人工智能生成内容著作权侵权认定问题研究

Research on Copyright Infringement Issues of AI-Generated Content

摘要: 随着人工智能生成内容(AIGC)在创作与传播领域的深度渗透，其对传统著作权法律体系的冲击日益凸显。文章围绕AIGC生成与传播链条，系统剖析著作权侵权风险、主体认定及责任分配规则。研究发现：AIGC运作前端(数据输入与算法训练)存在未经授权的数字化复制风险，后端(内容输出与传播)则面临复制权、信息网络传播权及演绎权等多元侵权风险，Getty Images诉Stability AI等司法案例已暴露训练数据侵权的现实争议。在主体认定方面，人工智能本身不具备法律主体资格，AIGC服务提供者作为技术开发与商业运营主体，构成著作权侵权的核心责任主体，而网络用户仅在刻意引导生成侵权内容时承担过错责任。责任分配上，应突破“可版权性前置”逻辑，以《著作权法》第五十二条为基准，聚焦是否侵害在先作品独创性表达；服务提供者适用以“现有技术水平”为标准的过错责任原则，可援引“发展风险抗辩”，网络用户则遵循“通知–删除”规则承担有限连带责任。研究最终提出，需在技术创新与权利保护间构建动态平衡机制，为AIGC产业规范化发展提供法律路径参考。

Abstract: With the deep penetration of artificial intelligence-generated content (AIGC) in the fields of creation and dissemination, its impact on the traditional copyright legal system has become increasingly prominent. This article systematically analyzes the copyright infringement risks, subject determination, and liability allocation rules along the AIGC generation and dissemination chain. The research finds that the front end of AIGC operation (data input and algorithm training) poses the risk of unauthorized digital reproduction, while the back end (content output and dissemination) faces multiple infringement risks such as reproduction rights, information network dissemination rights, and adaptation rights. Judicial cases like Getty Images v. Stability AI have exposed the real disputes over the infringement of training data. In terms of subject determination, artificial intelligence itself does not have legal subject status. AIGC service providers, as the technical development and commercial operation subjects, constitute the core liability subjects for copyright infringement, while network users only bear fault liability when they deliberately guide the generation of infringing content. In liability allocation, the “precondition of copyrightability” logic should be broken, and the focus should be on whether the originality expression of prior works is infringed based on Article 52 of the Copyright Law. Service providers should apply the fault liability principle based on the “existing technical level” standard and can invoke the “development risk defense”, while network users should follow the “notice-takedown” rule and bear limited joint liability. The research ultimately proposes that a dynamic balance mechanism should be established between technological innovation and rights protection to provide legal path references for the standardized development of the AIGC industry.