[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, similarity does not necessarily mean infringement. The key question is whether there is "contact plus substantial similarity". The determination of copyright infringement usually involves two steps: first, whether the content being sued and the prior works constitute substantial similarity in creative expression; second, whether there is a possibility or fact of contact with the prior works, and excluding defenses such as independent creation, legal sources, and fair use. If the content generated by artificial intelligence is highly consistent with others' works in terms of expression, and the user has the opportunity to contact them, and there is no legal authorization or basis for fair use, it may constitute infringement. The user cannot use the excuse of "machine-generated" to exempt themselves from liability. Conversely, if only the theme, idea, or style are similar but the expression is different, it usually does not constitute infringement - copyright protects expression, not the idea itself.

1. Problem background and typical scenarios

When using artificial intelligence to write copy, generate scripts, or create illustrations, it's occasionally found that the output is highly similar to a work on the internet, or even identical in its entirety. Creators worry about being accused of plagiarism, while rights holders want to protect their rights but encounter the defense that "it was written by a machine". In intellectual property practice in Beijing, the key to judgment still lies in the basic rules of copyright infringement, rather than who generated the content. Due to the randomness of the generation process, similar prompts may produce expressions that are highly similar to others' works, and both users and rights holders often lack expectations of this.

II. Key points of contention

First, the determination of substantial similarity. Second, the proof of the contact element. Third, the distinction between ideas and expressions. Fourth, the grounds for defense and the responsible parties.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Lawyers

The first layer is substantive similarity: The determination is not simply about literal coincidence, but whether the original expression is consistent, including structure, plot, expression methods, and personalized choices; professional appraisals or expert opinions are often used to support the determination. The second layer is the contact element: If the alleged work was already publicly available before its creation, and the user had the opportunity to access it, and the degree of similarity is so high that it cannot be explained by coincidence, then contact may be presumed; conversely, if the similar parts belong to public domain materials or common expressions, the determination will be more cautious. The third layer is the separation of ideas and expression: Themes, subjects, creativity, and functionality belong to the category of ideas and are not protected by copyright. Only specific original expressions are protected, so "the same subject, different writing methods" generally does not constitute infringement. The fourth layer is defenses and responsibilities: Independent creation, lawful sources, and fair use (Article 24 of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China) are the main defenses; the user's degree of participation in the organization of creation and publication determines their level of responsibility, and service providers bear corresponding responsibilities based on their fault. Related disputes can be resolved throughIntellectual property and corporate lawOverall service processing.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

The first step is to conduct a similarity search on the generated content before publication to check for substantial similarities with others' works. The second step is to retain the prompt words, generation records, and modification processes to provide evidence for independent creation or manual processing. The third step is to avoid entering entire paragraphs or unique expressions from others' works into the prompt words. The fourth step is to compare the original expressions, evaluate the contact and similarity, and then determine the scope of defense against infringement claims. The fifth step is to, if necessary, stop using the content, negotiate for permission or reach a settlement, and control compensation and reputational damage. Main legal basis: Articles 3, 10, 11, 24, 52, and 53 of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China; the provisions on works and creation in the Implementing Regulations of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China; the Interim Measures for the Management of Generative Artificial Intelligence Services (effective as of August 15, 2023); and specific applications shall be subject to the currently effective regulations.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Advice

There are three common misunderstandings about AI content: 1. Similarity does not equal plagiarism. Infringement still depends on the degree of similarity and intentional copying. 2. Copyright protects expression, not ideas. If the subject matter is the same but the writing style is different, it is generally not considered infringement. 3. Machine-generated content does not exempt users from liability. Users who participate in the publication of such content must bear corresponding responsibilities, and preemptive measures such as searching and preserving evidence are essential. For matters involving intellectual property and corporate law, you can seek professional legal advice.Intellectual property and corporate lawThe service provides a comprehensive solution that integrates corporate contracts and compliance requirements.Business and contract disputes in enterprisesFor plates involving special handling, you can refer to the relevant guidelines for reference.Special servicesFor columns related to foreign-related intellectual property, you can consult us for further informationFinancial capital and cross-border transactions involving foreign entitiesTeam.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: If the content generated by AI is too similar, does that count as plagiarism?

Not necessarily. It depends on whether there is substantial similarity and the possibility of contact, and whether there are defenses such as independent creation, legal sources, or fair use. Only under these circumstances could it constitute infringement.

Q2: How is substantial similarity calculated?

Check whether the originality of the expression is consistent, including the structure, plot, and personalized choices, rather than simply comparing the literal coincidence. If necessary, seek appraisal or expert opinions.

Q3: Is it considered infringement if the subject matter is the same?

Generally, it does not constitute infringement. Copyright only protects specific expressions, not ideas such as themes, creativity, and subject matter. Different writing styles usually do not constitute infringement.

Q4: Can machine-generated content exempt one from liability?

It cannot be exempted from liability across the board. Users who participate in the generation and publication of content usually need to bear corresponding responsibilities; service providers should be held accountable according to their faults and the extent of their involvement.

Q5: How should one respond to accusations of plagiarism?

First, compare the originality of the expression with the similarity, evaluate the scope of exposure and defense, and, if necessary, stop using it, obtain permission, or reach a settlement to avoid further losses.

This article is written based on the common judicial interpretations in the Beijing area. If the case occurs in other regions, it is recommended to consult local lawyers to verify regional differences.

If you are currently facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the relevant evidence, to avoid missing the statutory time limit.Intellectual property protection legal services·Beijing Henglue Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and public adjudication rules, and is for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. If you encounter disputes, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.