中国法律对人工智能作品的版权保护

IF 0.9 Q2 LAW
Zhe Dai, Banggui Jin
{"title":"中国法律对人工智能作品的版权保护","authors":"Zhe Dai, Banggui Jin","doi":"10.24818/tbj/2023/13/2.05","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Who is the author of a work generated by AI? Can AI-generated works be protected by copyright law? This issue has attracted global attention. The vast majority of countries in the world have given a negative response to this question, but one Chinese court has given an affirmative answer, instead. Does this Chinese decision represent future thinking for the world in this area? It is necessary to investigate the reasons behind this decision, which are related to China's special interpretation of “human participation” and the criteria for judging originality. This judicial result was also related to China's current lack of a distinction between computer-assisted and AI-generated results. In the future, China may continue to uphold the existing determination; however, since China does not operate under case law, Chinese courts may still change their opinion. Moreover, China's choice may not have an impact on countries that are deeply influenced by natural law, but it may still impact some countries that are strongly influenced by utilitarianism.","PeriodicalId":41903,"journal":{"name":"Juridical Tribune-Tribuna Juridica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The copyright protection of AI-generated works under Chinese law\",\"authors\":\"Zhe Dai, Banggui Jin\",\"doi\":\"10.24818/tbj/2023/13/2.05\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Who is the author of a work generated by AI? Can AI-generated works be protected by copyright law? This issue has attracted global attention. The vast majority of countries in the world have given a negative response to this question, but one Chinese court has given an affirmative answer, instead. Does this Chinese decision represent future thinking for the world in this area? It is necessary to investigate the reasons behind this decision, which are related to China's special interpretation of “human participation” and the criteria for judging originality. This judicial result was also related to China's current lack of a distinction between computer-assisted and AI-generated results. In the future, China may continue to uphold the existing determination; however, since China does not operate under case law, Chinese courts may still change their opinion. Moreover, China's choice may not have an impact on countries that are deeply influenced by natural law, but it may still impact some countries that are strongly influenced by utilitarianism.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41903,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Juridical Tribune-Tribuna Juridica\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Juridical Tribune-Tribuna Juridica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24818/tbj/2023/13/2.05\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Juridical Tribune-Tribuna Juridica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24818/tbj/2023/13/2.05","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人工智能生成的作品的作者是谁?人工智能生成的作品能否受到版权法的保护?这个问题引起了全球的关注。世界上绝大多数国家都对这个问题给出了否定的回答,但中国的一家法院却给出了肯定的回答。中国的这一决定是否代表了世界在这一领域的未来思考?有必要调查这一决定背后的原因,这与中国对“人的参与”的特殊解释和判断独创性的标准有关。这一司法结果也与中国目前缺乏计算机辅助和人工智能生成结果之间的区别有关。未来,中国可能会继续坚持现有的决心;然而,由于中国不按照判例法运作,中国法院仍可能改变意见。此外,中国的选择可能不会对深受自然法影响的国家产生影响,但仍可能影响一些深受功利主义影响的国家。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The copyright protection of AI-generated works under Chinese law
Who is the author of a work generated by AI? Can AI-generated works be protected by copyright law? This issue has attracted global attention. The vast majority of countries in the world have given a negative response to this question, but one Chinese court has given an affirmative answer, instead. Does this Chinese decision represent future thinking for the world in this area? It is necessary to investigate the reasons behind this decision, which are related to China's special interpretation of “human participation” and the criteria for judging originality. This judicial result was also related to China's current lack of a distinction between computer-assisted and AI-generated results. In the future, China may continue to uphold the existing determination; however, since China does not operate under case law, Chinese courts may still change their opinion. Moreover, China's choice may not have an impact on countries that are deeply influenced by natural law, but it may still impact some countries that are strongly influenced by utilitarianism.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信