Abetting AI Content Spinning and Watermark Removal Constitutes Unfair Competition
This case applies the abetment and joint infringement provisions of the Civil Code to rule on AI content spinning. It clarifies that AI spinning is not mere borrowing, but technological plagiarism that retains the core content of original works.
WISECODE Take
Many believe that modifying content with AI and removing watermarks avoids infringement, severely underestimating legal protection for original value. From an investment perspective, the defendants in case (2025) Min Min Zhong No. 293, including Rong Co., abetted agents to use AI to reproduce Bai Co.'s original videos, essentially attempting high-leverage arbitrage for cost-free profits. However, laundering and repackaging others' intellectual assets risks a "margin call" of 600,000 RMB in damages once exposed. This warns businesses that relying on agents or AI for content arbitrage fails to build brand equity and exposes the firm to systemic liabilities. We suggest two actions: first, establish compliance reviews for AI-generated content; second, register and monitor core digital assets to prevent competitor encroachment. Speculative IP arbitrage eventually faces legal liquidation; only steady asset building creates lasting value. Zhidian offers professional "Trade Secret Management System Establishment" to secure your core assets; we suggest consulting for an assessment.
Original sources
Compiled automatically by WISECODE IP Radar. Summaries are short source excerpts; commentary is AI-generated. See the source links for full text.
How does this affect your company?
WISECODE assesses IP risk and helps you decide what the news means for your next step.