案中，原告明确表示其选择该用户编号作为自己的署名，本院不持异议。因此，被告去除水印的行为，侵害了原告的署名权，应当承担侵权责任。
Article 10 of the Copyright Law stipulates that: “The right of authorship refers to the right owned by an author to indicate his or her identity and sign his or her name on the work.” An author has the right to sign his or her real name, or pseudonym, or not to sign. In this case, according to the evidence submitted by the plaintiff and the industry practices, the picture involved should contain the watermark of the platform and user ID after being downloaded from Little Red Book; yet the accused picture used by the defendant contains no such watermark. It can be presumed that the above watermark has been removed, and since the defendant, as the user of the accused picture, cannot explain the specific source of the picture and the removal of the watermark, it can be concluded that the watermark has been removed by the defendant. Although the user ID in the watermark is assigned by the platform, and the watermark also comes from the platform, the corresponding relationship between the user ID and the plaintiff (the user ID appears on the picture involved as a watermark) can serve to indicate the authorship of the latter. In this case, the plaintiff clearly states that he chooses the user ID as his signature, against which the Court has no objection. Therefore, the defendant's removal of the watermark infringed upon the plaintiff's right of authorship and should bear liability for the infringement.
综上，被告侵害了原告就涉案图片享有的署名权和信息网络传播权，应当承担赔礼道歉、赔偿损失等民事责任。
In summary, the defendant infringed the plaintiff's right of authorship and of dissemination on the information network with regard to the picture involved, and should bear civil liabilities such as apology and compensation for losses.
对于原告“请求判令被告在涉案百家号发布公开声明向原告赔礼道歉，消除其侵权行为给原告造成的影响”这一诉讼请求，与被告行为给原告造成的影响范围相当，本院予以支持。
The plaintiff's request that “the defendant issue a statement on the baijiahao account involved to apologize to the plaintiff and eliminate the impact of the infringement” is equivalent to the scope of the impact of the defendant's behavior on the plaintiff, so it shall be supported by the Court.
著作权法第五十四条规定：“侵犯著作权或者与著作权有关的权利的，侵权人应当按照权利人因此受到的实际损失或者侵权人的违法所得给予赔偿；权利人的实际损失或者侵权人的违法所得难以计算的，可以参照该权利使用费给予赔偿。权利人的实际损失、侵权人的违法所得、权利使用费难以计算的，由人民法院根据侵权行为的情节，判决给予五百元以上五百万元以下的赔偿。”本案中，根据在案证据，权利人的实际损失、侵权人的违法所得难以计算，关于涉案图片的权利使用费，被告虽然提交了一些网站的交易信息截图，但是无法确定交易的图片与本案图片在独创性和使用方式上具有可比性，因此不能证明涉案图片的权利使用费数额。本院根据涉案图片情况以及侵权使用情节，确定被告就被诉侵权行为向原告赔偿的经济损失数额为500元。
Article 54 of the Copyright Law stipulates that: “In case of infringement of copyright or copyright-related rights, the infringer shall compensate the right holder in accordance with the actual losses suffered by the right holder or the infringer's illegal gains. If it is difficult to calculate actual losses or the illegal income, compensation may be given with reference to the right royalties. If it is difficult to calculate the actual losses, the illegal income, and the royalties, the people's court shall, based on the circumstances of the infringement, award a compensation between 500 yuan and 5 million yuan.” In this case, based on the evidence in record, it is difficult to calculate the actual losses of the right holder and the illegal income of the infringer. As for the royalties for the picture involved, although the defendant submitted screenshots of picture transaction information on some websites, it is unable to determine that those pictures are comparable to the picture involved in terms of originality and usage, so the amount of royalties for the picture involved cannot be determined. Based on the conditions of the picture involved and the circumstances of the infringement involved, the Court decides that the defendant should compensate the plaintiff 500 yuan for the latter's economic losses caused by the alleged infringement.
综上，依据《中华人民共和国著作权法》第十条第一款第二项、第十二项，第五十三条，第五十四条，本院判决如下：
In summary, in accordance with Paragraph 1 (2) and (12), Article 10, Article 53, and Article 54 of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China, the Court made the following judgment:
1. Within seven days from the date of this judgment taking effect, the defendant LIU shall issue a statement to apologize to the plaintiff LI on the baijiahao account involved “******” (baijiahao ID: *********). The statement shall last no less than 24 hours to eliminate the impact (The content of the statement shall be reviewed by the Court first. If the defendant fails to do it within the time limit, the Court will publish this judgment in a nationally distributed newspaper or on the official website of the Court, and the expenses shall be borne by defendant.);
二、被告刘某某于本判决生效之日起七日内赔偿原告李某某经济损失500元；
2. The defendant LIU shall compensate the plaintiff LI 500 yuan for the latter's economic losses within seven days from the date of this judgment taking effect;
3. The plaintiff LI's other claims shall be dismissed.
如未按本判决指定的期间履行给付金钱义务，应当依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百六十条之规定，加倍支付迟延履行期间的债务利息。
If the defendant fails to pay the compensation within the time limit, he shall pay double interest on the debt during the period of delayed performance in accordance with Article 260 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China.
案件受理费50元，由被告刘某某负担(于本判决生效之日起七日内交纳)。
The case acceptance fee, which is 50 yuan, shall be paid by the defendant LIU (within seven days from the date of this judgment taking effect).
如不服本判决，可以在判决书送达之日起十五日内，向本院递交上诉状，上诉于北京知识产权法院。
If any party refuses to accept this judgment, it may submit an appeal to the Court within fifteen days from the date when this judgment is served and appeal to the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.
审 判 长 朱 阁
Chief Judge: Zhu Ge
审 判 员 颜 君
Judge: Yan Jun
审 判 员 李婉星
Judge: Li Wanxing
北京互联网法院
Beijing Internet Court A Civil Judgment of Li v. Liu
二O二三年十一月二十七日
November 27, 2023
法 官 助 理 李绪青
Judge Assistant: Li Xuqing
书 记 员 史 宸
Clerk: Shi Chen
©Pkulaw：(www.pkulaw.com) provides various professional solutions in such fields as legal information, law knowledge and legal software. Pkulaw provides you with abundant reference materials. When you invoke articles of laws and regulations, please check them with the standard texts. You are welcome to view all our products and services.
Pkulaw Express: How to quickly find information you need? What are the new features of Pkulaw V6?
Scan QR Code for instant access to the original text
Original Link: https://www.pkulaw.com/en_case/08df102e7c10f20647b26d1eaef175cbebf380c8d1acdd7bbdfb.html
