近年来，国内游戏市场蓬勃发展，在这其中，优质的司法服务与保障发挥了重要作用。人工智能重塑游戏产业的时代背景下，互联网司法如何应对日益复杂的版权争议？如何在法律框架内平衡创新与保护？带着这些问题，本期《法·见》刘冬梅法官将结合广州互联网法院的审判实践，围绕《黑神话·悟空》，深入分析三个值得关注的“新”法律问题。滑动屏幕，带你一探究竟！
作者：刘冬梅
In recent years, the advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) has opened up new possibilities in game development, user experiences, and the commercialization of copyrights. At the same time, it has introduced new challenges for internet law. Drawing on the judicial practices of the Guangzhou Internet Court (GIC), this article explores three pressing legal issues arising from China's first 3A game, Black Myth: Wukong (hereafter referred to as Wukong).
新载体：“云游戏”平台侵权
与个案审查三步法
New Platforms: Cloud Gaming Infringement and the Three-Step Review Process
像《黑神话·悟空》这类大型的单机游戏对硬件要求比较高，有报道说游戏发售当天，各大电商平台的电脑和游戏机销量飙升。这是需要一定的资金投入的，不可否认，必然有相当一部分的游戏玩家是既想玩游戏，又不想投入资金更换设备。针对本地设备计算资源有限的问题，有些企业别出心裁，直接将大型游戏放置在云服务器上，免去下载安装环节，直接通过云端渲染、联网操控，就可以让玩家省去购买高端硬件的成本，随时随地想玩就玩。但与此同时，未获合法授权的“云游戏”引发的侵权纠纷也屡屡发生。
Games like Wukong demand high-end hardware, and on its release day, sales of computers and consoles saw a dramatic increase.This naturally demands a significant financial investment, and it’s undeniable that a considerable number of gamers wish to play but are reluctant to spend large amounts of money. To address the issue of limited local device computing resources, some companies have taken an innovative approach by hosting these large games on cloud servers. This eliminates the need for downloads and installations, allowing players to enjoy the game through cloud rendering and remote control, thus saving on the cost of purchasing high-end hardware. However, this solution has also given rise to frequent legal disputes over infringement, particularly in the case of "cloud gaming" services that operate without proper authorization.
In the case "5G Zhima Cloud Gaming" adjudicated by the Guangzhou Internet Court,Company A (the plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as A) claimed to hold the copyrights for five games through licensing and operated a cloud gaming platform. However,Company X(one of the defendants, hereinafter referred to as X) pre-installed these games on its platform without authorization and allowed users to access and play them. By leveraging the popularity of these games, X allegedly diverted user traffic and market share from A's cloud gaming business, thereby infringing A's copyright and engaging in unfair competition.In addition, Company Y (another defendant, hereinafter referred to as Y) , which provided the download and distribution services for the platform's app, was accused of aiding X in its infringing activities, thus being held jointly liable for the infringement. The court ruled that X must compensate A for its economic losses and reasonable legal expenses within ten days of binding judgment.
在审理“云游戏”等这类新载体案件时，可以采用“三步审查法”：
分析案涉平台的技术特性，明确“云游戏”平台是否以云计算方式提供实时游戏运营服务，确定案涉行为的侵权性质及责任范围。
重点关注不正当竞争问题，如是否利用案涉游戏对“云游戏”平台的宣传、推广或导流，是否导致公众混淆，是否通过他人作品获利而未投入相应研发运营资源，损害权利人利益或扰乱市场秩序。
新技术：游戏“换皮”纠纷
与实质性相似的判定
New Technology:"Reskinning" Disputes and Determining Substantial Similarity
实践中，同题材游戏的美工设计总会运用到相似的元素，基础玩法设计也大多相近，AI生成内容不可避免夹杂对经典游戏素材的非授权学习，使得对“独创性表达”判断更加复杂。随之而来的问题是：相关内容、游戏元素的相似可否当然作为判断游戏整体侵权的标准？
In practice, games with similar themes often incorporate comparable elements in their artistic designs, and the core gameplay mechanics are generally quite alike. AI-generated content inevitably involves unauthorized learning from classic game assets, making the determination of "original expression" more complex. This leads to the question: Can the similarity of related content and game elements be automatically considered as a standard for determining overall game infringement?
针对这些问题，“热血传奇案”进行了系统回应。在该案中，原告主张拥有《热血传奇》的著作权，认为被告开发的《王城英雄》手游在人物角色、装备、技能、地图等设计上与《热血传奇》整体实质近似，构成侵权。
广州互联网法院经审理认为，判断游戏是否侵权，不能仅就游戏画面、角色、装备进行简单比对，必须结合游戏自身的特点找到比对方法。游戏最大的特点就是互动性，玩家参与游戏的过程就是展现游戏画面的过程，而玩家参与游戏的过程是由游戏玩法的具体设计决定的。因此，游戏玩法的具体设计是网络游戏的核心与灵魂，是游戏类视听作品的基本表达。在判断两款游戏是否构成实质性相似，应当采用“体系比对法”。
本案对两款游戏从场景、角色、战斗模式、任务主线及游戏的其他特殊设计进行了全面的比对。两款游戏虽然在部分设计上相似，但同为战斗类游戏，而对于此类战士角色，体力值、攻击、防御、内力值等角色属性属于有限表达的范围，战斗模式、任务引导、UI界面等方面的设计均为公有领域内容，属于常规表达，不具有独创性。尤其在玩法设计上，《王城英雄》是单职业游戏，与《热血传奇》的复杂职业体系不同，未能为玩家提供相似的体验。综合来说，在剔除公有领域的设计、他人在先设计、有限表达设计后，最终认定该两款游戏整体上不构成实质性相似，驳回了原告的诉求。
新挑战：共享游戏权限
与“避风港规则”的适用
New Challenges: Shared Game Rights and the "Safe Harbor" Rule
《黑神话：悟空》发布后，多个交易平台上涌现出了大量低价出售盗版游戏的交易信息，不少网店都上架了“1元黑悟空下载即玩”和“9.9元畅玩黑神话”等链接。对于此类共享游戏权限的问题，平台作为网络服务提供者，其责任认定离不开“避风港规则”的讨论。对此，应当在个案中重点审查两方面的问题。
After the release of Wukong, many online platforms were flooded with low-priced offers for pirated versions of the game. For instance, links like"¥1 for Wukong download"and "¥9.9 for unlimited Wukong access"appeared. In cases like this, the "safe harbor rule" determines platform liability. In this regard, two key issues should be closely examined in each case.
网络服务提供者是否知道或者应当知道平台上存在盗版游戏交易的行为。网络服务提供者是否对平台上的交易信息进行了主动的审查和筛选。如果交易信息中明显存在“1元黑悟空下载即玩”等明显低于正常价格且与正版游戏销售方式不符的内容，在接到举报后，平台没有采取相应措施的，可以认定其存在主观过错。
Whether a network service provider knew or should have known about the existence of pirated game transactions on its platform is one of the cores.Whether the service provider reviewed and screened transaction information on the platform actively is also crucial. If transaction details clearly include content like '￥1 for Wukong download', which is well below the normal price and inconsistent with legitimate sales practices, and the platform fails to take appropriate action after receiving a report, it can be assumed that the provider is subjectively at fault.
网络服务提供者是否具备相应的技术能力和管理措施来防止盗版游戏交易信息的传播，例如，是否建立了完善的举报机制，以便用户能够及时反馈违法信息；是否对商家的身份进行了认证和管理，以防止不法分子利用虚假身份进行盗版游戏交易。
结语
Concluding Remarks
《黑神话·悟空》的成功，不仅展现了中国游戏产业的技术实力和创新能力，也体现了司法保护在促进文化输出和产业升级中的重要作用。未来，广州互联网法院将持续发挥司法审判职能，通过裁判规则的输出回应更多的“新”问题，帮助游戏产业主体明确行为界限、探索新客体保护规则、加强法律风险防范，促进“游”法可依，为游戏行业可持续发展提供强有力的互联网司法服务和保障。
责编 | 林北征 谭静宜
编辑 | 许晓琪
星标三连
更好接收“广州互联网法院”的推送消息！
▼▼▼
更多精彩不容错过！
