Category Archives: Copyright

Adobe’s Creative Cloud Gets AI-Cloned—Why Is Everyone Cheering?

Posted on by

(By You Yunting) Adobe has long been known in the industry for its powerful video and image editing software. But recently, a developer used AI to build software that replicates most of the features of seven Adobe products, and released it as open source on GitHub. When the story hit the news, netizens both in China and abroad showed Adobe no sympathy at all. Instead, they cheered. There’s a reason the pitiable are also hateful. Today, let’s talk about why “everyone cheers when Adobe stumbles”.

READ MORE

Does Your Open-Source AI License Disclose Enough to Qualify for Exemption in China?

(By You Yunting) On September 7, 2026, the Supreme People’s Court of China (“SPC”) released the Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court on the Trial of Cases Involving Artificial Intelligence Disputes (最高人民法院关于依法审理涉人工智能纠纷案件的意见) (“Opinions”). To support the AI industry development, the Opinions introduce a liability exemption for open-source AI software: where a developer publicly discloses the functions and security risks of open-source AI software and a third party’s use of the code module causes infringement, a court may find the developer exempt from infringement liability. However, having reviewed several of the major open-source AI models currently available in China, I found that their disclosures of functions and security risks are generally rather brief and may well fall short of what the exemption requires. This will discuss what an adequate disclosure of the functions and security risks of open-source AI software should look like.

READ MORE

Adobe Sued by Own Shareholders Over AI Training on AI-Generated Images

Posted on by

(By You Yunting) Recently, Adobe, a software company that has long been vocal in enforcing its copyrights, together with its management, was sued by its own shareholders in the Northern District of California for alleged securities fraud based on false statements, due to using pirated materials to train its AI. The core allegations in the complaint include Adobe’s use of a large number of pirated books and AI-generated images sourced from its competitor Midjourney to train its AI models. I have often discussed the legal issues of training AI on pirated content, but today I would like to talk about what legal risks arise from using AI-generated images to train AI models.

READ MORE

What’s Left for Photographers When the Court Decided That the AI-generated Image Did Not Constitute Infringement Upon the Photographic Work it Mimicked?

Posted on by

(By You Yunting) On April 2nd, 2026, the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court in Germany issued a final judgment regarding a dispute over an AI-generated image that mimicked a photographic work, holding that the defendant’s conduct did not constitute copyright infringement. Under China’s Copyright Law, such conduct would also fall outside the scope of copyright infringement. This judgment means that a significant portion of photographers’ business may be lawfully replaced by AI. The underlying cause is that the traditional idea-expression dichotomy in copyright law can no longer adapt to the creation logic of generative AI.

READ MORE

The Cursor-Kimi Dispute: Gates and “Gotchas” in the Open-Source LLM Licensing

Posted on by

(By You Yunting) Recently, the AI coding assistant Cursor, developed by the American startup Anysphere, released its new AI coding feature, Composer 2. However, users discovered that its underlying model was in fact Kimi K2.5, developed by Moonshot AI, leading to a controversy over Cursor’s failure to credit the model as required by the license. After public confirmation of Moonshot AI’s head of pre-training, even Elon Musk weighed in. While open-source LLMs (Large Language Models) are often free to use, their user agreements are not mere formalities. Today, let’s discuss the special clauses hidden in these user agreements and the consequences of non-compliance therewith.

READ MORE

Why MiHoYo Game Content Leaks May Not Constitute Criminal Copyright Infringement in China？

Posted on by

(By You Yunting) Recently, Chinese media reported that the video game developer miHoYo had filed a criminal complaint that someone cracked its game testing client and leaked unreleased character designs online. Following a criminal investigation, the police detained the suspects and determined to prosecute them for the crime of copyright infringement, as the unauthorised disclosure not only infringed miHoYo’s copyrights but also satisfied the statutory threshold for criminal prosecution due to the substantial volume of online views. From the perspective of protecting corporate rights and combating online infringement, the prompt intervention of the police is understandable. However, from the standpoint of the principle of modesty and the principle of legality, it is worth examining whether this case is appropriate for criminal prosecution. In the author’s view, such an act is better addressed through civil remedies rather than criminal proceedings.

READ MORE

AI Face-Swapping Infringement: How to Defend Your Rights in China?

Posted on by

(By You Yunting) Recently, an AI face-swapping scandal on the Hongguo short-drama platform has attracted widespread public attention. The likenesses of multiple ordinary individuals have been AI-generated and used in short dramas on the platform without authorization: some were edited into lewd and greedy villains roles in the drama Taohuazan (English translation: Peach Blossom Hairpin) , while others were directly made the leading actress. While celebrities make headlines when their faces are misused, ordinary people often don’t even know they’ve been cast. Infringers count on you not discovering the infringement, or being too reluctant to sue even if you find out, or that the compensation awarded will be negligible. Today, we will explain how to enforce your rights on your own, with three core steps: evidence collection, complaint, and litigation.

READ MORE

How to Protect Your Works When AI Lowers the Barrier to Film Creation to Zero

Posted on by

(By You Yunting) The recent AI-generated Chinese short drama Huo Qubing has gone viral. Reportedly, the computing production cost was a mere 3,000RMB, yet it racked up massive views. A friend asked me: “Can I charge for this video since it’s entirely generated by AI?” My response: “Certainly, it can be offered for a fee. However, under the Copyright Law, works generated entirely by AI are generally ineligible for copyright protection. If someone else uses this video to charge fees, you may have no legal recourse to stop them.” Therefore, to secure enforceable rights, creators must proactively embed protectable intellectual property (IP) or personality rights into their video as an “IP moat”.

READ MORE

How Will NVIDIA’s Purchase of Pirated Content to Train AI Be Characterized Under Chinese Law?

Posted on by

(By You Yunting) Recently, a lawsuit filed by U.S. copyright holders against NVIDIA for allegedly using pirated materials to train AI models has attracted significant public attention. According to the complaint, in order to quickly obtain more than 500 terabytes of data, NVIDIA proactively contacted the pirate website Anna’s Archive and paid hundreds of thousands of U.S. dollars to download a large volume of pirated content, including copyrighted books and articles.

Anna’s Archive is one of “shadow libraries” known for their decentralized and anonymous nature, most of which typically provide access to literature in a way that infringes upon its copyright. If the plaintiffs’ allegations are true, it will be a serious blemish on the reputation of NVIDIA, the world’s most valuable company, to have paid a pirate website for content and then been sued by copyright holders. However, the unauthorized use of training data can be considered the “original sin” of nearly all general AI companies. In both China and the United States—the two global leaders in AI technology, numerous lawsuits concerning AI training data have already emerged. We will discuss whether, under Chinese law, NVIDIA’s alleged conduct will be considered breach of law.

READ MORE

How Difficult is it for Heygen AI Services that Make Guo Degang Tell English Jokes to Land in China?

Posted on by

(By You Yunting) Recently, many videos of celebrities speaking foreign languages have appeared on the Internet, such as Guo Degang and Zhao Benshan telling English jokes, and Taylor Swift and Donald Trump speaking Chinese, which is actually supported by using AI services of Heygen. I visited Heygen’s website and found that it was not available to domestic users with no WeChat and Alipay in the service payment channel, but in fact Heygen’s founders are two Chinese, both graduating from Tongji University. Today I would like to discuss the formalities Heygen needs to go through in order to have its AI services land in China.

READ MORE

How Does George Martin Prove ChatGPT’s Misuse of Game of Thrones as Training Materials

(By You Yunting) It was reported that Authors Guild and 17 writers, including George Martin, author of A Song of Ice and Fire: A Game of Thrones, brought a collective action against OpenAI, an intellectual intelligence company to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, claiming that OpenAI used the copyrighted work to train AI models without authorization[1]. With great interest in how the plaintiff proved OpenAI misused A Song of Ice and Fire: A Game of Thrones to train ChatGPT, I read the Complaint on the website of Authors Guild. In this article, I would like to analyze this case based on copyright laws.

READ MORE

What Problems Does “AI Sun Yanzi” Have in Intellectual Property and Law?

Posted on by

(By You Yunting) Various AI generated songs by “AI Sun Yanzi” hit the screen the other day. Related intellectual property issues became hot topics on media. I would like to discuss legal issues relating to songs generated from real person’s voice extracted by AI engines.

In brief, based on intellectual property law, it is not very likely that songs generated by AI trained with real person’s voice and used for non-commercial purpose infringe other person’s rights, but before they are made available online, licenses for copyright, backing music and elements used in videos should be obtained. In Civil Code, however, songs generated by AI trained with real person’s voice must be subject to the person’s authorization or otherwise, could infringe personal rights. Let’s look at the “AI Sun Yanzi” case.

READ MORE

Are AI Generated Works Copyrightable? I and ChatGPT Give Different Answers

Posted on by

(By You Yunting) With much attention drawn to ChatGPT, people are interested in discussing whether AI generated works are copyrightable. When I am asked this kind of question, my answer is basically no. However, when I asked ChatGPT, the most well-known AI program, it answered yes. Open AI, ChatGPT developer claimed that it was entitled to benefits from these works. I would like to discuss this issue with you.

Ask Is AI generated content copyrightable?
ChatGPT Answer Yes, it is. In copyright law, original works created by individuals and organizations, including natural people and machines are copyrightable. All kinds of AI generated content that is protectable under copyright law, including words, pictures, audio recordings, videos and other forms of content are protected by copyright law.
Ask Can I get a share of profits from sale of AI (or chatgpt) generated works that are protected by copyright law?
ChatGPT Answer Sale or use of a copyright law protected AI generated work (such as a ChatGPT generated text) for other commercial purpose should be subject to license or authorization granted by the copyright owner, i.e. original author or licensor. Sale or use of the content of ChatGPT developed by a company or an individual with its copyright owned by the developer for other commercial purpose should be subject to license or authorization granted by the company or individual. In this case, ChatGPT developer or owner could get a share of the profits in an proportion agreed by the parties or explicitly set out in the authorization or license agreement.

First, my argument is that no person should be granted copyright in or paid a license fee for AI generated works because they are not copyrightable in nature. Users can claim their rights under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law in case of AI generated work infringement.

READ MORE

Legal Protection of Digital Derivatives of Drama (Part II)

Posted on by

(By Lv Xuanxuan)

I. Civil right protection

As stated above, digital derivatives are virtual property because of its form and value. In Section 5 Civil Rights of Chapter I General Provisions of Civil Code include general provisions about digital and internet based virtual property, stating that digital and internet based virtual property should be protected according to relevant legal provisions, if any. Pursuant to Articles 240 and 241 of Civil Code, real property or property owner is legally entitled to possess, use, receive profits from, assign or create a right to use or security interest in the property, but the person with a right to use or security interest in the property cannot exercise their rights by harming the property owner’s rights. In Article 323 of Civil Code which sets out five rights relating to use of property, the person with a right to use other person’s real property or property can legally possess, use or receive profits from the property. In addition, Civil Code also includes security, pledge, lien and occupation related rules. Because of the legality of rights in property, ownership and the right to assign internet based virtual property is based on creditor’s right to ask for payment of debts owed to them, not directly coming from the property related provisions of Civil Code.

READ MORE

Legal Protection of Digital Derivatives of Drama (Part I)

Posted on by

(By Lv Xuanxuan)

Issues

Digital collectibles (artworks) that emerged over the past year or so are a hot topic in culture and art. As one example, an artist uploads a digital file of painting, audio, video or creative works in other forms onto a third party platform, creates a file copy on the digital book of a block chain as “NFT” and backs it up with encrypted currency. As another example, a performance organizer sells tickets with characters in a play (art images) on a third party platform.[1] Digital collectibles (artworks) come from “NFT” applications. “NFT” technology is used to record ownership of artworks or collectibles and other assets. “NFT” is the abbreviation of “Non-Fungible Tokens” which according to Collins English Dictionary[2] means a digital certificate registered in a block chain and is usually translated into Chinese as “non-homogenous tokens”.

READ MORE