At the moment, artificial intelligence technology is being deeply integrated into content creation, and the ai short play is using low-threshold, new forms of fast-discovery networks. The growing number of people involved in the creation of short dramas with their tools, while enjoying the joy of the digital age, also comes with a key legal question: do i have copyright rights as an ordinary creator? How can we defend our rights if they are violated
The characters and scenes in this short play are from a web game in which the online game operator produces a special ai tool in which the creators enter initial scripts, scenario setting, camera requirements, etc., to produce the short play quickly and publish it on an officially designated platform for users to watch at a fee。
On the short video platform, this type of ait has become a specialized series that attracts a large number of users. According to the company's staff, hundreds of users have been involved in the creation, which has resulted in the creation of more than 7,000 ai short plays, with a unit price ranging from several to a dozen dollars, of which several popular short plays have been sold to thousands。
However, in the second half of 2024, the company's staff found that the series of short plays had been publicly sold without permission。
This is a link that was on a second-hand platform, where the seller wrote that more than 1,300 short plays were sold for 66. 66. These clips were verified by the staff as having been obtained through misappropriation and without any authorization。
Mr. Zhang: we've discovered a wide range of things, and now many trading platforms on the internet, including shopping platforms, are largely radioactive. In quantitative terms, it essentially covers all of our short plays on the entire official platform, even continuously updated. As a co-author of copyright, either party has the legal right to defend it。
The company believed that the theft had violated its legitimate rights and interests and was suspected of a criminal offence, which was then reported to the public security authorities. Following an investigation, the police quickly targeted two suspects who sold the short play in question. The case concerned an ai-generated short play, and was it protected by law? In response to the legal difficulties of this new type of intellectual property, the huang pil public prosecution service of guangzhou has taken early legal action to direct the public security organs to investigate and take evidence。
Early intervention by the prosecution service
Revert user creation process
In recent years, the question of whether artificial intelligence-generated videos, pictures, texts, etc., are “works” within the meaning of copyright law has been a legal question. So, in this case, are these the works that are protected by law? Are perpetrators criminally responsible
Following early intervention, the case was examined by the people's procuratorate of the huang po district of guangzhou city, who first made it clear that the short play in question was not a work in the legal sense。
Zhang zhou jie, deputy director of the second department of the people's procuratorate of huang pil district, guangzhou: how can we distinguish between copyright rights and copyright rights? At the core is the proportion of people who are intellectually committed throughout their creative activities。
In order to determine precisely the intellectual input of the creators of the short screenplay in question, the public prosecution service directs the investigative authorities to take full advantage of the creative evidence: the original script written by the user, the creative communication log, the ai tool log, the camera set and layout log, etc., and the entire process from conception to production。
In the light of the evidence, the public prosecution service considers that the ai short play in this case is not simply an input of the keyword “generated by a single key”, but rather a user that sets the subject, person, plot, style through the original script, which reflects the individualization and original expression of the creator and meets the criteria for identification of the work within the meaning of copyright law。
A thousand or so videos were stolen
Meeting the standards for criminal prosecution
Under the penal code and the two high rules governing the judicial interpretation of criminal cases involving infringement of intellectual property rights, a violation of copyright is committed if, for profit, a copy of the work is made available to the public through an information network without the permission of the author。
The two suspects involved in the incident reported that they had illegally reproduced the relevant ai short play through video software and generated web links to be shared for profit with buyers. According to statistics, the number of recorded videos in this case has reached more than 1,700 and the standard for criminal prosecution has been met。
Zhang chujie: we acknowledge the existence of the violation of copyright, and we also identify the fact that the perpetrators profit from the dissemination of the aig works of copyright to others through information networks. The number of cases disseminated has reached the standard of prosecution for crimes under article 217 of the criminal code, which makes it a criminal offence, and we prosecute them under the provisions of the criminal code。
For profit from piracy and dissemination
It's a violation of copyright
On 21 april 2026, the case was heard at the knowledge town court of the huang po district people's court in guangzhou city. The core of the case is also relevant to the public's doubts about the ai short play, and what works are protected by the copyright act? What are the penalties for the theft of the ai short show? These focus areas were the subject of hearings and judgements。
Presiding judge: the verdict is as follows, and all rise. The accused was convicted of violating copyright, sentenced to eight months ' imprisonment, one year's and two months ' probation and a fine of 6,000 yuan。
The judge stated that, in conjunction with the evidence in the case, the ai short play involved in the case should be considered a work protected by law。
The full court of the present case held that the accused, without the permission of the right-holder, had been able to disseminate and profit from the theft of the ai short play, which involved more than 1,700 works and a large number of them, and that their actions constituted a violation of copyright and criminal responsibility under the law。
This criminal protection of creative ai works guarantees both the legitimate rights and interests of the aggrieved enterprises and creators, as well as the rules governing the recognition of copyright in the works of ai by a judicial decision: only the creation of ai containing the original intellectual input of human beings can be protected by copyright law。
U xingxia, deputy attorney-general of the people's procuratorate of huang po district, guangzhou: through judicial practice, the boundaries of conduct have been clarified and a sample of judicial decisions have been provided for following up on similar cases. Innovative protection has been strengthened, providing timely and robust judicial guarantees for the development of new quality productivity。
At the same time, the ruling in this case provides specific guidance for the healthy development of the ai content industry and gives the various subjects clearer boundaries and legal grounds for behaviour when using, creating and disseminating ai content。
Liu jing, vice-president of the people's court of huang po district, guangzhou: protection of works within the meaning of copyright law and reasonable protection of technological innovation. Firms have strict ex ante review and management obligations and ensure the legitimacy of training data. For creators, ai can only be a support tool for creation, and works must reflect the creative intellectual input of creators, and the resulting work can be protected by law. For ordinary users, the content generated by ai cannot be considered to be readily available and may constitute a violation if it is disseminated indiscriminately, even if it is not profitable。
