Japanese man faces criminal charges for deliberate AI-generated copyright infringement

A 27-year-old in Japan is prosecuted for using Stable Diffusion to recreate and sell a copyrighted illustration, marking a landmark shift towards holding individual users criminally liable for AI-driven copyright violations.

In a landmark legal development, a 27-year-old man in Japan is facing criminal prosecution for allegedly using the generative AI tool Stable Diffusion to recreate a copyrighted illustration, which he then sold as a book cover. This case, unfolding in Chiba Prefecture, represents the first documented instance worldwide where an individual end user, not the creators or developers of AI technologies, is being held criminally liable for copyright infringement related to AI-generated artwork.

According to reports from Japanese police and the Yomiuri Shimbun, the man issued approximately 20,000 specific prompts to Stable Diffusion in a deliberate effort to coax the AI into reproducing a particular protected image. Authorities suggest this extensive attempt to replicate the artwork distinguishes the case from typical AI-generated creations, which often involve casual or generic prompts such as “draw this in x style.” Legal analyst Kensaku Fukui highlights that the key aspect giving weight to this prosecution is the clear intent demonstrated by the defendant, characterising his use of Stable Diffusion more as a sophisticated form of photocopying rather than creative experimentation.

This development arrives amid a broader global debate over AI and copyright law. Typically, enforcement efforts have targeted companies behind AI tools rather than individual users, due to the difficulty in proving deliberate copying in AI outputs and the limited resources of individual defendants. For instance, prominent lawsuits filed by artists against Stability AI, Midjourney, and DeviantArt have focused on unauthorized use of copyrighted works to train AI models, with courts in the United States frequently ruling that AI-generated images themselves cannot be copyrighted. Yet, the Japanese case suggests a shift toward scrutinising user behaviour, particularly when detailed and repeated prompting is involved.

Additionally, legal experts in Japan, including Kensaku Fukui, argue that AI-generated images can qualify as copyrighted works if the instructions or prompts that guide the AI are sufficiently detailed and concrete. This evolving interpretation could mean outputs produced under such conditions warrant protections similar to traditionally authored works, potentially extending liability to users who replicate existing copyrighted images through AI tools.

While it remains unclear which artist or copyright holder initiated the complaint, and what the specific image in question is, the case sets an important precedent. It raises critical questions about when using AI shifts from creative interaction to unlawful reproduction, and whether everyday users of generative AI might face future criminal responsibility for their prompts and outputs.

This legal uncertainty echoes past challenges Japan faced with copyright in the digital age. The notable Winny case of the early 2000s saw the developer of a popular file-sharing program indicted for aiding copyright infringement but ultimately acquitted when the Supreme Court ruled he did not intend to induce unlawful acts. The current Stable Diffusion prosecution may similarly test the boundaries of user intent and liability in a new technological context.

Meanwhile, outside Japan, concerns about AI-generated content’s legality also extend into grave criminal matters. For example, in the United States, a man was arrested on charges related to producing and distributing AI-generated obscene images involving minors, underscoring how AI-related legal frameworks are developing rapidly across diverse content types.

As generative AI technology becomes increasingly accessible, the outcome of this Japanese prosecution could reshape the landscape for individual users globally. It serves as a crucial early indicator of how courts might address the complex interplay between AI creativity, user intent, and copyright law in the years to come.

📌 Reference Map:

• ^[1] (GizmoChina) – Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7
• ^[2] (GizmoChina) – Paragraphs 1, 2, 3
• ^[3] (Automaton Media) – Paragraph 4
• ^[5] (Wikipedia Winny Case) – Paragraph 6
• ^[4] (DOJ) – Paragraph 7
• ^[6] (Barry Sookman) – Paragraph 3
• ^[7] (Wikipedia Stable Diffusion) – Paragraph 3

Source: Noah Wire Services

Noah Fact Check Pro

The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.

Freshness check

Score:
10

Notes:
The narrative is fresh, with the earliest known publication date being November 21, 2025. No earlier versions with differing figures, dates, or quotes were found. The report is based on a press release, which typically warrants a high freshness score. No discrepancies or recycled content were identified.

Quotes check

Score:
10

Notes:
The direct quotes from legal analyst Kensaku Fukui and other sources are unique to this report. No identical quotes appear in earlier material, indicating original content.

Source reliability

Score:
8

Notes:
The narrative originates from Gizmochina, a reputable technology news outlet. However, it is not as widely recognised as some other major news organisations, which introduces a slight uncertainty.

Plausability check

Score:
9

Notes:
The claims are plausible and align with ongoing global debates over AI and copyright law. The report includes supporting details from reputable outlets, such as the Yomiuri Shimbun. The tone and language are consistent with typical news reporting. No excessive or off-topic details were noted.

Overall assessment

Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS

Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH

Summary:
The narrative is fresh, original, and supported by reputable sources. No significant credibility risks were identified, and the claims are plausible and well-supported.