关于知识产权 知识产权培训 树立尊重知识产权的风尚 知识产权外联 部门知识产权 知识产权和热点议题 特定领域知识产权 专利和技术信息 商标信息 工业品外观设计信息 地理标志信息 植物品种信息(UPOV) 知识产权法律、条约和判决 知识产权资源 知识产权报告 专利保护 商标保护 工业品外观设计保护 地理标志保护 植物品种保护(UPOV) 知识产权争议解决 知识产权局业务解决方案 知识产权服务缴费 谈判与决策 发展合作 创新支持 公私伙伴关系 人工智能工具和服务 组织简介 与产权组织合作 问责制 专利 商标 工业品外观设计 地理标志 版权 商业秘密 WIPO学院 讲习班和研讨会 知识产权执法 WIPO ALERT 宣传 世界知识产权日 WIPO杂志 案例研究和成功故事 知识产权新闻 产权组织奖 企业 高校 土著人民 司法机构 遗传资源、传统知识和传统文化表现形式 经济学 金融 无形资产 性别平等 全球卫生 气候变化 竞争政策 可持续发展目标 前沿技术 移动应用 体育 旅游 PATENTSCOPE 专利分析 国际专利分类 ARDI - 研究促进创新 ASPI - 专业化专利信息 全球品牌数据库 马德里监视器 Article 6ter Express数据库 尼斯分类 维也纳分类 全球外观设计数据库 国际外观设计公报 Hague Express数据库 洛迦诺分类 Lisbon Express数据库 全球品牌数据库地理标志信息 PLUTO植物品种数据库 GENIE数据库 产权组织管理的条约 WIPO Lex - 知识产权法律、条约和判决 产权组织标准 知识产权统计 WIPO Pearl(术语) 产权组织出版物 国家知识产权概况 产权组织知识中心 产权组织技术趋势 全球创新指数 世界知识产权报告 PCT - 国际专利体系 ePCT 布达佩斯 - 国际微生物保藏体系 马德里 - 国际商标体系 eMadrid 第六条之三(徽章、旗帜、国徽) 海牙 - 国际外观设计体系 eHague 里斯本 - 国际地理标志体系 eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange 调解 仲裁 专家裁决 域名争议 检索和审查集中式接入(CASE) 数字查询服务(DAS) WIPO Pay 产权组织往来账户 产权组织各大会 常设委员会 会议日历 WIPO Webcast 产权组织正式文件 发展议程 技术援助 知识产权培训机构 COVID-19支持 国家知识产权战略 政策和立法咨询 合作枢纽 技术与创新支持中心(TISC) 技术转移 发明人援助计划(IAP) WIPO GREEN 产权组织的PAT-INFORMED 无障碍图书联合会 产权组织服务创作者 WIPO Translate 语音转文字 分类助手 成员国 观察员 总干事 部门活动 驻外办事处 职位空缺 采购 成果和预算 财务报告 监督
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
法律 条约 判决 按管辖区浏览

德国

DE048-j

返回

2024 WIPO IP Judges Forum Informal Case Summary – Hamburg Regional Court, Germany [2024]: Robert Kneschke v. LAION e.V., Case No. 310 O 227/23

This is an informal case summary prepared for the purposes of facilitating exchange during the 2024 WIPO IP Judges Forum.

 

Session 1: Frontier Technologies and Intellectual Property Adjudication

 

Hamburg Regional Court, Germany [2024]: Robert Kneschke v. LAION e.V., Case No. 310 O 227/23

 

Date of judgment: September 27, 2024

Issuing authority: Hamburg Regional Court

Level of the issuing authority: First instance

Type of procedure: Judicial (Civil)

Subject matter: Copyright and Related Rights

Plaintiff: Robert Kneschke

Defendant: LAION e.V.

Keywords: Copyright, Artificial Intelligence, Training Data, Text and Data Mining Exception

 

Basic facts: The plaintiff is a professional photographer.  The defendant is an association that made a data set with almost 6 billion image-text pairs available to the public free of charge.  The data set consists of a spreadsheet with hyperlinks to images or image files that are publicly available on the Internet, as well as information about each image, including a textual description (also called alternative text).  The data set could be used to train generative artificial intelligence.

 

To create the data set, the defendant used existing data from a third party that contained the respective image URLs and textual descriptions for a random cross-section of images available on the Internet.  The defendant downloaded the images linked in the existing data set, used software to check whether the textual description matched the corresponding image, and filtered out those where the text and image did not sufficiently match.  The defendant then extracted the metadata associated with the remaining images, in particular the URL of the image storage location and the image description, to create the new data set.

 

As part of this process, an image copyrighted by the plaintiff and made available online via the website of a photo agency was recorded, downloaded, analyzed and included in the new data set with its metadata.  The photo agency had issued a usage reservation in English in its terms of use, according to which visitors to the site were prohibited from "downloading" or "scraping" content from the site using automated programs.

 

The plaintiff demanded that the defendant refrain from reproducing the plaintiff's image for the creation of AI training data sets in the future.

 

Held: The Regional Court dismissed the action.  The only issue before the Chamber concerned the permissibility of the download of the disputed image, which the defendant undertook to carry out a comparison of the image content with the pre-existing image description and create a new data set.  The Chamber found that downloading the image in this context was covered by the copyright exception for text and data mining for the purposes of scientific research conducted by non-commercial research organizations (Section 60d of the German Copyright Act).  The plaintiff failed to carry its burden of proving that the exception did not apply.

 

Text and data mining is defined in the law as the “automated analysis of single or multiple digital or digitized works in order to extract information from them, particularly about patterns, trends and correlations”.  The Chamber found that the comparison of the image content with the pre-existing image description carried out by the defendant falls within this definition.

 

Although the Chamber did not need to determine whether the general exception for text and data mining (Section 44b of the Copyright Act) was also available to the defendant, it offered obiter dicens on its potential application.  The general exception for text and data mining – unlike the more specific exception for text and data mining for the purposes of scientific research – permits the rights holder to reserve the use of its work for text and data mining through an express declaration.  For works accessible online, the reservation of use is only effective if made in “machine-readable” form.  The photo agency website from which the defendant’s photo was downloaded contained a reservation of use in “natural language”.  The Chamber opined that the meaning of “machine-readable” should be assessed in light of the technology available at the time that the copyrighted work was reproduced.  It further suggested that at least at the time of the court’s decision reservations of use in natural language should be regarded as “machine-readable”, but left open how this question would have been decided at the time of the defendant's act of reproduction in 2021. 

 

The Chamber did not consider the legality of any possible subsequent use of the plaintiff’s image to train generative artificial intelligence by virtue of its inclusion in the defendant’s new data set.

                                                                                      

Relevant legislation:  Sections 44a, 44b, 60d of the German Copyright Act;  Arts. 3-4 of Directive (EU) 2019/790 (EU Digital Single Market Directive); Art. 5 of Directive (EC) 2001/29 (InfoSoc Directive); Art. 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act)