Chinese courts rule against AI video synthesis in two copyright cases
Chinese courts ruled against AI video synthesis tools in two separate copyright infringement cases, finding that using AI to alter or repurpose others' video content without authorization violates copyright protections. Courts determined that AI service providers have obligations to prevent infringement and cannot rely on claims of technological neutrality.
What happened
In Shanghai, Chen published 13 short videos of women in traditional clothing on Douyin. Shanghai Yi Network Technology's Mouyuan mini-program used AI video synthesis to generate 13 videos matching Chen's content but with different faces. The Mouyuan app allowed users to watch advertisements or purchase memberships to swap their own faces into the displayed videos.
In Changsha, a technology company sued a network company whose software used an AI one-click function to cut TV drama episodes into 3-7 second short video clips. The network company stored the drama content on its servers without authorization, allowing users to access clips and create secondary videos while the company profited through membership fees.
Reported impact
In the Shanghai case, Chen claimed the Mouyuan app infringed the information network transmission right of her original videos.
In the Changsha case, the technology company alleged the network company diverted traffic that belonged to the original content owner and generated economic benefits through membership services.
Index analysis
The Shanghai court found that Chen's original videos demonstrated originality in content arrangement, shot selection, and camera angles, constituting audiovisual works protected by copyright law. The court determined the Mouyuan videos constituted substantial similarity through AI algorithmic local replacement synthesis.
The Shanghai court ruled the AI face-swap service did not qualify as original adaptation or fair use, and rejected the technology neutrality defense. The court found the Changsha network company had not established reasonable intellectual property risk prevention systems, including inadequate complaint mechanisms, no rejection mechanisms in the AI function to prevent infringement, and failure to timely update enforcement strategies.
Governance controls
The Shanghai court issued judicial suggestions to Yi Network Technology requiring strengthened examination of material sources and generated content legality, algorithm safety assessments, and knowledge property and personality rights protection.
The Changsha court found the network company failed to fulfill due diligence obligations and lacked effective intellectual property infringement risk prevention mechanisms, noting the company made no effort to prevent infringement despite evidence available at trial.
Classification
Sources and evidence
This record was researched and written by the Index, based on the following original reporting.