This article analyses a verified civil and criminal connected copyright case heard in Beijing Tongzhou People’s Court under the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China (2020 Revision). All enterprise names are anonymized for confidentiality: the copyright owner is Aurora Art Studio, and the infringing entity is Summit E-commerce Co., Ltd., a domestic manufacturer and online retailer. The case has become a landmark judgment clarifying that AI modification cannot serve as a legal defence for copyright infringement, offering vital compliance guidelines for Chinese e-commerce merchants using graphic materials for physical products.
Aurora Art Studio is operated by an independent Chinese illustrator. In February 2024, the creator finished an original monochrome artistic illustration and officially published the artwork on domestic creator-sharing platforms. Under Chinese copyright regulations, copyright protection automatically arises once a creative work is fixed in a tangible form, and formal copyright registration serves as strong preliminary ownership evidence instead of a mandatory requirement. The studio completed voluntary copyright registration at the China Copyright Protection Center shortly after publication. The work was clearly marked with a copyright notice; the illustrator only authorized designated manufacturers to print the pattern on peripheral goods and prohibited unauthorized reproduction, editing and commercial sales.
In mid-2024, the illustrator discovered multiple puzzle products sold on mainstream domestic e-commerce platforms carrying highly similar patterns. After blockchain evidence fixation, online order notarization and product physical preservation, investigators traced production and sales back to Summit E-commerce Co., Ltd. The enterprise downloaded the original illustration from public network channels, used AI image editing tools to adjust contrast, partial outlines and colour tones, then mass-produced paper puzzles for online sales without obtaining any written licensing consent. The copyright owner issued platform infringement complaints and delivered a cease-and-desist letter. Summit E-commerce temporarily removed partial commodity links but quickly re-launched infringing goods under alternate store accounts, refusing settlement negotiations.
The copyright holder first filed civil litigation in the people’s court and subsequently reported the case to public security organs due to the large sales volume of counterfeit products. During judicial proceedings, the defendant raised its core defence argument: the original artwork had been substantially altered through AI algorithm processing, and the modified graphics constituted new independent works without infringement. Chinese courts adopt the substantial similarity test combined with the access standard to judge copyright infringement. Judges will compare core creative elements including composition, character layout, artistic conception and unique creative details, rather than merely judging superficial visual differences brought by simple technical adjustment.
The court invited professional forensic experts to conduct artwork comparison appraisal. The appraisal report confirmed that all core creative frameworks and unique expressive details remained consistent with the original illustration; all changes made by AI were superficial technical adjustments without forming new original creativity. The judgment explicitly ruled that AI tools are only auxiliary processing instruments; operators cannot evade infringement liabilities by relying on automated retouching of others’ copyrighted works. Using AI to modify complete copyrighted artworks for profitable commercial production still violates the copyright owner’s rights of reproduction and distribution stipulated in Chinese Copyright Law.
After comprehensive trial, the court delivered combined civil and criminal rulings. In civil proceedings, Summit E-commerce was ordered to immediately stop manufacturing and selling all infringing puzzle products, destroy existing infringing inventory, pay economic compensation of RMB 280,000 and cover all reasonable rights-protection expenses including notarization fees, appraisal fees and attorney fees. Meanwhile, the court found that the defendant achieved illegal turnover exceeding RMB 270,000 through continuous mass sales, satisfying the conviction standard of criminal copyright infringement. The corporate entity was imposed a fine, and relevant management personnel received criminal penalties including fixed-term imprisonment and probation. The defendant did not file an appeal, and the rulings took legal effect.
This case resolves a widespread misunderstanding among domestic online merchants. Merchants cannot freely download publicly released pictures from creator platforms, social media or picture websites for commodity production. Many operators mistakenly believe that as long as pictures are processed by AI software, they can avoid copyright liability. In accordance with current judicial practice in China, trivial modifications such as colour adjustment, cropping, line thickening and AI filtering will not break the substantial similarity between the new product and the original work.
In addition, enterprises need to standardize their graphic material procurement management. All commercial use of third-party illustrations, photographs and artistic works requires formal written licensing agreements with clear authorized scope, product categories and sales territory. Internal material review mechanisms should be established; enterprises must verify the legitimate source of all patterns before printing them on physical commodities. Blindly using network pictures without authorization will trigger civil compensation, platform store closure, and in severe circumstances, criminal liabilities.
For original creators in China, standardized evidence preservation is essential for rights protection. Blockchain notarization, copyright registration, original layered design files and platform release records can jointly form a complete ownership evidence chain. Once infringement is discovered, creators can choose platform complaints, civil lawsuits or criminal reporting according to the scale of illegal sales. With continuous strengthening of copyright protection in China’s digital economy, judges maintain consistent strict standards for commercial infringement conducted through AI technical means.
Four valid and publicly accessible hyperlinks:
1. WIPO Lex Full Text of China Copyright Law (2020 Amendment): https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/21065
2. Official Website of National Copyright Administration of China: https://www.ncac.gov.cn/english/
3. China Copyright Protection Center Official Portal: https://www.ccopyright.com.cn/en/
4. Supreme People’s Court of China IP Judicial Database: https://en.court.gov.cn/
