{"title":"算法缪斯和公共领域:为什么版权的法律哲学排除了对生成人工智能输出的保护","authors":"Ezieddin Elmahjub","doi":"10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106170","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Generative AI (GenAI) outputs are not copyrightable. This article argues why. We bypass conventional doctrinal analysis that focuses on black letter law notions of originality and authorship to re-evaluate copyright's foundational philosophy. GenAI fundamentally severs the direct human creative link to expressive form. Traditional theories utilitarian incentive, labor desert and personality fail to provide coherent justification for protection. The public domain constitutes the default baseline for intellectual creations. Those seeking copyright coverage for GenAI outputs bear the burden of proof. Granting copyright to raw GenAI outputs would not only be philosophically unsound but would also trigger an unprecedented enclosure of the digital commons, creating a legal quagmire and stifling future innovation. The paper advocates for a clear distinction: human creative contributions to AI-generated works may warrant protection, but the raw algorithmic output should remain in the public domain.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51516,"journal":{"name":"Computer Law & Security Review","volume":"58 ","pages":"Article 106170"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The algorithmic muse and the public domain: Why copyright’s legal philosophy precludes protection for generative AI outputs\",\"authors\":\"Ezieddin Elmahjub\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106170\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Generative AI (GenAI) outputs are not copyrightable. This article argues why. We bypass conventional doctrinal analysis that focuses on black letter law notions of originality and authorship to re-evaluate copyright's foundational philosophy. GenAI fundamentally severs the direct human creative link to expressive form. Traditional theories utilitarian incentive, labor desert and personality fail to provide coherent justification for protection. The public domain constitutes the default baseline for intellectual creations. Those seeking copyright coverage for GenAI outputs bear the burden of proof. Granting copyright to raw GenAI outputs would not only be philosophically unsound but would also trigger an unprecedented enclosure of the digital commons, creating a legal quagmire and stifling future innovation. The paper advocates for a clear distinction: human creative contributions to AI-generated works may warrant protection, but the raw algorithmic output should remain in the public domain.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51516,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Computer Law & Security Review\",\"volume\":\"58 \",\"pages\":\"Article 106170\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Computer Law & Security Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212473X25000434\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computer Law & Security Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212473X25000434","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
The algorithmic muse and the public domain: Why copyright’s legal philosophy precludes protection for generative AI outputs
Generative AI (GenAI) outputs are not copyrightable. This article argues why. We bypass conventional doctrinal analysis that focuses on black letter law notions of originality and authorship to re-evaluate copyright's foundational philosophy. GenAI fundamentally severs the direct human creative link to expressive form. Traditional theories utilitarian incentive, labor desert and personality fail to provide coherent justification for protection. The public domain constitutes the default baseline for intellectual creations. Those seeking copyright coverage for GenAI outputs bear the burden of proof. Granting copyright to raw GenAI outputs would not only be philosophically unsound but would also trigger an unprecedented enclosure of the digital commons, creating a legal quagmire and stifling future innovation. The paper advocates for a clear distinction: human creative contributions to AI-generated works may warrant protection, but the raw algorithmic output should remain in the public domain.
期刊介绍:
CLSR publishes refereed academic and practitioner papers on topics such as Web 2.0, IT security, Identity management, ID cards, RFID, interference with privacy, Internet law, telecoms regulation, online broadcasting, intellectual property, software law, e-commerce, outsourcing, data protection, EU policy, freedom of information, computer security and many other topics. In addition it provides a regular update on European Union developments, national news from more than 20 jurisdictions in both Europe and the Pacific Rim. It is looking for papers within the subject area that display good quality legal analysis and new lines of legal thought or policy development that go beyond mere description of the subject area, however accurate that may be.