China · Guangdong · Platform Liability

Guangzhou Ultraman AI Image Case

The defendant connected to a third-party AI image service through an API. Users could generate images substantially similar to the protected Ultraman works. The court classified the defendant as a generative AI service provider and found infringement of the reproduction and adaptation rights.

Court or tribunal
Guangzhou Internet Court
Representative decision date
8 February 2024
Procedural status
First-instance judgment
Case number
(2024)粤0192民初113号

01

Factual background & dispute

  • Shanghai Character License Administrative Co., Ltd. held an exclusive licence in China to the reproduction, adaptation and information-network dissemination rights in the Ultraman artworks and had independent enforcement authority.
  • The defendant's Tab website (a pseudonym) connected to a third-party AI image service through an API. Prompts such as 'generate an Ultraman Dyna' produced images partly or wholly substantially similar to protected Ultraman characters.
  • The defendant argued that a third party supplied the image function and that it had not trained the model. The court found that the website lacked a complaint mechanism, intellectual-property risk notices and conspicuous AI-content labels.

02

Core issues & judicial focus

  1. Whether the generated images infringed the reproduction, adaptation and information-network dissemination rights
  2. Whether an operator using a third-party model through an API qualifies as a generative AI service provider
  3. What technical prevention standard applies to cessation of infringement and whether training data must be deleted
  4. How complaint handling, risk notices and AI-content labelling affect damages liability

03

Judicial finding & holding

  • The generated images infringed the reproduction and adaptation rights in the Ultraman works. The service provider had not itself trained the model at issue.
  • The court ordered technical measures to prevent further infringing outputs and RMB 10,000 in damages and reasonable costs.
  • The claimant’s remaining requests were dismissed.

04

Practical risk implications

01Product operators remain responsible for statutory duties when they deliver generative AI functions through third-party models or APIs.

02Highly recognisable intellectual property requires keyword and semantic controls, similarity testing, complaint handling and continued regression testing.

03User terms should define intellectual-property limits, generated content should carry required labels, and testing and remediation should be documented.

Decisions and ordersFull judgments, orders and tribunal decisions1 document

PROJECT ENQUIRY

How does this precedent affect your product or litigation?

Consult with our practice team →