Upload other people’s illustrations to AI software, generate new pictures with one click, print them into jigsaw puzzles and sell online—this seemingly convenient operation has landed a group of perpetrators with criminal convictions, marking the country’s first criminal case involving copyright infringement via AI image-to-image technology.
I. A Quick-Profit Scheme Built on Infringement
From March to July 2024, Yao Yuanyuan, operator of an e-commerce company in Fuzhou, sought quick profits by selling jigsaw puzzles. Unwilling to create original artwork or purchase copyrights, he came up with an unlawful workaround powered by AI.
Yao instructed his employees to import original fine art works owned by a Suzhou publishing firm, Zhang and Liu Ling into AI tools, apply unified parameters for mass image-to-image generation, and manually select outputs most similar to the original artworks. The copied images were then printed as physical jigsaw puzzles and sold across e-commerce platforms.
In just four months, over 3,000 infringing puzzles were sold, generating illegal business turnover of more than 270,000 yuan. Yao and his accomplices were arrested in July 2024, while the company’s legal representative Luo Lin surrendered himself voluntarily.
II. "AI-Generated Work Is Not Direct Copying" — Court Rejects This Defense
During the trial, the defendants claimed their AI-produced pictures were original and could not be deemed infringement. The core dispute lies in whether the AI outputs qualify as legally protected original works.
Works eligible for copyright protection must possess originality, meaning they reflect independent human creation and intellectual input. The court reviewed the defendants’ workflow: they merely imported third-party art, activated the image-to-image function, set fixed parameters, and picked the most similar renderings. The whole process involved mechanical operations with almost no independent creative input.
The judgment explicitly states that the defendants’ act of deliberately selecting highly similar AI outputs was intended to replicate existing works, rather than create new ones. Comparative verification confirmed the infringing puzzle patterns shared core elements with the original artworks, making them substantially identical reproductions lacking originality.
The court further clarified that converting digital infringing images into physical puzzles does not erase the act of reproduction; changing the carrier of a work does not alter its copyrighted content.
III. Court Verdict
On June 13, 2025, the People’s Court of Tongzhou District, Beijing handed down the first-instance judgment:
-
The e-commerce company: fined 100,000 yuan
-
Luo Lin (legal representative, voluntary surrender): fixed-term imprisonment of 18 months plus a fine of 60,000 yuan
-
Yao Yuanyuan (mastermind): fixed-term imprisonment of 18 months plus a fine of 60,000 yuan
-
Two employees Li and Wang: 10 months’ imprisonment with one year’s probation, each fined 25,000 yuan
Luo Lin paid 150,000 yuan in compensation to one of the copyright owners after the incident.
An illegal turnover of 270,000 yuan resulted in criminal records, tens of thousands in fines and prison sentences. The case (Case No. 2025-09-1-160-001) has been included in the People's Court Case Database, serving as a national judicial reference for similar AI copyright disputes.
IV. Key Takeaways for All Operators
-
AI cannot serve as a shield for infringement
Zhang Xiaojin, Chief Judge of the Third Civil Division of Beijing High People’s Court, emphasized that AI tools do not exempt users from legal liability. Unauthorized reproduction and distribution of others’ original art via AI for profit satisfies all constitutive elements of the crime of copyright infringement.
-
Minor AI modifications do not create original works
The copyright eligibility of AI-generated content hinges on human creative participation. Simply feeding existing works into AI and picking similar outputs counts as replication, not independent creation.
-
Criminal liability is a tangible legal risk
Where illegal business turnover exceeds 50,000 yuan, perpetrators may face criminal charges for copyright infringement. The 270,000-yuan turnover in this case far exceeds the criminal threshold. Enterprises cannot evade supervision by mass-producing infringing content through AI.
Conclusion
This landmark case is the first criminal judgment nationwide convicting parties of copyright infringement through AI image-to-image generation. It draws a clear legal boundary: technological advances change creation methods, but not the illegal nature of copying others’ works.
Traditional scanning and copying has evolved into AI uploading and generation, yet the unlawful conduct remains identical. Enterprises and creators must recognize that AI-based "image laundering" to bypass copyright laws will not escape judicial sanctions.
