Currently, generative artificial intelligence technology has attracted widespread attention. Users only need to input some prompt words, and AI models can produce corresponding content such as text, images, and code. Is the content generated by AI protected by copyright law? To whom do the corresponding rights belong? Is it possible to freely use AI generated content on the internet? Recently, the Beijing Internet Court concluded a dispute between Li and Liu over the infringement of the right to authorship and information network dissemination of works, clarifying the "work" attribute of using artificial intelligence to generate images and the "creator" identity of users. The plaintiff used open-source software StableDiffusion to generate images related to the case by inputting prompt words and then published them on the Xiaohongshu platform. The defendant posted an article on the Baijia account, and the article was illustrated using the images involved in the case. The plaintiff believes that the defendant used the involved images without permission and cut off the plaintiff's signature watermark on the Xiaohongshu platform, causing relevant users to mistakenly believe that the defendant is the author of the work, seriously infringing on the plaintiff's right to authorship and information network dissemination. The plaintiff demands that the defendant publicly apologize and compensate for economic losses. The defendant argued that it is uncertain whether the plaintiff has the right to the images involved in the case. The main content of the article published by the defendant is original poetry and literature, rather than the images involved, and it has no commercial use and does not have any intention of infringement. After trial, the court found that the process of generating the image in question was for the plaintiff to download the StableDiffusion model, and then input dozens of prompt words into the forward and reverse prompt words respectively, set iteration steps, image height, prompt word guidance coefficient, and random seeds to generate the first image. With the above parameters unchanged, modify the weight of one of the models to generate a second image. Without changing the above parameters, modify the random seed to generate a third image. With the above parameters unchanged, add positive prompt words and generate a fourth image (i.e. the image involved). After the court's trial, it was found that the image in question meets the definition of a work and belongs to the category of a work. From the appearance of the images involved in the case, they are no different from the photos and paintings commonly seen by people, clearly belonging to the field of art and having a certain form of expression. The images involved in the case were generated by the plaintiff using generative artificial intelligence technology. From the plaintiff's conception of the images to the final selection of the images, the plaintiff made a certain amount of intellectual investment, such as designing the presentation of characters, selecting prompt words, arranging the order of prompt words, setting relevant parameters, and selecting which image meets expectations. The images in question reflect the plaintiff's intellectual investment, therefore the images in question possess the elements of "intellectual achievement". From the images involved in the case, it can be seen that there are identifiable differences from the previous works. From the perspective of the image generation process involved in the case, the plaintiff designed image elements such as characters and their presentation methods through prompt words, and set the layout and composition of the image through parameters, reflecting the plaintiff's choice and arrangement. On the other hand, the plaintiff obtained the first image by inputting prompt words and setting relevant parameters, then continued to add prompt words and modify parameters, continuously adjusting and correcting them, and finally obtained the involved image. This adjustment and correction process reflects the plaintiff's aesthetic choice and personality judgment