---

Beijing Ling Chuang Law Firm | 2025-07-15

 

With the widespread adoption of generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI) technology, AI platforms have become a driving force behind technological innovation and business transformation. However, rapid technological advancements also bring numerous legal risks and potential infringement issues. In 2024, the “Ultraman Copyright Infringement Case”, adjudicated by the Hangzhou Internet Court, attracted significant attention. This case not only served as a wake-up call for AI platforms but also provided valuable compliance lessons for the entire industry. This article explores how AI platforms can fulfill their legal responsibilities and mitigate risks while pursuing technological innovation.

 

I. The Ultraman Infringement Case: Analyzing the Legal Responsibilities of AI Platforms

 

In 2024, the Hangzhou Internet Court ruled on the first case involving a generative AI platform infringing on the right of communication over information networks—the “Ultraman Copyright Infringement Case.” The plaintiff was the intellectual property rights holder of the Ultraman, while the defendant operated an AI platform that allowed users to upload Ultraman images and generate derivative works. The court ultimately ruled that the defendant constituted contributory infringement, ordering it to cease infringement immediately and pay RMB 30,000 (around USD 4,200) in damages and legal fees.

 

1. Nature of Platform Services and Business Model Considerations

As a service provider directly engaging with end-users, the AI platform modified and enhanced open-source models to cater to specific application scenarios, delivering tailored solutions. Since the platform actively participated in commercial activities and profited from AI-generated content, it was obligated to maintain sufficient awareness of user-generated content and assume corresponding due diligence responsibilities.

 

2. Prominence of the Copyrighted Work and Obviousness of Infringement

If a copyrighted work enjoys high recognition (such as Ultraman’s iconic imagery), the platform should exercise heightened vigilance. In this case, Ultarman’s widespread fame and the conspicuous display of infringing images on the platform’s homepage and specific categories made the infringement particularly evident.

 

3. Foreseeability and Preventability of Infringement Consequences

AI platforms should anticipate potential infringement risks arising from their services. For instance, when users apply specific LoRA models (e.g., an Ultraman LoRA model), the platform consistently generates images with distinct character features, making the outcomes more identifiable and controllable. Thus, platforms must implement necessary measures to prevent infringement.

 

4. Implementation of Preventive Measures

Upon receiving a right holder’s Cease and Desist Letter, the platform must promptly remove infringing content, block access to infringing links, and prevent further dissemination. Failure to take reasonable action may result in liability for negligence.

 

5. Defining the Legal Liability of AI Platforms

In the Ultraman case, the court clarified that AI platform’s liability depends on its specific actions:

 

Direct Infringement: If the platform itself engages in actions violating copyright exclusivity (e.g., directly providing infringing content), it constitutes direct infringement;

 

Contributory Infringement: If the platform does not directly infringe but is at fault for users’ infringing acts (e.g., failing to exercise duty of care), it may be held liable for contributory infringement. In this case, the defendant was found guilty of contributory infringement, not direct infringement.

 

6. Considerations on Fair Use and Technological Neutrality

Scope of Fair Use: If there is no evidence that the AI-generated content exploits the original expression of the copyrighted work, affects its normal use, or unreasonably harms the rights holder’s legitimate interests, it may qualify as fair use. For example, if users generate images solely for personal study, research, or appreciation without dissemination, it does not constitute infringement.

 

Principle of Technological Neutrality: Technology itself is neutral. AI platforms aim to expand generative AI applications, offering personalized creative tools to enhance productivity. If users create their works under the compliance with platform policies and respecting intellectual property rights, the platform is not liable.

 

Supplementary Protection: Anti-unfair competition law serves as a supplementary legal framework and should not impose duplicate penalties. If an act already constitutes copyright infringement, it does not additionally violate competition laws.

 

II. Conclusion

 

The due diligence obligations of AI platforms are dynamic, requiring a comprehensive assessment of factors such as service nature, business model, notoriety of copyrighted works, obviousness of infringement, foreseeability of consequences, and preventive measures. The Ultraman case underscores the critical importance of legal compliance for AI platforms. Only by balancing technological innovation with intellectual property protection—and fulfilling reasonable oversight duties—can platforms navigate the AI era sustainably, fostering a positive interplay between technology and the law.