AI creators demanded Zhou Hongyi 10 times, but 360 Vice President Liang Zhihui is ready to take legal action

In response to online creators questioning the “360AI new product launch conference stolen pictures”, 360 Vice President Liang Zhihui responded tonight that the controversial pictures were redrawn by the 360ai browser, and that the creator asked 10 times the price to buy the so-called “original picture model”, which is beyond the scope of cognition and he is willing to resort to law.

Previously, a creator claimed that the 360 ​​press conference had stolen his pictures, saying, “This is definitely an infringement. Since it is an infringement, it is legitimate and reasonable to claim compensation.”


Creator: The original image was generated using an AI model, and the compensation claim is reasonable

Recently, AIGC creator DynamicWang posted a message saying that 360AI’s new product launch conference plagiarized the pictures he generated through the AI ​​drawing model and demonstrated the product’s “partial redrawing” function at the launch conference.

It is reported that the 360AI new product launch conference was held on June 6. When 360 Group founder Zhou Hongyi demonstrated the “partial redraw” function of the 360AI browser, he asked the backstage staff to call a photo of a woman in ancient costume, and used “sexy” as a prompt word to select a certain part of the woman in the picture for AI to redraw. The photo of a woman in ancient costume used in the demonstration was derived from the picture mentioned by DW.

After the incident, the creator said in an interview with the media that the female costume photo was obtained by redrawing the original picture he created, so the details of the two pictures will be different; and the original picture was generated by him using the AI ​​drawing model he trained and debugged. The creator said bluntly, “My attitude is that this must be an infringement. Since it is an infringement, it is legitimate and reasonable to claim compensation.”


360: Buying at 10 times the price is beyond cognition

In response to this, 360 Vice President Liang Zhihui said in his circle of friends, “At last week's press conference, we demonstrated the local redrawing function in the 360AI browser. Some model authors accused us of stealing the original image. I posted both images, and it is obvious which one is the original. Paying it at 10 times the price is beyond our cognition. We are willing to resort to law and openly discuss the copyright issue of AI raw images.”

He believes that although the ownership of the rights to the generated content and whether it is protected by copyright is still unclear in law, as a product manager, I still contacted the author as soon as possible to apologize for the possible negligence and problems. I think there is no shame in apologizing, and it also reminds us to be more cautious.

“We have tried to communicate and negotiate, but the author said that he wants us to buy the model at 10 times the price and pay compensation separately (there is a recording as evidence). This plan is beyond the reasonable scope of our cognition. We are willing to resort to law and openly discuss copyright issues in court. In addition, I would like to ask DynamicWang, do the pictures you use to train the model have copyright? Then how do you define the copyright of the model and the copyright of the model's raw pictures? If the copyright is not open, it will be difficult for AIGC to develop. New technologies bring new problems, and the truth will become clearer through debate. I hope to truly promote the development and progress of the domestic AIGC industry through fair and open discussions.”

Lawyer: AI works do not involve human creative activities and do not constitute infringement

Zhang Yanlai, founding partner of Zhejiang Kenting Law Firm, vice president of the West Lake Branch of the Hangzhou Lawyers Association, and attorney for the first AIGC platform liability case, believes that the two images are not identical or similar in the sense of copyright law. There are obvious differences in major identifying parts such as faces, headwear, earrings, clothing patterns, waist ties, and floral backgrounds. There is only a certain degree of similarity in the overall style of clothing and character postures. However, this clothing style and character posture are very close to the low-cut clothing that was popular in the Tang Dynasty, and are very common in ancient Chinese famous paintings and various costume film and television works. They cannot be considered to be part of an original work.

At the same time, lawyer Zhang Yanlai also said that I personally tend to believe that users simply generating content through the AI ​​image generation function does not constitute copyright infringement. This means that the user does not have a very clear direction modification to a copyrighted work and hopes to generate new works on this basis, but simply uses the existing generation algorithm of the AI ​​model to refer to the original image to generate a new image. There is no human creative activity in this process, and everything is done automatically by the algorithm.

In this case, the image content is essentially a “mechanical computing result”. The generation process is the result of technology playing a neutral role. The law should not make a negative evaluation of this process, otherwise it may have an obvious restrictive effect on the use scenarios of AI and will not meet the requirements of technological neutrality. The restrictions on AI imposed by the law should be based on clear non-neutral use or human-led AI to complete tasks.

Advertising Statement: The external jump links contained in the article (including but not limited to hyperlinks, QR codes, passwords, etc.) are used to convey more information and save selection time. The results are for reference only. All articles in Gamingdeputy include this statement.