人工智能自主生成成果“作品观”质疑与反思
|
摘要
涉及人工智能自主生成成果的权属问题,现有的"作品观"只是源自一种片面的利益诉求,无法协调多元主体的利益分配关系。人工智能程序的著作权与人工智能自主生成成果的利益之间不具有从属性。从人工智能自主生成成果的内在生成机理来考察,其并不符合对现行著作权法中关于"独创性"和"创作意图"的内涵,贸然将人工智能自主生成成果纳入著作权制度体系,会破坏其内在统一性与合理性。对于对人工智能自主生成成果的保护,应跳出"作品观"的解决思路,在现行民事利益的框架下,基于合同规则对其在市场行为中产生的积极使用收益给予保护,基于责任规则对其利益破坏者主张救济利益而获得事后补偿。
When it comes to the ownership of the production generated autonomously by Artificial Intelligence( AI),the existing " view of works" is only derived from a one-sided interest demand,and plural subject's interests may be inconsistent and incompatible. There is no subordination between the copyright of AI programs and the benefits of generated by AI. From the inherent generating mechanism of the production generated autonomously by AI,it does not conform to the connotation of " originality" and " author's intention " in the copyright law. It will destroy the inherent unity and rationality if the production generated autonomously by AI are brought into the ongoing system of copyright. For protecting the production generated autonomously by AI,we should jump out of the "view of work". There are two paths to solve the problems under the framework of the existing civil law. On the one hand,,it protects the positive use income in the market behavior based on the contract rules; on the other hand,based on the rule of responsibility,the benefit of its interests is asserted by the ex-post Compensation.
When it comes to the ownership of the production generated autonomously by Artificial Intelligence( AI),the existing " view of works" is only derived from a one-sided interest demand,and plural subject's interests may be inconsistent and incompatible. There is no subordination between the copyright of AI programs and the benefits of generated by AI. From the inherent generating mechanism of the production generated autonomously by AI,it does not conform to the connotation of " originality" and " author's intention " in the copyright law. It will destroy the inherent unity and rationality if the production generated autonomously by AI are brought into the ongoing system of copyright. For protecting the production generated autonomously by AI,we should jump out of the "view of work". There are two paths to solve the problems under the framework of the existing civil law. On the one hand,,it protects the positive use income in the market behavior based on the contract rules; on the other hand,based on the rule of responsibility,the benefit of its interests is asserted by the ex-post Compensation.
引文
[1]Annemarie Bridy. The Evolution of Authorship:Work Made by Code[J]. Columbia Journal of Law&the Arts,2016(39).
[2]James Grimmelmann. There's No Such Thing as a Computer-Authored Work[J]. Columbia Journal of Law&the Arts,2016(39):403.
[3]Shlomit Yanisky-Ravid and Luis Antonio Velez-Hernandez. Copyrightability of Artworks Produced by Creative Robots,Driven by Artificial Intelligence Systems and the Concept of Originality:The Formality-Objective Model[EB/OL].(2017-03-30)[2018-06-02]. https://ssrn. com/abstract=2943778.
[4]Compendium of U. S. Copyright Office Practices[EB/OL].(2014-03)[2018-06-02]. https://www. copyright.gov/comp3/docs/compendium. pdf.
[5]吴汉东.人工智能时代的制度安排与法律规制[J].法律科学,2017(5):128.
[6]易继明.人工智能创作物是作品吗?[J].法律科学,2017(5):137.
[7]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,2017(5):148.
[8]梁志文.论人工智能创造物的法律保护[J].法律科学,2017(5):156.
[9]熊琦.人工智能生成内容的著作权认定[J].知识产权,2017(3):3.
[10]Pamela Samuelson. Allocating Ownership Rights in Computer-Generated Works[J]. University of Pittsburgh Law Review,1986(47):1185.
[11]National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works,Final Report[EB/OL].(2017-09-29)[2018-06-04]. http://files. eric. ed. gov/fulltext/ED160122.
[12]Arthur R. Miller. Copyright Protection for Computer Programs,Databases,and Computer-Generated Works:Is Anything New Since CONTU?[J]. Harvard Law Review,1993,106(5):977.
[13]Harry Surden,Machine Learning and Law[J]. Washington Law Review,2014,89(1):87.
[14]梁志文.论演绎权的保护范围[J].中国法学,2015(5):140.
[15]Prakash Gorroochurn. Classic Problems of Probability[M]. New York:John Wiley&Sons,2012:209.
[16]何炼红.论功能性作品版权保护的理论困惑及解决路径[J].现代法学,2005(5):105.
[17]Rex Shoyama. Intelligent Agents:Authors,Makers,and Owners of Computer-Generated Works in Canadian Copyright Law[J]. Canadian Journal of Law and Technology,2005,4(2):129.
[18]吴汉东.知识产权本质的多维度解读[J].中国法学,2006(5):97.
[19]Ryan Calo. Robotics and the Lessons of Cyber Law[J]. California Law Review,2015,103(3):545.
[20]Guido Calabresi and A. Douglas Melamed. Property Rules,Liability Rules,and Inalienability:One View of the Cathedral[J]. Harvard Law Review,1972(85):1106.
[21]Lin Weeks. Media Law and Copyright Implications of Automated Journalism[J]. New York University Journal of Intellectual Property&Entertainment Law,2014(4):71.
(1)我国《著作权法》中将一般职务作品的著作权归属作者;特殊职务作品,除署名权归属作者外,其它著作权归属单位。相较于职务作品,法人作品中单位视为作者的制度安排,则仅代表了投资者的利益。
(1)Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co.v.Sarony,111 U.S.53,58-59(1884).
(1)Kregos v.Associated Press,937 F.2d 700,702(2d Cir.1991).
(2)Bleistein v.Donaldson Lithographing Co.,188 U.S.239(1903).
(3)L.Batlin&Son,Inc.v.Snyder,536 F.2d 486,489-90(2d Cir.1976);see also 1 M.NIMMER,THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT§10,at32(1975);Feist Publications,Inc.v.Rural Tel.Serv.Co.,Inc.,499 U.S.340,345(1991).
(1)People for The Ethical Treatment of Animals,Inc.v.Slater,(N.D.Cal.Jan.28,2016).
(2)Bibbero Sys.,Inc.v.Colwell Sys.,Inc.,893 F.2d 1104,1107(9th Cir.1990).
(3)Lotus Dev.Corp.v.Paperback Software Int'l,740 F.Supp.37,70(D.Mass.1990).
(4)Utopia Provider Sys.,Inc.v.Pro-Med Clinical Sys.,L.L.C.,596 F.3d 1313,1320(11th Cir.2010).
(1)Design Data Corp.v.Unigate Enterprise,Inc.,847 F.3d 1169(9th Cir.2017)
[2]James Grimmelmann. There's No Such Thing as a Computer-Authored Work[J]. Columbia Journal of Law&the Arts,2016(39):403.
[3]Shlomit Yanisky-Ravid and Luis Antonio Velez-Hernandez. Copyrightability of Artworks Produced by Creative Robots,Driven by Artificial Intelligence Systems and the Concept of Originality:The Formality-Objective Model[EB/OL].(2017-03-30)[2018-06-02]. https://ssrn. com/abstract=2943778.
[4]Compendium of U. S. Copyright Office Practices[EB/OL].(2014-03)[2018-06-02]. https://www. copyright.gov/comp3/docs/compendium. pdf.
[5]吴汉东.人工智能时代的制度安排与法律规制[J].法律科学,2017(5):128.
[6]易继明.人工智能创作物是作品吗?[J].法律科学,2017(5):137.
[7]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,2017(5):148.
[8]梁志文.论人工智能创造物的法律保护[J].法律科学,2017(5):156.
[9]熊琦.人工智能生成内容的著作权认定[J].知识产权,2017(3):3.
[10]Pamela Samuelson. Allocating Ownership Rights in Computer-Generated Works[J]. University of Pittsburgh Law Review,1986(47):1185.
[11]National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works,Final Report[EB/OL].(2017-09-29)[2018-06-04]. http://files. eric. ed. gov/fulltext/ED160122.
[12]Arthur R. Miller. Copyright Protection for Computer Programs,Databases,and Computer-Generated Works:Is Anything New Since CONTU?[J]. Harvard Law Review,1993,106(5):977.
[13]Harry Surden,Machine Learning and Law[J]. Washington Law Review,2014,89(1):87.
[14]梁志文.论演绎权的保护范围[J].中国法学,2015(5):140.
[15]Prakash Gorroochurn. Classic Problems of Probability[M]. New York:John Wiley&Sons,2012:209.
[16]何炼红.论功能性作品版权保护的理论困惑及解决路径[J].现代法学,2005(5):105.
[17]Rex Shoyama. Intelligent Agents:Authors,Makers,and Owners of Computer-Generated Works in Canadian Copyright Law[J]. Canadian Journal of Law and Technology,2005,4(2):129.
[18]吴汉东.知识产权本质的多维度解读[J].中国法学,2006(5):97.
[19]Ryan Calo. Robotics and the Lessons of Cyber Law[J]. California Law Review,2015,103(3):545.
[20]Guido Calabresi and A. Douglas Melamed. Property Rules,Liability Rules,and Inalienability:One View of the Cathedral[J]. Harvard Law Review,1972(85):1106.
[21]Lin Weeks. Media Law and Copyright Implications of Automated Journalism[J]. New York University Journal of Intellectual Property&Entertainment Law,2014(4):71.
(1)我国《著作权法》中将一般职务作品的著作权归属作者;特殊职务作品,除署名权归属作者外,其它著作权归属单位。相较于职务作品,法人作品中单位视为作者的制度安排,则仅代表了投资者的利益。
(1)Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co.v.Sarony,111 U.S.53,58-59(1884).
(1)Kregos v.Associated Press,937 F.2d 700,702(2d Cir.1991).
(2)Bleistein v.Donaldson Lithographing Co.,188 U.S.239(1903).
(3)L.Batlin&Son,Inc.v.Snyder,536 F.2d 486,489-90(2d Cir.1976);see also 1 M.NIMMER,THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT§10,at32(1975);Feist Publications,Inc.v.Rural Tel.Serv.Co.,Inc.,499 U.S.340,345(1991).
(1)People for The Ethical Treatment of Animals,Inc.v.Slater,(N.D.Cal.Jan.28,2016).
(2)Bibbero Sys.,Inc.v.Colwell Sys.,Inc.,893 F.2d 1104,1107(9th Cir.1990).
(3)Lotus Dev.Corp.v.Paperback Software Int'l,740 F.Supp.37,70(D.Mass.1990).
(4)Utopia Provider Sys.,Inc.v.Pro-Med Clinical Sys.,L.L.C.,596 F.3d 1313,1320(11th Cir.2010).
(1)Design Data Corp.v.Unigate Enterprise,Inc.,847 F.3d 1169(9th Cir.2017)