This case was selected as one of the “Top Ten Intellectual Property Judicial Protection Cases of 2022” by the Hangzhou Court: it is the first case of copyright infringement in smart robot live streaming in the country, raising new legal issues for intellectual property protection due to the development of artificial intelligence and new business models in live streaming. The judgment clarified the boundaries of imitating others’ smart robot live streaming behaviors and defined whether elements such as the robot’s image, live streaming scripts, and live streaming pages developed by the plaintiff can be legally protected, properly balancing the protection of original creators’ legitimate interests with encouraging fair competition. This case provides positive reference value for protecting excellent design achievements in smart robot live streaming. Through judicial rulings, it guides operators in the smart robot live streaming market to engage in healthy competition through technological innovation, maintaining market order during the innovation and development of artificial intelligence-related products.
【Basic Case Facts】
1. The plaintiff, Hangzhou XX Technology Co., Ltd., registered accounts on Douyin and Weibo to promote and publicize the “Erbai” robot, and developed an intelligent program for the robot to host live streams, allowing viewers to interact, reward, and engage directly with the robot during the live stream. This intelligent program enabled Hangzhou XX Technology Co., Ltd. to accumulate a large amount of interactive data and user resources, creating a unique live streaming interface and script system, forming a distinctive smart robot live streaming model.
2. The defendant, Sichuan XX Technology Co., Ltd., used the Erbai robot image in its Douyin account and teaching videos, and employed a similar live streaming interface and script in the live streaming process and in the sale of the “Dabai Robot Intelligent Live Streaming Software,” incentivizing its downstream agents to expand the sales channels of the live streaming software through commissions.
3. The plaintiff, Hangzhou XX Technology Co., Ltd., claimed that Sichuan XX Technology Co., Ltd. and Chen jointly committed copyright infringement and unfair competition, demanding compensation for economic losses and reasonable expenses amounting to 300,000 yuan.
4. Sichuan XX Technology Co., Ltd. and Chen argued that the use of the Erbai robot image was merely to introduce their intelligent live streaming voice software, which is used to guide users in setting up smart robot live streaming rooms, and that the live streaming interface and scripts were not similar, thus not constituting infringement.
5. On June 21, 2022, the Hangzhou Internet Court ultimately determined that the “Erbai” robot constituted a work of art, and the defendant’s online dissemination of the “Erbai” robot image infringed the plaintiff’s right to disseminate the work over the internet; the defendant also constituted unfair competition as defined by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The court ordered the defendant to immediately cease the copyright infringement and unfair competition behaviors and to compensate the plaintiff for economic losses and reasonable expenses of 70,000 yuan. Neither party appealed, and the first-instance judgment has become legally effective.
【Judgment Reasoning】
The Hangzhou Internet Court found upon review:
1. Regarding the determination of copyright infringement.
The “Erbai” robot image involved in the case exhibits personalized expression and a certain degree of artistic beauty, constituting a work of art. Sichuan XX Technology Co., Ltd.’s online dissemination of the “Erbai” robot image infringed the work’s right to disseminate over the internet held by Hangzhou XX Technology Co., Ltd.; the live streaming scripts involved are common expressions in live streaming scenarios and do not meet the originality requirement of copyright law, thus not constituting a literary work; the live streaming interface mainly reflects functional aspects of live streaming and does not demonstrate unique conception or aesthetic significance in terms of color, content selection, and layout, thus not constituting a work of art.
2. Regarding the determination of unfair competition.
Hangzhou XX Technology Co., Ltd.’s operation of the Erbai robot live streaming has undergone long-term optimization, accumulating a significant user base and traffic, and its innovative live streaming room design can bring commercial benefits and competitive advantages.
Sichuan XX Technology Co., Ltd. used a live streaming interface and scripts similar to those of Hangzhou XX Technology Co., Ltd. in its live streaming and “Dabai Robot Intelligent Live Streaming Software,” which constitutes obvious plagiarism. This behavior reduces Sichuan XX Technology Co., Ltd.’s development costs and utilizes the smart robot live streaming solution continuously optimized by Hangzhou XX Technology Co., Ltd. over a long period, which is unethical in market competition.
Sichuan XX Technology Co., Ltd. sold this intelligent live streaming software in various ways, accelerating the replication and spread of live streaming rooms similar to those of Hangzhou XX Technology Co., Ltd., improperly seizing market attention and business opportunities that belong to Hangzhou XX Technology Co., Ltd. in terms of fans, traffic, and other commercial interests directly related to the live streaming industry, harming its competitive interests.
In summary, the court believes that in a context of free competition, market entities should be allowed to imitate product design ideas outside the proprietary control scope, which will help enhance overall market competitiveness and improve consumer welfare. However, the freedom to imitate should be controlled within reasonable limits, and imitating others’ product design ideas should aim at further innovative design and should be limited to individual elements, without harming the legitimate interests of original creators. Sichuan XX Technology Co., Ltd. has exceeded the scope of imitative freedom in both behavior and results, disrupting market competition order and harming the legitimate rights and interests of other operators, constituting unfair competition as defined by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Therefore, on June 21, 2022, it was ruled that Sichuan XX Technology Co., Ltd. must immediately cease the copyright infringement and unfair competition behaviors involved in the case and compensate Hangzhou XX Technology Co., Ltd. for economic losses and reasonable expenses of 70,000 yuan. After the first-instance judgment, neither party appealed, and the judgment has become legally effective.
【Judgment Highlights】1. Regarding the definition of the nature of “works” in live streaming room elements.Live streaming scripts designed by creators are triggered based on different weights of interaction conditions through algorithm training. If they are common expressions in live streaming scenarios, they do not meet the originality requirement of copyright law and do not constitute literary works. If the live streaming interface mainly reflects functional aspects of live streaming, it does not demonstrate unique conception or aesthetic significance in terms of color, content selection, and layout, thus not constituting a work of art.
2. Regarding the determination of unfair competition.
Overall imitation of others’ competitively viable smart robot live streaming designs and methods violates commercial ethics, harms others’ competitive interests, and disrupts fair competition in the market, constituting unfair competition.
【Related Index】First Instance:Hangzhou Internet Court, Civil Judgment No. (2022) Zhe 0192 Min Chu 569 (Judgment on June 21, 2022);
Article 3 and Article 10, Paragraph 1 (12) of the Copyright Law (2020 Revision);
Article 2 and Article 4 (1)(8) of the Copyright Law Implementation Regulations (2013 Revision);
Article 3 of the Supreme People’s Court’s Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Civil Disputes Involving Infringement of Information Network Dissemination Rights (2020 Revision);
Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law (2019 Revision).