以DeepSeek为例论人工智能生成内容的著作权否定
The DeepSeek as an Example of Copyright Negation for AI-Generated Content
摘要: 近日,DeepSeek模型的横空出世再度引起人工智能生成内容可著作权性的广泛讨论。就目前所代表的生成式人工智能的运作过程及其显著特征而言,其输出信息无疑暴露出高度自动化和算法驱动的本质。确定人工智能生成物的著作权定位需要对现行法与比较法进行。分析反思。生成式人工智能不具备作者的法律资格,且其内容因不具备独创性而不具有著作权法意义上的作品属性。尽管人工智能生成内容在著作权法框架下可能难以直接获得保护,但通过不正当竞争法、数据财产保护等法律渠道,其创造者、所有者和使用者仍可获得一定程度的法律保护。在促进知识共享和创新的时代背景下,将人工智能生成内容视为开放知识资源留在公有领域,能够促进知识传播与交流,推动信息时代人类文化、艺术和科学的繁荣。
Abstract: Recently, the emergence of the DeepSeek has once again sparked widespread discussions on the copyright nature of AI-generated content. In terms of the operation process and salient features represented by current generative artificial intelligence, the output information undoubtedly reveals its highly automated and algorithm-driven nature. To determine the copyright positioning of AI-generated content, it is necessary to conduct analysis and reflection on current laws and comparative laws. Generative artificial intelligence does not have the legal status of an author, and its content lacks the work attributes in the sense of copyright law due to the lack of originality. Although AI-generated content may be difficult to obtain direct protection under the copyright law framework, through legal channels such as unfair competition law and data property protection, the creators, owners, and users can still obtain a certain degree of legal protection. Against the backdrop of promoting knowledge sharing and innovation, regarding AI-generated content as open knowledge resources in the public domain can promote the dissemination and exchange of knowledge, and drive the prosperity of human culture, art, and science in the information age.
文章引用:胡泽君. 以DeepSeek为例论人工智能生成内容的著作权否定[J]. 法学, 2025, 13(8): 1615-1624. https://doi.org/10.12677/ojls.2025.138225

参考文献

[1] 李昌奎. ChatGPT与DeepSeek-R1比较研究: 架构、推理能力与应用场景分析[J]. 社会科学理论与实践, 2025, 7(2): 18-31.
[2] DeepSeek-AI, et al. (2025) DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.12948
[3] European Parliament (2024) Texts Adopted—Intellectual Property Rights for the Development of Artificial Intelligence Technologies.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2020-0277_EN.html
[4] Case C-145/10-Eva-Maria Painer (2011) ECLI: EU: C: 2011: 798, para. 121.
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s40319-023-01357-0.pdf
[5] Hugenholtz, P.B. and Quintais, J.P. (2021) Copyright and Artificial Creation: Does EU Copyright Law Protect AI-Assisted Output? IICInternational Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 52, 1190-1216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[6] U.S. Copyright Office Review Board (2024) Decision Affirming Refusal of Registration of a Recent Entrance to Paradise at 23.
https://copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/a-recent-entrance-to-paradise.pdf
[7] Yanisky-Ravid, S. (2017) Generating Rembrandt: Artificial Intelligence, Copyright, and Accountability in the 3A Era—the Human-Like Authors Are Already Here—A New Model. Michigan State Law Review, 2017, 659.
[8] Bently, L., Sherman, B., Gangjee, D. and Johnson, P. (2022) Intellectual Property Law. Oxford University Press, 118.
[9] 李伟民. 职务作品制度重构与人工智能作品著作权归属路径选择[J]. 法学评论, 2020, 38(3): 108-124.
[10] 王迁. 知识产权法教程[M]. 北京: 中国人民大学出版社, 2021: 24-41.
[11] 李明德, 许超. 著作权法[M]. 第2版. 北京: 法律出版社, 2009: 55-60.
[12] 杨则文. 人工智能生成物的独创性研究[J]. 中阿科技论坛(中英文), 2022(7): 187-191.
[13] 熊红凯, 喻国明, 邱泽奇, 等. “机”智过人?——ChatGPT与社会发展新变[J]. 探索与争鸣, 2023(3): 4+177.
[14] THALER v. PERLMUTTER (1: 22-cv-01564-BAH) District Court, District of Columbia, CourtListener.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63356475/thaler-v-perlmutter/
[15] 王迁. 三论人工智能生成的内容在著作权法中的定位[J]. 法商研究, 2024, 41(3): 182-200.
[16] 丛立先, 李泳霖. 生成式AI的作品认定与版权归属——以ChatGPT的作品应用场景为例[J]. 山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2023(4): 171-181.
[17] 卢纯昕. 反不正当竞争法一般条款在知识产权保护中的适用定位[J]. 知识产权, 2017(1): 54-62.
[18] 吴汉东. 人工智能生成作品的著作权法之问[J]. 中外法学, 2020, 32(3): 653-673.
[19] 尼克. 人工智能简史[M]. 第2版. 北京: 人民邮电出版社, 2021: 22.
[20] 彼得∙德雀斯. 知识财产法哲学[M]. 周林, 译. 北京: 商务印书馆, 2008: 60.
[21] 劳伦斯∙莱斯格. 代码2.0: 网络空间中的法律(修订版) [M]. 李旭, 沈伟伟, 译. 北京: 清华大学出版社, 2018: 213.