Unique Research · Insight / industry essay · May 18, 2023 · Full rewrite
Author Hanna. Tech has no right/wrong — only trade-offs. Amid GPT-4 / ERNIE / Tongyi fever, an anti-AIGC wave gathers: human illustrators accuse AI of “theft”; some hope to poison training data. Unique Research spoke with GroupM China, Chopstick Tech, Unique Capital, and game veterans on commercialization beyond the noise.
Does AI hold copyright?
Law anchors copyright in natural persons — AI out of scope. US scientist Stephen Thaler’s AI-image copyright bids (from 2019) repeatedly denied; pre-2023 rulings: AI lacks copyright. Chopstick CEO Chen Wanfeng: “Not so much no copyright as unprotected — not human-authored, no attribution.” Commercial AIGC may avoid classic infringement suits — but training/use can still touch protected works.
GroupM China brand-safety director Jacob Zhou: copyright should vest in the human user of the tool — copyright protects original expression of ideas, not ideas; training may hit protected expression; Prompt already injects human creative intent. Legislation pending.
Infringement & liability
Even with open models + public-domain claims, creators remain angry; once trained, data is hard to unwind; DL opacity means developers may not know “how” the model thinks. Chen: training needs only high-res digital versions — like photographing Mona Lisa — hard to classify. If infringement assumed, liability may track human publisher (cf. AV rules). GroupM Choreograph Vinny Ge: AI is tool without rights/obligations; risk spans train→publish; need clear law + innovative licensing.
Provenance
Web3 / smart-contract marking of authorized training (Chen) vs Unique Capital partner Wu Wei: “Tracing is hard — AIGC is a child recombining knowledge.” Brands should keep staged records to protect brand value. Deepfake/voice swap risk → Bilibili-style AIGC labels; China deep-synthesis rules require non-intrusive marks (Jacob Zhou) — else a “dark web” of unknown authorship.
Trust & practice
Today AI content still minority online; inflection debated. Game vet “Cat-ge”: copyright fights are this generation’s ideology — later “must do, nobody cares.” Chen: 89% US college students use ChatGPT for homework; someday 99% of web may be AI — transition still needs labeling, and labelers will be AI (judge + athlete). Not AI untrusted — humans behind AI. Law must lead.
Embrace tools for design/campaigns (Fliggy, Meituan Mart, Zhong Xuegao AI ice cream). Don’t invent “AI projects” for PR — fold into brand concepts and packaging prototypes (Chen). Tools serve commercial outcomes. Expression still matters; intensity/frequency change with tools.
Matrix red/blue pill close: face AI problems or ignore — tech has no morality; creators do.
— END —