声 明 本声明是视觉(中国)文化发展股份有限公司、汉华易美(天津) 图像技术有限公司、汉华易美视觉科技有限公司(以下统称"我公司") 因著作权侵权纠纷对戴建峰的消除影响声明。 我公司是网站 www.vcg.com 的管理者和所有者,该网站展示并销 售的名为《银河下的村庄》的图片,系案外第三方盗图上传。经天津 市和平区人民法院审理认定,《银河下的村庄》的著作权人为戴建峰, 我公司展示、销售《银河下的村庄》图片的行为侵害了戴建峰对该作 品享有的署名权和信息网络传播权,对此我们致以歉意。涉案作品已 于诉讼发生后在网站下架,侵权行为终止。 我公司今后将更加注重著作权人的权利保护,持续完善内容审核 流程,为维护健康的版权生态持续贡献力量。 持续两年多的摄影师起诉视觉中国侵权一案近日迎来进展。 11月22日，视觉（中国）文化发展股份有限公司等三家公司（以下简称为"视觉中国"），在视觉中国官网联合发布"关于戴建峰起诉视觉中国等三公司著 作权纠纷案消除影响声明"。 声明称，视觉中国管理的网站展示并销售的名为《银河下的村庄》的图片， 系案外第三方盗图上传 。经天津市和平区人民法院审理认定，《银河下的 村庄》的著作权人为戴建峰。 ...

2025.11. 23 本文字数：416，阅读时长大约1分钟 11月22日，视觉（中国）文化发展股份有限公司等三家公司（以下简称为"视觉中国"），在视觉中 国官网联合发布"关于戴建峰起诉视觉中国等三公司著作权纠纷案消除影响声明"。 声明称，视觉中国管理的网站展示并销售的名为《银河下的村庄》的图片，系案外第三方盗图上传。 经天津市和平区人民法院审理认定，《银河下的村庄》的著作权人为戴建峰。视觉中国展示、销售 《银河下的村庄》图片的行为侵害了戴建峰对该作品享有的署名权和信息网络传播权，对此我们致以 歉意。涉案作品已于诉讼发生后在网站下架，侵权行为终止。 声明称，公司今后将更加注重著作权人的权利保护，持续完善内容审核流程，为维护健康的版权生态 持续贡献力量。 微信编辑 | 七三 第 一 财 经 持 续 追 踪 财 经 热 点 。 若 您 掌 握 公 司 动 态 、 行 业 趋 势 、 金 融 事 件 等 有 价 值 的 线 索 ， 欢 迎 提 供 。 专 用 邮 箱 ： bianjibu@yicai.com （注：我们会对线索进行核实。您的隐私将严格保密。） 推荐阅读 千元蟹卡成本仅百元，独家揭秘→ ...

声明人:视觉(中国)文化发展股份有限公司 汉华易美(天津)图像技术有限公司 11月22日， 视觉（中国）文化发展股份有限公司 等三家公司 （以下简称为"视觉中国"） ，在 视觉中国 官网联合发布" 关于戴建峰起诉 视觉中国等三公司著作权纠纷案消除影响声明"。 声明称， 视觉中国管理的 网站展示并销售的名为《银河下的村庄》的图片，系案外第三方盗图上传。 经天津市和平区人民法院审理认定，《银 河下的村庄》的著作权人为 戴建峰。 视觉中国 展示、销售《银河下的村庄》图片的行为侵害了 戴建峰 对该作品享有的署名权和信息网络 传播权，对此我们致以歉意。 涉案作品已于诉讼发生后在网站下架，侵权行为终止。 声明称，公司今后将更加注重著作权人的权利保护，持续完善内容审核流程，为维护健康的版权生态持续贡献力量。 声 明 本声明是视觉(中国)文化发展股份有限公司、汉华易美(天津) 图像技术有限公司、汉华易美视觉科技有限公司(以下统称"我公司") 因著作权侵权纠纷对戴建峰的消除影响声明。 我公司是网站 www.vcg.com 的管理者和所有者,该网站展示并销 售的名为《银河下的村庄》的图片,系案外第三方盗图上传。经天津 市和平区人 ...

转自：证券时报 人民财讯11月23日电，视觉(中国)文化发展股份有限公司、汉华易美(天津)图像技术有限公司、汉华易 美视觉科技有限公司11月22日联合发布"关于戴建峰起诉视觉中国等三公司著作权纠纷案消除影响声 明"称，公司是网站的管理者和所有者，该网站展示并销售的名为《银河下的村庄》的图片，系案外第 三方盗图上传。经天津市和平区人民法院审理认定,《银河下的村庄》的著作权人为戴建峰，公司展 示、销售《银河下的村庄》图片的行为侵害了戴建峰对该作品享有的署名权和信息网络传播权，对此公 司致以歉意。涉案作品已于诉讼发生后在网站下架，侵权行为终止。公司今后将更加注重著作权人的权 利保护，持续完善内容审核流程，为维护健康的版权生态持续贡献力量。 ...

来源：人民法院报 经审理查明，原告某影像公司一直专注于广告视觉内容的创作、生产，并向国内外广告公司及各大 企业、媒体提供原创视觉内容。该公司发现被告某旅游公司未经授权在其微信公众号中先后使用原告享 有著作权的6张摄影图片。经查，被告某旅游公司通过网络搜索到"某图库"，并从中免费下载了涉案摄 影图片，在其微信公众号发布的多篇文章中使用。原告某影像公司认为被告某旅游公司侵害其作品信息 网络传播权，遂向法院提起诉讼，要求被告停止侵权并赔偿损失。 本报讯（记者 蔡蕾 通讯员 任骊 陈彬）在自媒体时代，很多人在编辑微信公众号时习惯在网络上下 载图片用于宣传，但这些图片可以随意使用吗？近日，湖北省随县人民法院审结一起因在微信公众号发 布文章时使用未授权图片引发的侵害作品信息网络传播权纠纷案，判决被告某旅游公司立即停止使用原 告某影像公司享有著作权的作品，并向原告赔偿经济损失及合理开支共计2000元。 法院审理后认为，涉案作品系摄影作品，其内容具有独创性，属于我国著作权法所保护的作品。本 案中，根据《中华人民共和国著作权法》第十条第一款第（十二）项及《最高人民法院关于审理侵害信 息网络传播权民事纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的规 ...

Core Viewpoint - Japanese news agencies Nikkei and Asahi have filed a lawsuit against the American startup Perplexity for allegedly infringing copyright by using AI to collect and utilize news articles without permission, seeking 2.2 billion yen in damages from each agency [2][5]. Group 1: Lawsuit Details - The lawsuit was filed on August 26, 2023, in the Tokyo District Court, marking a significant legal action against AI operators in Japan [2]. - Perplexity is accused of ignoring technical measures to prevent unauthorized access to Nikkei and Asahi's servers since at least June 2024, generating and providing summary articles that violate Japan's Copyright Law [4]. - The summaries provided by Perplexity contain errors and misrepresent the original articles, damaging the reputation of the news agencies and violating Japan's Unfair Competition Prevention Law [4]. Group 2: Claims and Demands - Nikkei and Asahi are demanding a court order to prohibit Perplexity from using related articles and to delete the summary content, in addition to claiming 2.2 billion yen for damages due to commercial harm [5]. - The unauthorized content includes articles from Nikkei's paid subscription service and articles provided to Yahoo News by Asahi [4]. Group 3: Industry Context - Perplexity, founded in 2022 by OpenAI engineers, has gained attention as a promising startup in the AI search field, backed by notable investors including Jeff Bezos and Nvidia [5]. - The company reportedly serves over 15 million users globally each month and collaborates with SoftBank to provide AI search services in Japan [5]. - Concerns regarding potential copyright infringement by Perplexity have been echoed by various media outlets, with ongoing litigation from Dow Jones, which owns The Wall Street Journal [5].

Core Viewpoint - The second-instance ruling in the copyright dispute between NetEase's "Rate of the Earth" and Lingxi Interactive's "Romance of the Three Kingdoms: Strategy Edition" reversed the first-instance decision, stating that "Romance of the Three Kingdoms: Strategy Edition" did not infringe on the copyright of "Rate of the Earth" [1][2][7] Summary by Sections Legal Ruling - The Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court ruled that the first-instance judgment was flawed, citing unclear basic facts and incorrect comparison methods, thus sending the case back for retrial [1][2] - The court emphasized that copyright law protects original expressions rather than ideas, indicating that the gameplay rules and design of "Rate of the Earth" fall under the category of ideas and systems, not copyrightable expressions [2][4][5] Game Industry Impact - The ruling signifies a maturation of legal standards regarding copyright disputes in the gaming industry, potentially influencing future cases [1][6] - The decision clarifies the "safe zone" for gameplay innovation, steering industry competition back to the realm of expression and preventing copyright abuse by dominant firms [7][8] - The case highlights a shift towards more nuanced copyright protections in the gaming sector, advocating for the separation of protections for different elements of a game, such as music, art, and text [8] Market Performance - "Romance of the Three Kingdoms: Strategy Edition" has performed strongly in the market since its launch in 2019, consistently ranking in the top 20 of sales charts, while "Rate of the Earth" remains in the top 40 [6] - Lingxi Interactive's position in the SLG market has been bolstered by the success of "Romance of the Three Kingdoms: Strategy Edition," which has attracted a large player base [6]

Core Insights - The popularity of LABUBU has decreased after a significant restock, with prices in the secondary market dropping sharply from a peak [1][6] - The 3D printing industry is experiencing a pivotal moment, driven by the demand for DIY toys and the rapid growth of the cultural and trendy toy sector [5][6] Market Trends - LABUBU's average selling price fell from 2507.04 yuan to 1881.05 yuan in just one day, marking a nearly 25% drop, and has since decreased over 65% to 867.02 yuan [1][6] - The stock prices of companies related to 3D printing, such as Hai Zheng Sheng Cai and Jin Cheng Zi, have also seen declines, with Hai Zheng Sheng Cai dropping nearly 16% and Jin Cheng Zi falling about 10% [1][6] 3D Printing Industry Dynamics - The number of LABUBU models available on the MakerWorld platform increased from 663 to 932 in just nine days, indicating a growing interest in 3D printing among consumers [5][6] - East Wu Securities predicts that the consumer-grade 3D printer market will become a new consumer product hit, with a projected 40% year-on-year growth in 3D printing equipment production by May 2025 [5][6] Intellectual Property Concerns - The rise of 3D printed LABUBU has sparked discussions about copyright infringement, as unauthorized reproduction of LABUBU models could violate copyright laws [8][11] - Users uploading LABUBU models for others to download may face legal consequences, as this could infringe on the copyright holder's rights [11][12]

Core Viewpoint - The case highlights the growing issue of copyright infringement through AI-generated modifications of original artworks, raising concerns among creators about the protection of their intellectual property rights [1][2][3]. Group 1: Case Details - Zhang Wei, an original illustrator, discovered her artwork was sold as puzzles without authorization, modified by AI software, leading to consumer confusion regarding authenticity [1]. - The first criminal case in Beijing involving AI-generated copyright infringement resulted in multiple defendants being sentenced to prison terms ranging from 1 year and 6 months to probation, along with fines [1][2]. - The defendants sold over 3,000 modified puzzle pieces, generating profits exceeding 270,000 yuan [1]. Group 2: Legal and Regulatory Implications - The case faced challenges due to the novelty of AI technology, with no prior criminal cases as references, highlighting the need for legal frameworks to address such high-tech crimes [2][3]. - The prosecution's investigation revealed that multiple creators, including five others, had their works infringed upon, indicating a broader issue within the industry [2]. - The court's ruling serves as a reassurance for creators, encouraging them to continue their work without fear of unauthorized use of their creations [3]. Group 3: Future Directions - The Tongzhou District Prosecutor's Office plans to enhance regulatory measures in the e-commerce sector, focusing on the integration of AI technology and copyright protection [3].

Group 1 - The article discusses the copyright protection issues of AI-generated content, aiming to balance interests and promote the integration of cultural creativity and intelligent technology [1][2] - AI-generated content, such as articles, music, and paintings, is becoming an important part of cultural production and dissemination, posing unprecedented challenges to existing copyright laws [1][2] - The article outlines the necessity of protecting AI-generated content based on the purpose of copyright law, historical contributions, and originality standards [1][2][16] Group 2 - The definition of artificial intelligence (AI) is explored, indicating that it encompasses a range of technologies and algorithms aimed at simulating human intelligence [2][3] - AI-generated content is characterized by its ability to autonomously create outputs based on deep learning and vast datasets, distinguishing it from traditional mechanical generation [6][7] - The article emphasizes the unique features of AI-generated content, including high efficiency and unpredictability in output, which significantly enhances its application across various fields [10][13][14] Group 3 - The article highlights the ongoing academic debate regarding the originality and copyrightability of AI-generated content, with no consensus reached in the current legal framework [25][26] - Different perspectives on copyright ownership of AI-generated content are discussed, including the designer, investor, and user theories, each presenting its own rationale and challenges [31][32][34] - The necessity of establishing a legal framework for AI-generated content is underscored, as current laws do not adequately address the complexities arising from AI's role in content creation [38][39] Group 4 - A recent case in Beijing highlights the legal challenges surrounding AI-generated content, where the court recognized the creator's rights based on their artistic input despite the use of AI tools [39][41] - The ruling reflects the need for a nuanced understanding of the relationship between AI as a creative tool and the human input required for content generation [42][43] - The article argues for the importance of granting copyright protection to AI-generated content to foster creativity and innovation in the cultural sector [44][46]