Key holding or allegation
The court found that face replacement did not transform the underlying protected audiovisual expression into a sufficiently independent new work and found infringement in the commercial dissemination context.
Why it matters
Direct authority on AI transformation and persistence of protected expression in modified audiovisual outputs.
Facts
Protected videos were used through an AI face-replacement service to generate altered audiovisual material.
Issues before the court
Whether the transformed outputs were sufficiently independent and whether protected expression remained reproduced.
What the court did not decide
Does not establish a general rule for all style transfer, image transformation or model training.
Procedural timeline
Shanghai Jiading District People's Court
Merits judgment: AI face replacement did not make the protected audiovisual expression sufficiently independent; infringement was found in the commercial dissemination context.