The Supreme Court elaborates on the "Ultraman" copyright infringement case and is currently drafting a document to regulate the determination of the originality of AI-generated creations.

It is reported that the Supreme People's Court is drafting relevant judicial policy documents, intending to clarify the rules for determining the originality of AI-generated works and the legal nature of data training behavior. The Supreme People's Court stated that in the field of artificial intelligence, the court must ensure overall consideration and balance of interests. For example, in the trial of the "Ultraman" case, a platform operated by an AI company generated images substantially similar to the Ultraman character through AI painting function. The rights holder believed that the AI company had infringed upon their reproduction right, adaptation right, and information network transmission right by using their work to train models and generate images without authorization. The court, based on the characteristics of generative artificial intelligence technology services, attempted to propose various factors for comprehensive consideration in determining whether the service provider constituted aiding infringement. It emphasized that the service provider's duty to exercise care should be controlled within a reasonable degree commensurate with its information management capabilities, and clarified that generative artificial intelligence services are only subject to legal regulation when they violate the principles of honesty and credit, disturb market competition order, and harm the legitimate rights and interests of other operators or consumers, also leaving room for development in the generative artificial intelligence industry.