[Direct answer]Whether it constitutes infringement needs to be determined on a case-by-case basis. According to the provisions of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (amended in 2020 and implemented on June 1, 2021) regarding the right of reproduction, the right of adaptation, and the right of dissemination through information networks, the core of the judgment lies in whether the creator has accessed the original work, whether the generated results constitute substantial similarity to the original work, and whether it constitutes fair use. If the creator merely uses others' works as a style reference and the generated results do not show substantial similarity to the original work in terms of expression, it generally does not constitute infringement; however, if the generated content is highly similar to the original work in terms of composition, modeling, and detailed expression, it may constitute infringement. The risk of using the materials for commercial purposes is higher, so it is necessary to carefully evaluate the source of the materials and the authorization status. When asserting rights or responding to accusations, evidence should be provided around the possibility of access, the degree of similarity, and the independent creative process; if necessary, verification of the generation process and the source of the materials can be requested.

I. Problem Background and Typical Scenarios

Generative artificial intelligence is widely used in the fields of illustration, poster design, and graphic design, but this has led to an increase in copyright disputes. Typical scenarios include: designers using the works of well-known illustrators as reference prompts to generate images with similar styles; the generated results being highly similar to the original works in terms of character modeling and composition, leading to claims of infringement; creators using others' works to train models, involving the legality of training data; and companies using generated images for commercial promotion, which has resulted in rights holders sending letters demanding compensation. When adjudicating such cases in Beijing, the courts typically focus on examining factors such as contact, substantial similarity, and fair use, and make judgments based on the specific generation process.

II. Key points of contention

First, whether the generated results constitute substantial similarity to the original work's expression. Second, the boundary between style imitation and plagiarism of expression. Third, the legal evaluation of using others' works as training materials. Fourth, the applicable conditions and scope of fair use. Fifth, the copyright ownership and usage risks of the generated content. Sixth, the right holders' evidence-gathering path and claims for compensation.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Lawyers

Henglue Law Firm once represented a case of trademark infringement and unfair competition disputes: The plaintiff was a well-known paper company, and its trademark constituted a well-known trademark in relevant categories; a company, authorized by a third party, used similar logos to produce and sell similar products and sold them through e-commerce platforms, for which the plaintiff claimed 980000 yuan in compensation. The lawyers of our firm represented the defendant, and defended against the claims based on the following points: the logo had legal authorization and was not similar; the packaging and decoration did not constitute unfair competition; and the high compensation lacked basis. The court partially accepted the lawyers' arguments, finding that the trademark infringement was established, but rejected the claim of unfair competition because the plaintiff failed to prove that the packaging and decoration had a certain influence; considering the short infringement period and small scale, the court awarded 50000 yuan in economic damages and 10000 yuan in reasonable expenses, totaling 60000 yuan, which was 920000 yuan lower than the claimed compensation. This case shows that in intellectual property disputes, the determination of infringement and the amount of compensation are two independent issues, and the defense should focus on the similarity of expression, the source of authorization, and the basis of loss. Returning to the issue of AI painting, the judgment logic also focuses on whether the expression is similar, whether the source of the materials is legal, and whether the use exceeds the scope. The compliance arrangements of the business model and authorization chain are particularly crucial. 恒略律师曾代理一起商标侵权及不正当竞争纠纷案件：原告系知名纸业公司，其商标在相关类别上构成驰名商标；某公司经案外人授权使用近似标识生产销售同类商品，并通过电商平台销售，原告据此索赔98万元。本所律师代理被告方，围绕标识具有合法授权且不近似、包装装潢不构成不正当竞争、高额赔偿缺乏依据展开抗辩。法院部分采纳代理意见，认定商标侵权成立，但因原告未能证明包装装潢具有一定影响而驳回不正当竞争主张；考虑到侵权时间短、规模较小，酌情判决赔偿经济损失50000元及合理费用10000元，共60000元，较索赔98万元降低92万余元。该案说明，知识产权争议中侵权认定与赔偿数额是两个独立问题，抗辩应围绕相似程度、授权来源与损失依据展开。回到人工智能绘画问题上，判断逻辑同样聚焦于表达是否相似、素材来源是否合法与使用是否超范围，商业模式与授权链条的合规安排尤为关键。

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

Action list: First, try to use self-owned, authorized, or commercially licensed materials for creation and training; Second, keep the prompts, parameters, and iteration records during the generation process to facilitate proving independent creation and differences; Third, conduct rights searches and similarity assessments for the generated content intended for commercial use; Fourth, when receiving claims from rights holders, promptly verify the registration of the works and the creation time to assess the degree of similarity; Fifth, in the event of disputes, organize evidence around contact, similarity, and fair use. For issues related to intellectual property and corporate compliance, please refer to the relevant guidelines.Intellectual property protection and corporate lawFor commercial disputes, it may be appropriate to combine the following approaches:Business and contract disputes in enterprisesColumn. Legal basis: The Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (amended in 2020 and implemented on June 1, 2021) regarding the provisions on the right of reproduction, the right of adaptation, the right of dissemination on information networks, and fair use. The specific application shall be subject to the currently effective laws and regulations and judicial rulings. This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Liu YuanyuanThe lawyer (practice certificate number: 11101202011201094, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent.

5. Henglue Law Firm's Reminder

Firstly, stylistic reference is different from plagiarism. The key point is whether it constitutes substantial similarity. Secondly, the risk of commercial use is higher, so it's necessary to carefully check the sources of the materials and obtain authorizations. Thirdly, keeping records of the generation process can help claim that the work is independently created. Fourthly, after receiving a claim letter, it's necessary to evaluate the situation and organize evidence as soon as possible. If you are currently facing similar problems, you can seek assistance throughIntellectual property protection and corporate lawWe provide comprehensive solutions for services, and those involving commercial disputes can be integrated into our services.Business and contract disputes in enterprises板块。

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Is it considered infringement if AI-generated art resembles the works of a particular painter?

This needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. If the purpose is simply to study and imitate the style, and the generated results do not substantially resemble the original work in terms of expression, it generally does not constitute infringement; however, if the generated results closely resemble the original work in terms of composition, modeling, details, and other specific expressions, it may constitute infringement. The key lies in the likelihood of exposure and the degree of similarity, rather than the style itself. In commercial scenarios, extra caution is required.

Q2: Is it illegal to train a model using other people's works?

It is necessary to evaluate the source and usage of the materials. When using works protected by copyright for copying or other purposes, in principle, permission should be obtained or the use should comply with statutory circumstances such as fair use; the specific determination is related to the legality of the source of the materials, the purpose of use, and the impact. Using materials that have been authorized, are commercially available, or are in the public domain carries lower risks. It is recommended to complete a rights review and keep records of the source before using such materials.

Q3: Who owns the copyright to the images generated by AI?

This requires a detailed analysis. Whether the generated content constitutes a work and how the rights are attributed depends on whether it reflects human intellectual input and original expression. Currently, there are different practices in this regard. It is recommended to keep clear records of the creative process and human intervention during the creation, and to stipulate the use and ownership of the generated content through contracts to reduce the risk of disputes over ownership rights.

Q4: What should I do if I receive a copyright infringement warning?

It is not advisable to ignore this. First, you should verify the ownership certificates and creation dates of the rights holders, compare the similarity between your own works and the works involved in the case, and collect evidence of the creative process and source of materials. If there is indeed a risk of infringement, you can negotiate a solution and assess the scope of compensation; if you believe it does not constitute infringement, you can prepare defense materials. It is recommended to seek advice from a professional lawyer before responding.

Q5: How is the amount of compensation generally calculated?

According to the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China, the compensation shall be determined based on the actual losses of the right holder or the infringer's illegal income; if it is difficult to determine, it may be referred to a reasonable multiple of the royalties; if it is still difficult to determine, statutory compensation shall be applied, and the court shall determine the amount at its discretion within the range of 500 yuan to 5 million yuan. The right holder shall also provide sufficient evidence of the infringement, the causality, and the basis of the losses.

The above Q&A is mainly based on the judicial practice in Beijing. There may be differences in the adjudication guidelines in different regions. It is recommended to consult a professional lawyer based on the specific circumstances of the case.

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

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and open 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.