浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版)
 
   2025年5月24日 星期六   首页 |  期刊介绍 |  编委会 |  投稿指南 |  信息服务 |  期刊订阅 |  联系我们 |  预印本过刊 |  浙江省高校学报研究会栏目 |  留言板 |  English Version
浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版)
在线优先出版论文 最新目录| 下期目录| 过刊浏览| 高级检索 |
我国著作权法之下的计算机生成之作品
何怀文
浙江大学 光华法学院,浙江 杭州 310008
Computer-Generated Works under Chinese Copyright Law
He Huaiwen
Guanghua Law School, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310008, China

全文: PDF (1842 KB)   RICH HTML
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
摘要 

我国著作权法遵循“人创造作品”的根本规则,不承认“表观独创性”。“创作”是认定作品的前提条件,其评判要求深入特定作品的形成过程,考察所涉智力劳动的性质。计算机程序的设计人不是计算机生成之作品的创作者,除非其智力创作活动在直接产生计算机程序之外,还直接产生计算机输出之文学艺术表现形式。计算机程序的使用人可能成为计算机生成之作品的创作者,只要他是利用数据输入和结果输出之间的因果关系,创作性地选择数据输入计算机程序进而生成作品。计算机生成之客体如果没有创作过程,则本质上是数字产品,也不应享有相关权益,而应排除于著作权法保护之外。

服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入我的书架
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
何怀文
关键词 计算机生成之作品独创性创作著作权相关权益    
Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is producing a new wave of innovation and creativity. AI is generating works bearing semblance of human-created works and thus has posed novel challenges to copyright law. Neither investment in developing an ″AI author″ nor its semblance to human-created works justifies the copyright for computer-generated works (CGWs). First and foremost, copyright subsists in works of human intellectual creation. This requirement is inherent in Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, Chinese copyright law as well as copyright laws of countries which have either copyright or author’s right tradition. Even though a legal person may be the initial owner of copyright, they are never recognized as having created any copyright work. Neither are their ownership of copyright grounded on financial investment. Instead, such ownership is normally founded on an implicit agreement with the human author(s) of the work. Investment justifies no ownership of copyright even under UK Copyright Law where computer-generated works (CGWs) are treated as a new category of copyright works, of which there is no human author. The copyright of CGWs is owned not by the investor, but by their deemed author ″the person by whom arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken″. Financial investment is substitutable and thus not ″arrangements necessary for the creation″ of CGWs. Neither do Chinese courts focus on investment in developing AI when approaching CGWs. Rather, they look for human intellectual creation. CGWs may not be assimilated to human-created works for their semblance. The so-called ″objective originality test″ will reduce the requirement of original intellectual creation to objective difference from existing matter. It would destroy the legal distinction between copyright and related rights in Chinese Copyright Law, the subject matter of the former being works of authorship and that of the latter being outside intellectual creation. In assessing originality, Chinese courts normally investigate the creative process to find the requisite intellectual creation that has ″directly produced″a work. CGWs are not exception. In the Tencent case, the court found there was infringement of a financial news story generated by robotic reporter called Dream Writer. In so holding, the court believed that the Tencent staff engaged in original intellectual creation which ″directly produced″ the copyright work by selecting data, setting the operative parameters, the template and the style for the robot to generate the disputed story. Nevertheless, CGWs which have the requisite human intellectual creation may be copyright works under Chinese Copyright Law.The designer of the generative program might in rare case be the author when his or her intellectual creation not only has ″directly produced″ the program but also its original literary and artistic output. The designer should not be protected as the author for all CGWs flowing from the program; otherwise, copyright is strained to protect the technological idea of how to produce ″works″, breaching the fundamental dichotomy of idea and expression. The user may be the author if there is such a close causal relationship between his or her selecting of input data and the original elements of a computer-generated work and in the relationship subsist human intellectual creation. By contrast, absent intellectual creation, seeming works generated by a computer are essentially digital products justified to enjoy neither copyright nor neighboring rights. They can be produced and circulated cheaply and effectively by virtue of current computing technology. They are not scarce and there is no evidence that proprietary protection is needed to incentivize the suppliers.

Key wordscomputer-generated works    originality    intellectual creation    copyright    neighboring rights   
    
引用本文:   
何怀文. 我国著作权法之下的计算机生成之作品[J]. 浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2020, 6(3): 65-. He Huaiwen. Computer-Generated Works under Chinese Copyright Law. JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY, 2020, 6(3): 65-.
链接本文:  
https://www.zjujournals.com/soc/CN/10.3785/j.issn.1008-942X.CN33-6000/C.2020.03.263     或     https://www.zjujournals.com/soc/CN/Y2020/V6/I3/65
发表一流的成果,传播一流的发现,提供一流的新知

浙ICP备14002560号-5
版权所有 © 2009 浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版)    浙ICP备05074421号
地址:杭州市天目山路148号 邮编:310028 电话:0571-88273210 88925616 E-mail:zdxb_w@zju.edu.cn
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发  技术支持:support@magtech.com.cn