AI "Costume-Change" Pseudo-Original Jigsaw Puzzle Batch Sales Copyright Infringement Fraud (Mass-selling through AI image-washing and impersonating original designs for profit)

Who Gets Targeted

The victims are primarily sinking-market cultural-creative product distributors, custom puzzle small shop owners, and some novice art enthusiasts. They typically lack professional copyright tracing capabilities and are vulnerable to the gimmick of "original design." Their psychological weaknesses include the temptation of low wholesale profit margins and blind spots regarding the technical boundaries of AI "costume-change," mistakenly believing that minor visual differences constitute brand-new originality. Many also harbor wishful thinking regarding the notion that "the law doesn't punish the masses," waking up only when approached by the original author or law enforcement authorities. Consequently, their initial capital investments in inventory and franchise fees are completely wiped out, and they may also face joint and several liability for copyright infringement.

骗局怎么运作

• Material Theft and AI Costume-Change: Syndicates first scrape a large volume of high-popularity fine art works from domestic and international image libraries, social platforms, and even prominent illustrators' homepages. They then process these using AI image-generation tools via "image-to-image" techniques. By fine-tuning prompt words, altering art styles, and changing details, they generate pseudo-original base images that resemble the originals in shape and spirit while bypassing platform preliminary screening, preparing sufficient material reserves for subsequent tracing, puzzle production, and infringing sales.
• Packaging "Original Design" Personas: On e-commerce platforms and social media groups, operators meticulously package shop or community leaders as "original artists," fabricating creative inspiration stories and design backgrounds. They then adapt the AI-washed art works into custom puzzles, trendy art posters, and other derivatives, using pretexts such as "limited release" and "hand-drawn originals" to attract downstream merchants and enthusiasts for subscription and wholesale.
• Developing Multi-Tiered Agents and Presales: To expand their illicit profits, perpetrators roll out "regional agency" or "privileged presale" models surrounding derivatives like puzzles and posters. They require micro-merchants to pay tens of thousands of yuan in franchise and agency fees, promising extremely low subsequent wholesale discounts and promotional material support, thereby locking in a long-term downline and defrauding them of large advance payments and trust.
• Bypassing Audits and Distributing for Monetization: Taking advantage of long-tail model audit vulnerabilities on e-commerce platforms, they mix these AI-"costume-changed" infringing works into large batches of general materials without copyright disputes and list them together. Combined with promotional tactics such as flash sales and live-streaming e-commerce, they rapidly distribute the infringing derivatives to end consumers and sinking-market retailers at extremely low wholesale prices.
• Shifting Blame and Severing Chains When Investigated: Once original authors protect their rights or platform screening systems identify infringement risks, operators immediately close social accounts, take down products, and disband communication groups. After clearing and transferring funds, they shift blame onto part-time illustrators or technical tools under the pretext of "ignorance" or "independent creator error," severing the evidentiary chain to evade legal action and leaving agents and consumers to deal with the fallout.

红旗信号（看到这些快跑）

• 🚩 Low-Price "Original" Paradox: Claims of original work or exclusive design by a well-known illustrator, yet the bulk wholesale price for the entire set is far below the normal production cost of artistic creation, and there is no basic copyright bureau registration certificate.
• 🚩 Refusal to Provide Creative Drafts: When asked to provide sketches, layered source files, or a creative timeline (process videos), the seller evades and refuses on grounds such as "trade secrets" or "files lost."
• 🚩 Uniform Art Style and High Output: The same shop publishes a large volume of "original" works in a very short time that share highly similar art styles but completely unrelated details, which clearly fails to match normal creative output and stylistic sedimentation patterns for manual art creation.
• 🚩 High Similarity in Reverse Image Search: Uploading finished products to image-recognition engines frequently reveals high similarity or "costume-change" traces in composition, color, and primary outlines when compared with older works by domestic and international famous artists.
• 🚩 Aggressive Pushing of Agency Fees with No-Return Policies: Heavily lobbying buyers to pay high "agency fees" or "franchise deposits," with contracts containing hidden "copyright disclaimer clauses" and no support for returns or exchanges under any circumstances.

真实案例

• Beijing's First Criminal Case of AI Copyright Infringement: According to Tencent News reports on April 21, 2026, a Beijing court sentenced a criminal case involving AI copyright infringement. The defendants used AI to copy and modify copyrighted fine art works of others and sold them for profit. The court ruled their actions constituted the crime of copyright infringement and sentenced them accordingly, marking the first criminal judgment in this field. (Source: [https://news.qq.com/rain/a/20260421A04F0C00](https://news.qq.com/rain/a/20260421A04F0C00))
• AI Puzzle Infringement Sales Profit Case: According to Sina Finance reports on April 22, 2026, a criminal syndicate used AI to generate large quantities of puzzle materials containing copyrighted image elements belonging to others, wholesaling and selling them via online shops and social channels under the guise of "original design," illegally profiting 270,000 RMB. After trial, the court ruled that four individuals constituted the crime of copyright infringement, sentencing them respectively and imposing fines. (Source: [https://news.qq.com/rain/a/20260421A04F0C00](https://news.qq.com/rain/a/20260421A04F0C00))
• Shandong Art Exhibition Suspected AI Picture Book Incident: According to Sina News reports on July 23, 2026, during a major exhibition held by an art gallery in Shandong, some exhibited picture book works were questioned by viewers and professional illustrators as being AI-generated rather than human-created. After the incident fermented, the organizers removed the works in question for investigation, reflecting how AI impersonation of originality has invaded formal offline art exhibitions, severely deceiving curators and visitors/collectors. (Source: [https://www.sina.cn/news/detail/5331451277217324.html](https://www.sina.cn/news/detail/5331451277217324.html))
• In November 2023, the Beijing Internet Court delivered a first-instance judgment on a dispute involving Li v. Liu over copyright attribution and the right of dissemination via information networks. The court held that the disputed image generated by the plaintiff using the open-source software Stable Diffusion with prompt inputs constitutes a fine art work and that the plaintiff enjoys copyright. The defendant's unauthorized use of the image as an article illustration on Baijiahao and removal of the attribution watermark constituted infringement, and the court ordered the defendant to apologize and compensate the plaintiff for economic losses of 500 RMB. Neither party appealed, and the judgment took effect. (Source: [https://xinwen.bjd.com.cn/content/s658c0ca8e4b0e549dfd58621.html](https://xinwen.bjd.com.cn/content/s658c0ca8e4b0e549dfd58621.html))
• In February 2024, the Guangzhou Internet Court delivered an effective first-instance judgment on Shanghai Xinchuanghua Cultural Development Co., Ltd. v. an artificial intelligence company regarding copyright infringement in generative AI services. The court ruled that Ultraman image pictures generated by the defendant's Tab website AI drawing function in response to user instructions were substantially similar to Ultraman fine art works exclusively authorized to the plaintiff by Tsuburaya Productions, thus infringing upon the right of reproduction and the right of adaptation. The court ordered the cessation of infringement and compensation for economic losses of 10,000 RMB (the plaintiff's claimed damages were 300,000 RMB). (Source: [https://www.sfccn.com/2024/2-26/0OMDE1MTdfMTg5OTY0OA.html](https://www.sfccn.com/2024/2-26/0OMDE1MTdfMTg5OTY0OA.html))

Official Stance

• CCTV Judicial Warning (Reported August 17, 2026): CCTV and other media outlets cooperated with judicial authorities to issue a warning, explicitly pointing out that using AI to "costume-change" and modify others' fine art works for sale also constitutes infringement, and those with severe circumstances will face criminal prosecution, urging micro- and small-scale cultural-creative practitioners not to cross legal red lines.
• Sina Finance Copyright Accountability Reminder (April 22, 2026): While disclosing the case of AI-generated infringing pictures used for puzzles with illegal gains of 270,000 RMB, Sina Finance relayed the judicial authorities' perspective to remind merchants and consumers that using AI-generated infringing pictures to make and sell puzzle products for illegal profits will result in criminal penalties, explicitly informing micro-merchants that wholesaling "AI originals" requires fulfilling reasonable review obligations.
• Tencent News Anti-Fraud Warning (May 19, 2026): Tencent News released an anti-fraud alert window addressing frequent scams in calligraphy and painting collection regarding "high-price buybacks" and forged "master calligraphy and paintings," reminding older collectors to protect their retirement savings and stay alert to investment traps behind various "original" gimmicks in the art market.

How to Protect Yourself

• ✅ Require Sellers to Provide a Complete Chain of Originality Proof: Before actually purchasing or acting as an agent for artwork, one must request creative source files and screen recordings of the creative process, verify whether they hold copyright registration certificates through copyright protection platforms, and reject all verbally declared "original" guarantees.
• ✅ Use Image Recognition and Anti-Tracking Tools for Verification: Upload planned art purchase images to major image recognition engines and specialized AIGC anti-detection tools for comparison to check for highly similar base images or well-known original works. Once "image-to-image" trajectories are discovered, immediately terminate the transaction.
• ✅ Beware of High Returns and Agency Fee Promises: Maintain high vigilance against any art investment model that requires paying high upfront agency fees or franchise fees while promising "high-price buybacks" and "guaranteed profits," and do not blindly trust hunger-marketing pitches like "limited edition out-of-print" crafted in live-streaming rooms or social groups.
• ✅ Sign Rigorous Contracts and Lock in Flawed Return/Exchange Terms: Contracts must explicitly stipulate that "the seller guarantees the work is 100% human-created, and if AI generation or infringement of third-party copyrights is discovered, the buyer has the right to a full refund and compensation," firmly rejecting harsh terms containing "force majeure" or "disclaimer of liability" clauses.