The Supreme People's Court recently issued the "Opinions on the Trial of Disputes Involving Artificial Intelligence in accordance with the Law" (hereinafter referred to as the "Opinions"). This is the first judicial judgment rule document related to artificial intelligence disputes in China, and it is an important measure taken by the people's courts to actively respond to technological changes and accelerate the development of new quality productivity services.
Currently, artificial intelligence is integrating into various fields of economic and social development with unprecedented depth and breadth, and various new intellectual property and data rights disputes related to it continue to increase. How to accurately determine legal responsibility in accordance with the nature and magnitude of the damage and risks that artificial intelligence may cause in different application scenarios? How to properly respond to the rule conflicts, social risks, and ethical challenges brought about by the development of artificial intelligence technology, prevent and eliminate algorithmic discrimination, and prevent and regulate the abuse of artificial intelligence technology that infringes on the legitimate rights and interests of the people? These legal application difficulties urgently need to be clarified. In response to this, the Opinion has established a series of judgment rules around the legal trial of disputes related to artificial intelligence. Among them, the rules in the field of intellectual property protection connect the vital interests of creators with the innovative practices of enterprises, directly facing the most concerned issues of creators, researchers, and data users, which has attracted considerable attention from the industry.
Specifically, first of all, if the images and articles generated by artificial intelligence infringe on the copyright of others' prior works, is the responsibility borne by the user who inputs the prompt words, the enterprise that develops the model, or the service provider? Previously, there was a lack of unified rules and inconsistent standards of judgment in such cases. In this regard, Article 12 of the Opinion clarifies that if the content generated by artificial intelligence infringes on the copyright of others, the people's court shall comprehensively consider factors such as the type and industry characteristics of artificial intelligence services, training data sources, participation of all parties, necessary measures taken, and profit situation, and reasonably determine the responsibility of developers, providers, and users in accordance with the law. At the same time, if a user knows or should know that a prior work exists and still uses artificial intelligence to generate a work that is substantially similar to the prior work without reasonable grounds for defense, they shall bear tort liability; If the developer raises a non infringement defense, they must provide evidence such as training data sources, training process records, and model operation modes to support it. This is not only to prevent users from shirking responsibility under the pretext of "machine generated", but also to urge developers to ensure data compliance and keep records of the retention process, reducing infringement risks from the source.
Secondly, the use of artificial intelligence for research and development by research institutions and enterprises has gradually become the norm, but it is not clear whether the resulting inventions and creations can obtain patent protection and how inventors are identified. Article 14 of the Opinion provides clear responses from two aspects. On the one hand, inventions and creations related to artificial intelligence that use technological means that follow natural laws to solve technical problems and achieve technological effects that conform to natural laws are protected by patent law; On the other hand, natural persons who use artificial intelligence to complete inventions and creations and make creative contributions to the substantive characteristics of the inventions and creations should be recognized as inventors. In other words, artificial intelligence can participate in the research and development process, but the identity of the inventor can only be assumed by real people. This definition dispelled the concerns of innovation subjects that "if they use artificial intelligence, they won't get patents", and gave people a "reassurance pill" for using artificial intelligence to carry out research and development. This provision also stipulates that the description of technical solutions in the specification of artificial intelligence patents should reach a level that ordinary technical personnel in this field can achieve, that is, it meets the conditions for full disclosure of authorization. This provides clear standards for the application and examination of artificial intelligence patents, helps stabilize the institutional expectations of innovation subjects, and accelerates the patent certification and transformation application of artificial intelligence innovation achievements.
Finally, the ability of artificial intelligence models comes from training on massive amounts of data, making the acquisition and use of data a highly contentious area. How should a company remedy the unauthorized use of data sets formed by the collection, cleaning, and processing of investment costs by others? Article 16 of the Opinion clearly stipulates that data and data collections that constitute a compilation work or meet the constituent elements of other works shall be protected in accordance with the Copyright Law; The data and data sets that constitute trade secrets shall be protected in accordance with the Anti Unfair Competition Law. If they do not constitute trade secrets, corresponding responsibilities shall be investigated in accordance with the Internet Article of the Anti Unfair Competition Law. This series of regulations precisely matches legal tools based on the different properties of data, achieving full coverage of protection paths and providing clear rights support for data assets formed by enterprises' efforts.
The rapid development of technology cannot be separated from the norms and protection of the rule of law. The intention of the Opinion is not to restrict technological development, but to establish rules and clear boundaries: to reassure creators, give developers confidence, and let data users know where the red line lies. From responsibility allocation to patent recognition, and then to data protection, each rule transforms macro policy deployment into actionable judicial guidance, and implements governance requirements into specific judicial guarantees. The rules are clear and the direction is clear. We believe that with the implementation of the Opinion, the people's courts will provide more solid and powerful guarantees for the healthy and orderly development of the artificial intelligence industry with high-quality judicial services. (Outlook New Era)