|
人工智能绘画可版权性问题研究
|
Abstract:
人工智能绘画技术对于现行美术作品版权保护造成冲击,我国著作权法规定作者为自然人或者法人,人工智能生成绘画领域存在法律解释争议,其中在人工智能绘画作品可版权性、权利归属问题上存在判定困难,并因此隐含着巨大的版权侵权风险。人工智能绘画属于人工智能生成物,人工智能生成物版权肯定说与否定说都无法解决人工智能绘画的版权问题。因此根据人工智能绘画技术,通过对于现行法律进行解释,应坚持对于人工智能绘画创作过程中人的作用的要求,人工智能生成的绘画满足由自然人创作完成或来源于自然人创作行为,具有独创性与作品权利外观两项基本要件才构成作品。根据人工智能绘画运算工具,可以将人工智能绘画分为三种类型,其中照片转漫画型,属于对现有作品的复制;输入关键字生成绘画型,属于人工智能突破工具属性,以上两种生成的绘画不受著作权法保护。编辑代码参数参考图型生成的绘画凝结了自然人的创作意图与贡献,受著作权法保护,权利由软件使用者行使。
Artificial intelligence painting technology has an impact on the copyright protection of existing art works. China’s copyright law stipulates that the author is a natural person or a legal person, and there are controversial legal interpretations in the field of artificial intelligence-generated paintings, among which there are difficulties in determining the copyright ability of artificial intelligence paintings and the attribution of rights, and therefore a huge risk of copyright infringement is implied. Artificial intelligence paintings belong to artificial intelligence generated objects, and neither the affirmative nor negative theory of copyright of artificial intelligence generated objects can solve the copyright problem of artificial intelligence paintings. Therefore, according to the artificial intelligence painting technology, through the interpretation of the current law, we should insist on the requirement of the role of human in the creation process of artificial intelligence painting, and the painting generated by artificial intelligence satisfies the two basic elements of being created by a natural person or derived from the creative act of a natural person, having originality and the appearance of the right to the work in order to constitute a work. According to the AI painting computing tools, AI painting can be divided into three types. Among them, the photo-to-cartoon type belongs to the copying of existing works; the type of inputting keywords to generate drawings belongs to the property of artificial intelligence breaking through tools, and the drawings generated by the above two types are not protected by copyright law. The drawing generated by editing the code parameter reference pattern condenses the creative intention and contribution of a natural person and is protected by copyright law, and the rights are exercised by the software user.
[1] | 黄玉烨, 司马航. 孳息视角下人工智能生成作品的权利归属[J]. 河南师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2018, 45(4): 23-29. |
[2] | 吴汉东. 人工智能时代的制度安排与法律规制[J]. 社会科学文摘, 2017(12): 76-78. |
[3] | 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, 35(5): 148-155. |
[4] | 张怀印, 甘竞圆. 人工智能生成物著作权归属问题研究——谁有资格放弃《阳光失了玻璃窗》的版权? [J]. 科技与法律, 2019(3): 34-41. |
[5] | 曹新明, 杨绪东. 人工智能生成物著作权伦理探究[J]. 知识产权, 2019(11): 31-39. |
[6] | 裴思萌. 人工智能生成物著作权保护问题研究[D]: [硕士学位论文]. 太原: 山西财经大学, 2023: 25. |
[7] | 慕晓琛. 人工智能生成物著作权归属之域外法研究——以英国、美国、欧盟和澳大利亚为例[C]//上海市法学会. 《上海法学研究》集刊: 2019年第9卷. 2019: 90-101. |
[8] | Reuters (2016) Robots Could Become ‘Electronic Persons’ with Rights, Obligations under Draft EU Plan.
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/21/robots-could-become-electronic-persons-with-rights-obligations-under-draft-eu-plan.html |
[9] | 谢琳, 陈薇. 拟制作者规则下人工智能生成物的著作权困境解决[J]. 法律适用, 2019(9): 38-47. |
[10] | 许春明, 袁玉玲. 论人工智能的法律主体性——以人工智能生成物的著作权保护为视角[J]. 科技与法律, 2019(2): 1-6+18. |