1. Case Insights
As Chinas first judicial case utilizing "AI-powered search" to provide pirated film and TV links, this landmark case carries profound implications for film companies and the industry. For film companies, the case explicitly requires AI platforms to strengthen content review mechanisms through judicial recommendations, offering copyright holders a more direct path to rights protection while reducing the erosion of commercial value caused by pirated links. For instance, the involved company successfully compelled infringers to rectify violations through legal proceedings, effectively safeguarding the right of communication through information networks. For the film industry, this case marks the first incorporation of generative AI infringement risks judicial regulatory frameworks. By demonstrating the "case concluded, matter resolved" effect, it promotes industry consensus on "parallel development of technology and copyright protection," providing a judicial model for standardizing copyright ecosystems in the streaming era. Meanwhile, the courts balanced approach between technological development stages and intellectual property protection avoids excessive suppression of AI innovation while establishing boundaries for the lawful application of new productive forces in the film sector. This approach helps the industry achieve sustainable development amidst technological advancements.
2. Case content
Beijing IT Co., Ltd. vs. Beijing Tech Co., Ltd. – A Dispute Over Infringement of Online Communication Rights: Chinas First Judicial Recommendation on AI-Related Intellectual Property
Beijing XX Information Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "XX IT Company") holds the information network dissemination rights for a specific TV drama. Beijing XX Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "XX Tech Company") is the developer and operator of an AI-powered search engine. Investigations by XX IT Company revealed that when users input phrases "I want to watch a certain TV drama" the AI search engine, the system would meticulously filter and prioritize six search results from a vast , most of which directly linked to pirated resource websites. XX IT Company filed a lawsuit against XX Tech Company in the Kaifu District Court of Changsha City, alleging infringement of information network dissemination rights.
After the hearing at the Malanshan Court of Changsha Kaifu District Peoples Court, the court employed an industry-academia-research collaboration mechanism to consult experts and scholars. Through patient communication and coordination with all parties, it ultimately facilitated consensus on advancing generative artificial intelligence (AI) development within the legal framework, leading to the case being closed with a withdrawal of charges. Notably, as this case represented a novel type of AI-related litigation, the Changsha High Peoples Court and Changsha Kaifu District Court comprehensively evaluated key factors including AI development stages, industry consensus, and technical feasibility. They issued a judicial recommendation to a tech company regarding establishing an intellectual property protection and risk prevention system for generative AI. The recommendation emphasized strengthening oversight of copyright risks in AI-generated content and required the company to establish effective complaint and reporting mechanisms to promote healthy development and standardized application of generative AI. The tech company has since responded with corrective measures following receipt of the judicial recommendation.
This landmark case represents Chinas first instance of utilizing "AI-powered search" to provide pirated film and TV content links. With generative AI advancing at breakneck speed and transforming social life, the Peoples Court proactively issued the nations first judicial recommendation addressing AI-related intellectual property rights to leading internet companies post-case closure. The proactive approach not only resolved legal disputes but also guided innovators to standardize market practices, achieving both case closure and substantive resolution. This pioneering effort holds significant exemplary value for advancing industry governance in artificial intelligence and fostering the development of next-generation productive forces.
