【#格力电器CMO炮轰创维抄袭##格力朱磊让创维下次别抄了#】格力电器CMO朱磊于微博发文炮轰创 维电器称，"抄得挺像的，下次别抄了。" 据朱磊发布配图内容，于创维空调官方视频号发布的一则创维空调海报设计页面，与格力推出的"真铜 实料 格力造"海报高度相似，明显涉嫌抄袭。 不过，目前该发布于创维空调视频号的海报已经删除。对于涉嫌抄袭一事，截至发稿创维方面暂无回 应。（新浪科技） ...

Core Points - The article discusses the implications of generative AI in academic writing, particularly focusing on the issue of plagiarism and copyright infringement [1][2][3] - It emphasizes the distinction between plagiarism and copyright infringement, noting that while plagiarism is an ethical violation, copyright infringement is a legal issue [5][8][10] Group 1: Plagiarism and AI - Generative AI tools like ChatGPT are widely used in academic writing, with a significant percentage of students reporting their use for assignments [3] - The outputs from generative AI can create a false sense of originality, leading users to unknowingly present others' ideas as their own [4][16] - The lack of clear attribution in AI-generated content breaks traditional citation chains, complicating the identification of original sources [3][4] Group 2: Legal and Ethical Boundaries - Copyright laws generally prohibit the reproduction of creative expressions but do not protect ideas themselves, allowing for the sharing of thoughts without infringement [5][10] - The article highlights that generative AI outputs typically do not infringe copyright as they do not exhibit substantial similarity to the protected expressions used in training data [6][10] - There is a growing concern that the conflation of plagiarism and copyright infringement could lead to misunderstandings in legal contexts [7][10] Group 3: Distinction Between Concepts - Plagiarism is defined as the unauthorized use of another's language, ideas, or works without proper attribution, while copyright infringement involves the unauthorized use of protected expressions [9][10][13] - The article outlines that not all unethical academic behaviors constitute plagiarism, and some may not even infringe copyright [13][14] - The need for clear definitions and boundaries between copyright infringement, plagiarism, and poor academic practices is emphasized [8][11] Group 4: Attribution Rights - The article discusses the lack of universal attribution rights in U.S. law, suggesting that while attribution is important, it does not always constitute a legal violation [14] - Proposals for establishing new attribution rights are met with skepticism due to the complexity of copyright law and the potential for conflicting interpretations [14] - The importance of maintaining academic integrity and transparency in the use of AI-generated content is highlighted, advocating for clear guidelines in academic institutions [16]

Core Viewpoint - The collaboration between Cha Yan Yue Se and Shanghai Rainbow Chamber Choir has faced allegations of plagiarism regarding a notebook product, leading to public outcry and an official apology from the company [1][4]. Group 1: Allegations and Responses - Multiple bloggers have accused Cha Yan Yue Se of plagiarizing their works in the recently launched collaborative notebook [4]. - The company acknowledged the unauthorized use of certain designs and issued a formal apology, citing management oversight as the cause [4]. - Cha Yan Yue Se plans to establish a dedicated investigation team to conduct a thorough review of their design processes and improve management practices [4]. Group 2: Ongoing Negotiations - The affected bloggers are currently in negotiations with Cha Yan Yue Se regarding the situation [2][6]. - Bloggers have expressed gratitude for public support while continuing discussions on how to resolve the issue [6].

Core Viewpoint - The company "Cha Yan Yue Se" has faced allegations of design plagiarism regarding its newly launched collaborative product, a multifunctional notebook, leading to public apologies and commitments to rectify the situation [1][4]. Group 1: Apology and Acknowledgment - The company issued an apology on social media, acknowledging that some designs in the new product were similar to those of various original creators [4]. - The team recognized unauthorized use of certain designs and expressed regret, stating they have reached out to the original authors to apologize and seek resolution [4]. Group 2: Response and Actions Taken - The company has established a dedicated investigation team to conduct a thorough self-examination and ensure compliance in future designs [4]. - They plan to enhance management processes and training to improve the team's ability to discern and control content [4]. Group 3: Public Reaction and Impact - Following the allegations, the multifunctional notebook quickly sold out online, with some consumers turning to resale platforms at inflated prices [4]. - Multiple users on social media have reported similar instances of their designs appearing in the notebook, prompting calls for a clear investigation and resolution from the company [11].