Kakao, Ridibooks Sue AI Chatbot Zeta Over Webtoon IP Misuse

A legal battle is brewing in South Korea's burgeoning AI and webtoon industries, with major players like Kakao Entertainment and Ridibooks taking AI chatbot developer Scatter Lab to court. The core of the dispute lies in allegations that Scatter Lab's popular AI chatbot, Zeta, facilitates the unauthorized use of copyrighted webtoon intellectual property (IP).

Webtoon companies contend that users are creating AI characters within Zeta by capturing official illustrations and meticulously inputting character backstories and personality traits from popular webtoons. This, they argue, constitutes a significant infringement, especially since Zeta has become the top AI chatbot in South Korea by user engagement, surpassing even global giants like ChatGPT in terms of time spent by Korean users.

“

We are immediately deleting content upon the rights holder's request, but it is practically difficult to check and delete all content with potential issues every day, given the flood of webtoon content.

Unlike services like Naver Webtoon's ZUICY, which reportedly have proper licensing agreements, the plaintiffs allege that Scatter Lab has allowed the repeated transmission and distribution of infringing content without any such arrangements. They further claim that Zeta actively leverages copyrighted material for marketing by including specific webtoon titles in its search keywords, thereby exposing new users to potentially infringing characters.

Scatter Lab, however, maintains its compliance with legal requirements. Their legal representative argues that while they promptly remove infringing content upon request, the sheer volume of daily content makes comprehensive, proactive monitoring practically impossible. They emphasize that current copyright law does not obligate platforms to conduct such preemptive monitoring. This defense, however, faces scrutiny, with legal experts suggesting that online service providers, like Scatter Lab, have a duty to manage copyrighted content through technological means, even if 100% elimination isn't feasible, potentially leaving them liable for aiding copyright infringement.

“

In principle, it appears to be a case of aiding copyright infringement.