人工智能生成内容的定性及其权属论断

人工智能技术发展水平的认知差异、著作权法中作品概念内涵的不同理解,致使人工智能生成内容属性的多元论断。尽管人工智能生成内容在形式上较易落入文学、艺术和科学范畴,并且可通过有形形式复制,但是,依循康德与马克思的哲学观点,人工智能并非具有自在目的的理性之人,只能作为人的劳动改造对象以客体形式存在,不能像人一样具有思想与情感。人工智能生成内容并不符合作品的独创性标准,在法教义学上不能归为作品。不过,为了文化市场中的多重价值之实现,符合独创性“客观标准”的人工智能生成内容有必要被拟制为作品。既有人工智能生成内容权属的观点多属于规范层面的逻辑证立,有僭越著作权法之嫌。在确保著作权法“话语权”的前提下,应将“署名者”认定为人工智能生成内容的权属者,以确保利益平衡。

The Nature and Ownership Judgement of AI-Generated Content

The cognitive difference of the development level of artificial intelligence technology and the different understanding of the work concept connotation in the copyright law lead to the multiple judgment of content attribute generated by artificial intelligence. Although the content generated by artificial intelligence falls easily into the category of literature, art and science in form, and can be reproduced in tangible form. However, according to the philosophical views of Kant and Marx, artificial intelligence is not a rational person with in-itself purpose. It can only be the object of human labor reform, and can only exist in the form of objects. It cannot have thoughts and emotions like human beings. The AI-generated content does not conform to the originality standard of works and cannot be classified as works in law doctrine. However, in order to realize multiple values in the cultural market, the content that conforms to the original "objective standard" must be made into works. The viewpoint of ownership of AI-generated content belongs to the logic justification of norm level, which is suspected of arrogation of copyright law. On the premise of ensuring the "right of discourse" in copyright law, the "signatory" should be identified as the owner of the content to ensure the balance of interests.