China First Copyright Dispute Featuring Savvy Robot of Live Streaming

The rapid advancements in intelligent robotics and live streaming have led to the emergence of numerous legal challenges, such as defining the legal status of virtual digital personas, determining if using someone else’s virtual persona for live streaming is an infringement, and whether mimicking another’s live streaming room design amounts to unfair competition. The Hangzhou Court addressed these issues in the Erbai Robot case, clarifying the legal protection available for elements like robot personas, live streaming scripts, and page designs.

Case Overview

1. The plaintiff, a company from Hangzhou, created accounts on two platforms and developed an intelligent program for robot-hosted live streaming to promote the “Erbai” robot. This program allowed viewers to interact with the robot through dialogue and tipping, enabling the company to gather significant interaction data and user resources.

2. The defendant, a company from Sichuan, used the “Erbai” robot persona in its short video accounts and instructional content. It replicated the plaintiff’s live streaming interfaces and scripts in its own live streaming and in the “Dabai Robot Intelligent Live Streaming Software” it marketed. The defendant also incentivized its offline agents with commissions to broaden the software’s sales channels.

3. The Hangzhou company accused the Sichuan company and its representative, Mr. Chen, of copyright infringement and unfair competition, leading to a lawsuit for 300,000 yuan in damages.

This case is notable as the first of its kind in China concerning intelligent robot live streaming infringement, tackling essential topics like intellectual property rights in the AI era and competition regulation in the live streaming sector. The court approached the issue of “imitation” in intelligent robot live streaming through two regulatory lenses: (1) assessing whether the design elements of the live streaming room met copyright law’s “originality” criteria, thus qualifying for protection, and (2) evaluating if the defendant’s actions exceeded acceptable imitation, disrupted market competition, and harmed other operators’ legitimate interests.

Judicial Findings

1. 1. Regarding the “work” status of live streaming room elements, the court determined that “originality” and “artistic quality” are crucial for defining artistic works. The “Erbai” robot persona displayed personalized expression and artistic aesthetic, fulfilling copyright law’s originality and artistic quality criteria, thus qualifying as an artistic work. However, the live streaming scripts and interfaces did not reflect the creator’s unique vision or aesthetic significance, failing to meet the originality standard and therefore not qualifying as literary or artistic works.

   2. On unfair competition, the court noted that unique live streaming methods like scripts and interfaces can provide businesses with competitive advantages. The defendant’s use of similar live streaming methods violated business ethics and harmed the plaintiff’s competitive interests. The defendant’s actions were deemed to exceed permissible imitation, disrupt market order, and harm the legitimate interests of other operators, constituting unfair competition.

Court Decision

In its ruling, the first-instance court concluded:

1. 1. Regarding copyright infringement, the “Erbai” robot persona was recognized as an artistic work due to its originality and artistic quality. The Sichuan company’s online use of this persona infringed on the Hangzhou company’s rights. The live streaming scripts, however, were found to be generic and lacking individuality, thus not qualifying as literary works. The live streaming interfaces were primarily functional and did not exhibit unique conception or aesthetic significance, so they were not considered artistic works.

   2. On unfair competition, the court highlighted that the Hangzhou company’s long-term development of the “Erbai” robot live streaming had built a substantial user base and traffic, providing it with competitive advantages. The Sichuan company’s use of similar interfaces and scripts constituted clear plagiarism, allowing it to benefit from the Hangzhou company’s efforts without proper investment. This behavior violated business ethics and harmed the Hangzhou company’s competitive interests by improperly capturing market attention and opportunities. Consequently, the court ruled that the Sichuan company’s actions exceeded acceptable imitation, disrupted market competition, and harmed the legitimate interests of other operators, thus constituting unfair competition.