知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法學(xué)外文文獻(xiàn)(中英對(duì)照)

1、Copyright Protection for Artificial Intelligence Creation1.Introduction在傳統(tǒng)的實(shí)踐中，計(jì)算機(jī)程序在人類(lèi)創(chuàng)作作品的過(guò)程中通常扮演著輔助工具 的角色，作為全新的載體承擔(dān)代替書(shū)寫(xiě)和存儲(chǔ)作品的功能，但近年來(lái)，人工智能技術(shù)的革新改變了這一現(xiàn)狀。所謂人工智能，是指能在人類(lèi)參與度極低的情況下， 能夠像人樣 perform tasks 、think 、act、 learn、 act rationaly(感知、規(guī)劃、推理、學(xué)習(xí)、溝通、決策)的智能系統(tǒng)1,從美聯(lián)社人工智能公司合作開(kāi)發(fā) 的人工新聞寫(xiě)作平臺(tái) Wordsmith的運(yùn)用，到谷歌人工智

2、能設(shè)備DeepDream所生成 的繪畫(huà)拍賣(mài)成功，人工智能生成內(nèi)容逐漸有了近似人類(lèi)的智力創(chuàng)作的痕跡，并產(chǎn)生相應(yīng)的經(jīng)濟(jì)效益，這對(duì)現(xiàn)行的著作權(quán)規(guī)則提出了新的挑戰(zhàn)。Traditionally, computer program usually played the role of assisting human creation, and as a brand new carrier, assumed the function of replacing writing and storing works. However, in recent years, this situation has bee

3、n changed by the innovation of artificial intelligence technology. Artificial intelligence refers to intelligent system that can, in the case of very little humaninvolvement, perform tasks, think, act, learn and act rationally just like human being do. From the application of Wordsmith, an artificia

4、l news writing platform co-developed by Associate Press artificial intelligence companies, to the successful auction of the painting generated Google artificial intelligence device DeepDream,contents generated by artificial intelligence gradually have with traces of approximate human intelligence cr

5、eation, and bring about corresponding economic benefits. This poses a new challenge to the existing copyright rules.1 See FUTURE of Artificial Intelligence Act of 2017 , December 12th, 2017: SEC.3.DEFINITIONS (a) IN GENERAL. Except as provided in subsection (b), in this Act: (1) ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGE

6、NCE. The term a artificial intelligence includes the following: (A) Any artificial systems that perform tasks under varying and unpredictable circumstances, without significant human oversight, or that can learn from their experience and improve their performance. Such systems may be developed in co

7、mputer software, physical handware, or other contexts not yet contemplated. They may solve tasks requiring human-like perception, cognition, planning, learning, communication, or physical action. In general, the more human -like the system within the contxt of its tasks, the more it can be said to u

8、se artificial intelligence. (B) Systems that think like humans, such as cognitive architectures and neural networks.(C) Systems that act like humans, such as systems that can pass the Turing test or other conparable test via natural language processing, knowledge representation, automated reasoning,

9、 and learning. (D) A set of techniques, including machine learning, that seek to approximate some cognitive task. (E) Systems that act rationally, such as intelligent software agents and embodied robots that achieve goals via perception, planning, reasonging, learning, communicating, decision making

10、, and acting.“作品歸于作者”是現(xiàn)代著作權(quán)法自誕生以來(lái)就確立的原則，作品被視為作者對(duì)自身思想和感情的獨(dú)創(chuàng)性表達(dá)，圍繞作品產(chǎn)生的權(quán)利也只能歸屬于自然人2。 隨著商業(yè)的發(fā)展，出于對(duì)法人和其他組織在作品創(chuàng)作和傳播過(guò)程中發(fā)揮的組織或 投資等決定性作用的認(rèn)可，法人和其他組織在特定情形下也獲得了享有著作權(quán)的 資格。2017年，微軟在北京發(fā)布了Microsoft Xiaoice創(chuàng)作的詩(shī)集SunshineMisses Window ,進(jìn)而引出了 AI Creation的概念。但AI Creation的版權(quán)問(wèn) 題仍舊處于爭(zhēng)議之中。AI Creation在作為版權(quán)法中的作品而受到保護(hù)的過(guò)程中， 主要受

11、到兩大阻力：一是關(guān)于其創(chuàng)作物是否符合獨(dú)創(chuàng)性要求的判斷，二是 AI Creation的版權(quán)歸屬問(wèn)題。"The work belongs to the author" is a well-established principle since the birth of modern Copyright law. The work is regarded as the original expression of the author ' s own thoughts and emotions, and hence the rights related to the wo

12、rk can only be attributed to the natural person. With the development of commerce, legal persons and other organizations have also been granted the right to enjoy copyright under certain circumstances, in recognition of their decisive role of organization or investment in the creation and disseminat

13、ion of works. In 2017, Microsoft issued poetry Sunshine Misses Windows created by Microsoft Xiaoice in Beijing and introduced the concept of AI Creation. However, the copyright of AI Creation has been in controversy. There are two major challenges for the protection of AI Creation works under copyri

14、ght law. One is the judgment of whether the creation confirms to the requirement of originality. The other is the copyright ownership of AI Creation.2 .關(guān)于AI Creation 可版權(quán)性的討論討論AI Creation的可版權(quán)性，首先要對(duì)其是否構(gòu)成作品進(jìn)行判斷。根據(jù)版 權(quán)法，作品是指文學(xué)、藝術(shù)和科學(xué)領(lǐng)域內(nèi)具有獨(dú)創(chuàng)性并能以某種有形形式復(fù)制的 智力成果3?？梢?jiàn)，在討論自然人的創(chuàng)作是否能夠被認(rèn)定為作品時(shí)，獨(dú)創(chuàng)性是一 個(gè)首要的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，但在討論 AI C

15、reation是否構(gòu)成作品時(shí)，實(shí)踐中卻時(shí)常被回避這 一標(biāo)準(zhǔn)而直接從主體不適格來(lái)否認(rèn)其可版權(quán)性4。顯然，在這樣的情形下，所有AI Creation都將被劃入公共領(lǐng)域的范疇，并將由于得不到有效保護(hù)而使得AI3 See U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices (3nd ed.2014), § 313.23參見(jiàn)中華人民共和國(guó)著作權(quán)法實(shí)施條例第二條：著作權(quán)所稱(chēng)作品，是指文學(xué)、藝術(shù)和科學(xué)領(lǐng)域內(nèi)具 有獨(dú)創(chuàng)性并能以某種有形形式復(fù)制的智力成果。4 IN: Naruto v. Slater No.15-CV

16、04324WHO, 2016WL362331, N.D.Cal.Jan 28,2016.Aamuhanmmed v. LEE202 f.3D 1227, 1234 (9h Cir 2000).之間的抄襲、或自然人抄襲 AI的行為無(wú)法得到有效遏制，這既不利于獨(dú)創(chuàng)性的 保護(hù)，也不利于激發(fā)AI開(kāi)發(fā)者與投資者的熱情，且與鼓勵(lì)技術(shù)創(chuàng)新的價(jià)值取向 相悖。因此我認(rèn)為，對(duì)AI Creation是否構(gòu)成版權(quán)作品進(jìn)行判斷時(shí)，應(yīng)當(dāng)采用與 人類(lèi)一樣的“獨(dú)創(chuàng)性”和“可復(fù)制性”為判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。To discuss whether AI Creation is copyrightable, weshould first jud

17、ge whether it constitutes a work. According to copyright law, a work is an original intellectual work in the fields of literature, art and science that can be reproduced in sometangible form. Hence, in discussion whether the creation of a natural person can be regarded as a work, originality is a pr

18、imary criterion. However, when it comes to discuss whether AI Creation forms a work, this criterion has always been avoided in practice and subject ineligibility has been directly used to deny its being copyrightable. Obviously, in this circumstance, all AI Creation would be included in the scope of

19、 public domain, with the result of ineffectively preventing or containing one AI from plagiarizing another AI or natural person from plagiarizing AI due to absence of copyright protection. This is neither conducive to the protectionof originality,nor to theenthusiasm of AI developers and investors,a

20、s well as contrary to the valueorientation of encouraging technological innovation. Therefore, I believe that “originality ” and “reproducibility " should be adopted as the same criteria as human being works to judge whether AI Creation constitutes copyright works.學(xué)界對(duì)獨(dú)創(chuàng)性的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)觀點(diǎn)不一。以中國(guó)法為例，主觀判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的

21、支持者認(rèn)為獨(dú)創(chuàng)性應(yīng)當(dāng)反映作者自身的思想和情感，是作者自身的智力表達(dá)5, “智力表達(dá)”的表述，事實(shí)上以人類(lèi)特有的特質(zhì)而否定了AI Creation被認(rèn)定為版權(quán)作品的可能性；客觀標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的支持者則認(rèn)為獨(dú)創(chuàng)性即在完成客觀上的獨(dú)立創(chuàng)作時(shí)進(jìn)行 不特定的創(chuàng)意表達(dá)。我認(rèn)為，版權(quán)法的目的在于保護(hù)獨(dú)創(chuàng)性本身，而并非僅僅保護(hù)人類(lèi)的創(chuàng)造性，因此比起通過(guò)對(duì)獨(dú)創(chuàng)性施加自然人才能夠產(chǎn)生的思想情感來(lái)問(wèn) 接以主體不適格來(lái)否認(rèn)AI Creation構(gòu)成作品的可能性，我更傾向于選擇客觀的 判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，也即從外觀表現(xiàn)形式來(lái)看，如果人類(lèi)創(chuàng)作的相同內(nèi)容都不屬于作品， 那么該內(nèi)容的創(chuàng)作主體無(wú)論是誰(shuí)，都不應(yīng)該被認(rèn)為是作品，但當(dāng)源自人類(lèi)的相同 內(nèi)

22、容屬于作品時(shí)，AI Creation是否構(gòu)成作品，就應(yīng)當(dāng)從其產(chǎn)生過(guò)程進(jìn)行追溯判2001年版，第14頁(yè)5參見(jiàn)胡康生主編：中華人民共和共著作權(quán)法釋義，法律出版社斷， 這主要集中在AI Creation 是否是 AI 在其設(shè)計(jì)者或操控者通過(guò)固定的算法、模板和程序來(lái)完成， 其深度學(xué)習(xí)是否能夠達(dá)成程序模板之外的創(chuàng)意， 其產(chǎn)生作品 是 expression 還是 reflection ， 以及如何劃分不同主體對(duì)同一作品的貢獻(xiàn)程度 的問(wèn)題上。There are different theoretical views on the criterion of originality. Take Chinese

23、law as an example. Proponents of subjective judgment criteria believe that originality should reflect the author's own thoughts and emotions, and should be the intellectual expression of the author himself. The words “ intellectual expression ” , in fact, deny the possibility of treating AI Crea

24、tion as copyright works from the perspective of the unique characteristics of human beings. Supporters of objective criteria hold that originality refers to the expression of non-specific ideas in the completion of objective independent creation. In my opinion, the objective of copyright law is to p

25、rotect originality itself other than simply the creativity of humanbeings. Hence, compared to the subjective judgment criteria applying thoughts and emotions generated only by natural person to originality so as to indirectly deny the possibility of AI Creation being as a work due to subject ineligi

26、bility, I am more inclined to choose an objective judgment standard. That is to say, on appearance of representation forms, if the same content created by human beings does not belong to a work, then the content whoever created should not be regarded as a work. When the same content originating from

27、 human beings belongs to a work, whether AI Creation constitutes a work should be determined retrospectively from the process of its production. This mainly concentrates on such issues as whether AI Creation is completed by its designer or controller through fixed algorithms, templates and programs,

28、 whether its deep learning can produce creative ideas beyond program templates, whether the works it produce is expression or reflection, and how contributions to the same work are distributed to different subjects .不可否認(rèn)的是，當(dāng)前絕大多數(shù)AI 與人的能動(dòng)性還相距甚遠(yuǎn)，但與普通計(jì)算機(jī)在人類(lèi)操作下依托于特定信息庫(kù)、 在特定程序下將信息重新組合排列而產(chǎn)出成 果不同， AI 在其創(chuàng)作過(guò)

29、程中，其在創(chuàng)作過(guò)程中取樣、加工是在模擬人類(lèi)大腦的前提下完成的，具有相當(dāng)?shù)膹?fù)雜性和不可預(yù)測(cè)性，也即，在模擬人腦神經(jīng)網(wǎng)絡(luò)進(jìn)行創(chuàng)作的過(guò)程中，AI深度學(xué)習(xí)并再創(chuàng)作的活動(dòng)，達(dá)到了近似人類(lèi)智力活動(dòng)的效 果。因此，從客觀角度將是否進(jìn)行深度學(xué)習(xí)、是否能夠脫離算法和規(guī)則的預(yù)設(shè)進(jìn)行自主創(chuàng)作作為獨(dú)創(chuàng)性的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，不失為一條可行之路。Irrefutably, the vast majority of AI is currently far from the initiative of humanbeings. However, different from the outcomes produced by ordin

30、ary computers operated by human beings through recombining and rearranging information under particular procedures and on the basis of particular database, in the process of creation, AI takes samples and processes information by simulating human brain, such activities being featured with complexity

31、 and unpredictability. Namely, In the process of simulating creative activities of humanbrain neural network, AI' s deep learning and re-creation activities have the effect of that similar to humanintellectual activities. Therefore, it is a feasible way to use deep learning and the ability to in

32、dependent creation by departing from the preset algorithms and rules as judgement criteria of originality from the objective perspective.3.關(guān)于AI Creation 版權(quán)歸屬的討論當(dāng)前，版權(quán)法中的原始權(quán)利主體主要有作品的創(chuàng)作者和投資者兩大類(lèi)，一般情況下，版權(quán)歸于作者所有，如在中國(guó)的版權(quán)法中，“作者”就僅限于公民范圍內(nèi)，而對(duì)于由法人或者其他組織主持，代表法人或者其他組織意志創(chuàng)作，并由法人或者其他組織承擔(dān)責(zé)任的作品，則采用“視為作者”的擬制制度60但對(duì)于其他主

33、體能否成為原始權(quán)利主體的問(wèn)題，各國(guó)法律規(guī)定不一，如中國(guó)版權(quán)法賦予職務(wù)作品的雇主、委托作品的出資人以原始權(quán)利主體的資格78,英國(guó)、加拿大也存在類(lèi)似規(guī)定，而在法國(guó)等國(guó)家的法律中，唯有創(chuàng)作作品的自然人具有成為原始權(quán) 利主體的資格。Presently, creator and investor of the work are two main original right subjects in copyright law. In general, copyright is ascribed to the 6參見(jiàn)中華人民共和國(guó)著作權(quán)法第十一條：著作權(quán)屬于作者，本法另有規(guī)定的除外。創(chuàng)作作品的公民 是作者

34、。由法人或者其他組織主持， 代表法人或者其他組織意志創(chuàng)作，并由法人或者其他組織承擔(dān)責(zé)任的 作品，法人或者其他組織視為作者。7參見(jiàn)中華人民共和國(guó)著作權(quán)法第十六條：公民為完成法人或者其他組織工作任務(wù)所創(chuàng)作的作品是職 務(wù)作品，除本條第二款的規(guī)定以外，著作權(quán)由作者享有，但法人或者其他組織有權(quán)在其業(yè)務(wù)范圍內(nèi)優(yōu)先使 用。8參見(jiàn)中華人民共和國(guó)著作權(quán)法第十七條：受委托創(chuàng)作的作品，著作權(quán)的歸屬由委托人和受托人通過(guò) 合同約定。合同未作明確約定或者沒(méi)有訂立合同的，著作權(quán)屬于受托人author. For instance, in Chinese copyright law, the author is limited

35、 to citizens. For works created under the auspices of legal persons or other organizations, or on behalf of the legal persons or other organizations, for which such legal persons or other organizations hold responsibility, a fictional system of "being regarded as the author" shall be adopt

36、ed.As for whether other subjects can becomeoriginal right subject, national laws vary in this aspect. In China, employer and sponsor of commissioned works are qualified as original right subject. Similar provisions are also found in England and Canada. In such jurisdictions as France, only natural p

37、ersons creating works have qualification to become original right subjects.就機(jī)器創(chuàng)作作品而言，目前，英國(guó)將 computer-generated work 認(rèn)定為 collective work的一種，這雖然否認(rèn)了人在計(jì)算機(jī)生成作品中的參與，但依然 將著作權(quán)歸屬于賦予計(jì)算機(jī)獨(dú)立生成作品內(nèi)容的主體9,也即在承認(rèn)計(jì)算機(jī)作品獨(dú)創(chuàng)性的同時(shí)，出于實(shí)踐的需要而將權(quán)利主體回歸自然人，而德國(guó)等國(guó)家將著作人身權(quán)與著作財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)相分離，出于保護(hù)投資者的目的選擇設(shè)立鄰接權(quán)10對(duì)獨(dú)創(chuàng)性較低的作品進(jìn)行保護(hù)，這主要是由于法國(guó)、德國(guó)等大陸法系國(guó)家由于受

38、到自然權(quán) 利學(xué)說(shuō)的影響，其作者權(quán)體系中具有較強(qiáng)的人格因素特質(zhì)，而英美等普通法系國(guó) 家由于其版權(quán)體系與其歷史發(fā)展過(guò)程中的君主制背景密不可分，經(jīng)濟(jì)考量占了其中的較大因素。As far as computer-generated work is concerned, England recognizes computer-generated work as one kind of collective work. This practice denies human s involvement in such work, but still endowcomputer as the subject

39、independently generating content with copyright. In other words, while recognizing computer ' s originality, such countries as Germany return right subject to natural person out of the need of practice and separate personal rights from property rights in copyright. To protect interests of invest

40、ors, neighbouring right has been established to protect less original works. This is mainly because of the influence of natural right theory in France, Germany and other civil law countries, where strong personality factors are embedded in authorship system. On9 See pyright, Designs and Patents Act

41、1988, S178; S9(3).10 See Tracy Reilly, Good Fences Make Good Neighboring Rights: The German Federal Supreme Court Rules on the Digital Sampling of Sound Recordings in Metall auf Metall J, 13 Minn.J. L. Sci. & Tech.,vol.13, no.1,2012the contrary, due to the fact that copyright system of commortaw

42、 countries such as the UKand the U.S. is closely related to the monarchy background in their historical development, economic considerations play a major role.出于私權(quán)體系中權(quán)利主體和權(quán)利客體相對(duì)應(yīng)，且二者法律地位不得轉(zhuǎn)換的考慮11,賦予AI以版權(quán)法上的主體地位的困境在于，若將符合獨(dú)創(chuàng)性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的AICreation的版權(quán)歸于AI本身，將導(dǎo)致AI在版權(quán)法上享有與人同等的地位，進(jìn) 而享受同樣的權(quán)利并承擔(dān)同樣的責(zé)任，而AI在享受權(quán)利和承擔(dān)責(zé)任過(guò)程

43、中的主觀意思的判斷，是從現(xiàn)有技術(shù)和現(xiàn)有法律體系都無(wú)法解決的問(wèn)題，而版權(quán)法既然是以解決版權(quán)交易的問(wèn)題為目的而設(shè)立的，將其權(quán)利歸屬的判斷也應(yīng)回歸到以人為主體。For the consideration that the subject of right and the object of right are opposing to each other in the private right system and their legal status cannot be mutually switched, the dilemma of granting AI subject status in

44、 copyright law is that, if the copyright of AI Creation conforming to the originality standard is attributed to AI itself, AI will enjoy the samestatus as humanin copyright law, and then enjoy the samerights and assumethe sameresponsibilities, while in the process of enjoying rights and assuming res

45、ponsibilities, AI' s subjective judgment remains an unsolvable problem under the existing technology and legal system. Since copyright law is established to solve problems in copyright transaction, the judgment of its right ownership should also return to take human as the subject.因此，在AI Creatio

46、n已經(jīng)在客觀上符合獨(dú)創(chuàng)性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的情形下，在判斷其版 權(quán)歸屬時(shí)應(yīng)當(dāng)考慮到人類(lèi)白參與程度。事實(shí)上， AI創(chuàng)作作品的基礎(chǔ)在于人類(lèi)設(shè) 計(jì)者通過(guò)初始設(shè)定生成軟件，并通過(guò)其訓(xùn)練者輸入大量的數(shù)據(jù)，在依托超強(qiáng)的信 息搜集和數(shù)據(jù)分析能力前提下，按照一定的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)對(duì)信息進(jìn)行取舍、整合以生成作 品，換言之，雖然AI的創(chuàng)作過(guò)程與結(jié)果都具備不可預(yù)測(cè)性的要素，但作為其創(chuàng) 作手段和基礎(chǔ)的數(shù)據(jù)算法，無(wú)一不體現(xiàn)了其設(shè)計(jì)者或訓(xùn)練者的思維路徑和價(jià)值取 向，亦取決于設(shè)計(jì)者的程序設(shè)計(jì)或是訓(xùn)練者的算法訓(xùn)練，故而 AI的創(chuàng)作過(guò)程可 以視為AI依據(jù)設(shè)計(jì)者或操作者的意志、或是受設(shè)計(jì)者、訓(xùn)練者之托，代替其進(jìn)2012年版，第456頁(yè)11參見(jiàn)德漢斯布洛克

47、斯等著：德國(guó)民法總論，中國(guó)人民大學(xué)出版社行自由創(chuàng)作。因此我認(rèn)為，出于版權(quán)法保護(hù)版權(quán)交易以及鼓勵(lì)科技創(chuàng)新的目的， 可以通過(guò)保護(hù) AI Creation 版權(quán)以保護(hù) AI 的設(shè)計(jì)者和所有者，對(duì) AI Creation 的版權(quán)保護(hù)參考work made for hire 的規(guī)定，并根據(jù)個(gè)案的實(shí)際差異將其署名權(quán)之外的其他版權(quán)分別歸屬于設(shè)計(jì)者、訓(xùn)練者等。Therefore, where AI Creation has objectively met the standard of originality, the degree of human involvement should be conside

48、red in judging the ownership of copyright. As a matter of fact, on the basis that human designers generate software through initial settings and input a large amount of data through their trainers, relying on super information collection and data analysis ability, AI generates AI Creation works thro

49、ugh selecting and integrating information according to certain standards. In other words, although AI s creation process and results are unpredictable, data algorithm as the means and foundation of AI creation, reflects thinking path and value orientation of its designer or trainer, and also depends

50、 on program design of the designer or algorithm training of the trainer. Hence, AI s creation process can be regarded as the free creation of AI in light of the will of designer or operator, or under the authority of designer or trainer. In this regard, I suppose that, for the purpose of protecting

51、copyright trade and encouraging scientific and technological innovation, AI Creation designers and owners can be protected by subjecting AI Creation to copyright protection.Protection of AI Creation copyright may have reference to rules of Work Madefor Hire, and based on the actual differences of sp

52、ecific cases, other copyrights except the right of authorship maygo to the designer, trainers, etc.4.Conclusion從歷史發(fā)展角度看， 版權(quán)法的更新總是由科技進(jìn)步或經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展帶來(lái)的創(chuàng)作主體或創(chuàng)作手段更新而推動(dòng)的。 隨著工業(yè)版權(quán)的不斷發(fā)展， 版權(quán)的人身屬性愈發(fā)弱化，權(quán)利歸屬也更加傾向于投資人和有利于作品傳播的原則。隨著AI 的不斷發(fā)展， 其對(duì)人類(lèi)勞動(dòng)的替代逐漸由單一的機(jī)械操作向智能化的創(chuàng)造性勞動(dòng)轉(zhuǎn)變， 在 經(jīng)濟(jì)利益的驅(qū)使下，相應(yīng)的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)和尋求知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)的案例也不斷發(fā) 生。From hi

53、storical perspective, the updating of copyright law has always been promoted by the updating of creative subjects or creative means brought about by scientific and technological advances or economic development. With the continuous development of industrial copyright, personal attribute of copyright

54、 has increasingly weakened, and the ownership of rights is more inclined to investors and conducive to dissemination of works. With the continuous development of AI, its replacement of human labor has gradually transformed from single mechanical operation to intelligent creative labor. Driven by economic interests, cases of alleging intellectual property infri