科里·多克托罗撰文指出，美国版权局已明确立场，认定只有具备人类创作性的作品才符合版权资格，纯劳动成果或人工智能生成内容本身不受版权保护 1。这一判定纠正了部分媒体高管将版权视为投资回报而非创意激励的误区，并援引法律概念“额头出汗”原则强调，单纯的努力和劳动（如整理电话簿数据）不产生版权，只有创造性行为（如写俳句）才受法律保护 1。
在既往案例中，猴子自拍因非人类创作而无版权，算法生成的图像同理无法获得完整版权保护 1。虽然包含足够创造力的提示词可能受版权保护，但由其生成的最终图像仍属公共领域；对AI辅助作品进行创造性的编辑、选择或组合虽可能产生有限版权，但举证责任复杂 1。
多克托罗进一步分析称，美国1976年《版权法》废除了登记、缴纳样本等“形式主义”要求，导致孤儿作品泛滥及版权归属不清，而AI时代迫使私人部门重新建立严格的内部记录体系作为新的“形式主义”，以严格区分AI与人类贡献部分从而确立版权主张 1。
The US Copyright Office has reaffirmed that only works exhibiting human creativity are eligible for copyright protection, thereby excluding purely AI-generated content from such eligibility. 1 Cory Doctorow’s analysis underscores that this position corrects a misconception among media executives who view copyright as a return on investment rather than an incentive for creativity. 1
This stance reinforces the legal principle known as "sweat of the brow," which establishes that mere labor and effort—such as compiling data into a phone book—do not grant copyright, whereas creative acts like writing a haiku do. 1 Historical precedents cited in the discussion include the ruling that monkey selfies lack copyright due to non-human authorship, drawing an analogy to algorithmically generated images, which similarly cannot secure full protection. 1
While prompts containing sufficient creativity may themselves be protected, the final images produced by those prompts remain in the public domain. 1 Limited copyright claims might arise from creative editing, selection, or combination within AI-assisted works, though the burden of proof for such distinctions remains complex. 1
The 1976 Copyright Act removed previous "formalistic" requirements such as registration and depositing samples, which had led to widespread orphan works and unclear ownership. 1 In the AI era, this regulatory environment forces private industries to reconstruct strict internal record-keeping systems to differentiate between AI and human contributions, functioning as a new form of necessary formalism to establish copyright claims. 1
评论
还没有评论，欢迎留下第一条。