Filed under safe-harbor
Every brief tagged "safe-harbor".
- § 01 · SPC
'Inclusiveness Is Not Indulgence': The Supreme People's Court Takes Five Questions on Its AI Disputes Opinions
Full translation of the Supreme People's Court's press-conference Q&A on the Opinions on Trying Cases Involving Artificial Intelligence Disputes in Accordance with Law (关于依法审理涉人工智能纠纷案件的意见, Fa Fa [2026] No. 10), released 7 September 2026. Five questions, answered by the SPC's senior officials. On rights versus innovation: fault-based liability is the default to avoid over-burdening an early-stage industry, 'AI product' is strictly limited to products with a physical carrier (robots, autonomous cars — not AI services), training on lawfully public personal information is generally not an infringement, and algorithmic price discrimination and AI celebrity-impersonation fraud are actionable. On AI-generated content and IP: liability must match control capability and duty of care, a developer raising a non-infringement defense must produce training-data sources, training process and operating mode, and AI-enabled fake reviews and false advertising are unfair competition — while copyrightability of AI output and unlicensed training remain deliberately unaddressed. On personality rights: 'inclusiveness is not indulgence' — Article 4 on face-swapping, voice cloning and 'AI resurrection', Article 5 on doxxing, and Article 8 on personality-rights injunctions against providers. On the 'safe harbor': why Civil Code Article 1195's notice-and-takedown rule applies by analogy to generative-AI providers for both hallucinated and user-induced infringing output. On the courts themselves: AI-fabricated evidence, sham litigation, and the duty to verify and disclose AI-generated pleadings and case-search reports after courts found hallucinated case citations in filings.