人工智能应用与著作权保护相关基础问题探讨
|
摘要
人工智能在文化产业市场中的应用主要影响到相关文化产品的生产模式与供给成本。当人工智能作为一种投入要素加以使用时,便会在新的收入流的基础上产生某种制度变迁的激励。基于人工智能生成内容的利益冲突发生以后,通过财产权制度来协调和解决该种利益冲突有其必要性与合理性,但著作权并不是唯一可选的制度方案。基于解释论的立场,我们不能从现有法律规定得出人工智能生成内容属于智力成果的结论。基于消费者偏好与社会评价机制,有必要区分人工智能生成内容与自然人创作的作品。人工智能生成内容并不表达人工智能的思想、情感,可被定性为纯粹的表达。从解释的主观性来说,不能将人工智能生成内容的独创性判定视为纯客观的过程。相比较而言,通过邻接权来保护人工智能生成内容可能是一种更优的制度安排。
The application of artificial intelligence in cultural industry market mainly affects the production mode and supply cost of related cultural products.When artificial intelligence is used as a kind of input element,it will generate some incentive of institutional change on the basis of new income stream.If the conflict of interest based on contents generated by artificial intelligence does occur,it is necessary and reasonable to solve the conflict of interest through property right system,but copyright is not the only alternative system.Based on the standpoint of interpretation,we can not draw the conclusion that the contents generated by AI is the intellectual achievement from the existing law.Based on consumer preference and social evaluation mechanism,it is necessary to distinguish between the contents generated by AI and the works created by natural person.The contents generated by AI do not express the thought and emotion of AI,but can be defined as pure expression.In terms of the subjectivity of interpretation,the judgment of originality ofthe contents generated by AI cannot be regarded as a purely objective process.Comparatively speaking,it is a better institutional arrangement to protect the contents generated by AI through neighboring right.
The application of artificial intelligence in cultural industry market mainly affects the production mode and supply cost of related cultural products.When artificial intelligence is used as a kind of input element,it will generate some incentive of institutional change on the basis of new income stream.If the conflict of interest based on contents generated by artificial intelligence does occur,it is necessary and reasonable to solve the conflict of interest through property right system,but copyright is not the only alternative system.Based on the standpoint of interpretation,we can not draw the conclusion that the contents generated by AI is the intellectual achievement from the existing law.Based on consumer preference and social evaluation mechanism,it is necessary to distinguish between the contents generated by AI and the works created by natural person.The contents generated by AI do not express the thought and emotion of AI,but can be defined as pure expression.In terms of the subjectivity of interpretation,the judgment of originality ofthe contents generated by AI cannot be regarded as a purely objective process.Comparatively speaking,it is a better institutional arrangement to protect the contents generated by AI through neighboring right.
引文
[1]向波.人工智能生成内容的著作权保护:正当性评价与模式选择[J].中国版权,2018(5).
[2]道格拉斯C.诺思,杭行.制度、制度变迁与经济绩效[M].上海:格致出版社,上海三联书店,上海人民出版社,2008.
[3]尤瓦尔·赫拉利,林俊宏.未来简史[M].北京:中信出版集团,2017.
[4]布拉德·谢尔曼,莱昂内尔·本特利,金海军.现代知识产权法的演进:英国的历程(1760—1911)[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2006.
[5]李伟民.人工智能智力成果在著作权法的正确定性——与王迁教授商榷[J].东方法学,2018(3).
[6]约翰·罗尔斯,何怀宏,何包钢,廖申白.正义论[M].修订版.北京:中国社会科学出版社,2009.
[7]李琛.著作权基本理论批判[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2013.
[8]罗伯特·萨格登,方钦.权利、合作与福利的经济学[M].上海:上海财经大学出版社,2008.
[9]王迁.论人工智能生成的内容在著作权法中的定性[J].法律科学:西北政法大学学报,2017(5).
[10]孙山.人工智能生成内容的作品属性证成[J].上海政法学院学报:法治论坛,2018(5).
[11]李琛.论知识产权法的体系化[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[12]易继明.人工智能创作物是作品吗?[M].法律科学:西北政法大学学报,2017(5).
(1)当然,随着人工智能技术的进步与应用,人工智能也可能在以后生产出构成要素较为复杂的作品类型。
(2)《著作权法实施条例》第2条规定了作品的定义,第3条规定了创作的定义,但二者之间存在循环解释的问题,不能提供更有意义的线索。
[2]道格拉斯C.诺思,杭行.制度、制度变迁与经济绩效[M].上海:格致出版社,上海三联书店,上海人民出版社,2008.
[3]尤瓦尔·赫拉利,林俊宏.未来简史[M].北京:中信出版集团,2017.
[4]布拉德·谢尔曼,莱昂内尔·本特利,金海军.现代知识产权法的演进:英国的历程(1760—1911)[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2006.
[5]李伟民.人工智能智力成果在著作权法的正确定性——与王迁教授商榷[J].东方法学,2018(3).
[6]约翰·罗尔斯,何怀宏,何包钢,廖申白.正义论[M].修订版.北京:中国社会科学出版社,2009.
[7]李琛.著作权基本理论批判[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2013.
[8]罗伯特·萨格登,方钦.权利、合作与福利的经济学[M].上海:上海财经大学出版社,2008.
[9]王迁.论人工智能生成的内容在著作权法中的定性[J].法律科学:西北政法大学学报,2017(5).
[10]孙山.人工智能生成内容的作品属性证成[J].上海政法学院学报:法治论坛,2018(5).
[11]李琛.论知识产权法的体系化[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[12]易继明.人工智能创作物是作品吗?[M].法律科学:西北政法大学学报,2017(5).
(1)当然,随着人工智能技术的进步与应用,人工智能也可能在以后生产出构成要素较为复杂的作品类型。
(2)《著作权法实施条例》第2条规定了作品的定义,第3条规定了创作的定义,但二者之间存在循环解释的问题,不能提供更有意义的线索。