生成式人工智能著作权保护的路径转型
Path Transformation of Copyright Protection for Generative Artificial Intelligence
摘要: 生成式人工智能(AIGC)的爆发式增长正在挑战著作权法以“人类作者”为核心的传统预设,使得“全有或全无”的保护模式愈发难以适用。为此,本文提出“生成过程分层认定法”,将独创性判断从“结果导向”转向“过程导向”,从数据输入阶段的“人类意图注入”、算法运行阶段的“参数干预空间”到输出阶段的“表达形式可识别性”三个层面加以考察。在此基础上,构建“贡献要素权重参考框架”,将数据、算法、提示词和后期编辑纳入权利分配体系。此外,本文还探讨了过程导向方法在司法实践中的证据问题,设计了日志记录、第三方存证、专家辅助人及举证责任分配等配套制度。在技术治理方面,本文正视区块链技术的局限性,提出分层披露、智能合约审查等法律对策。整体上,本文主张著作权保护从“权利中心”转向“行为规制”,以推动形成更加系统的治理方案。
Abstract: The explosive growth of generative artificial intelligence (AIGC) is challenging the traditional “human author” premise of copyright law, making the “all-or-nothing” protection model increasingly difficult to apply. To address this issue, this paper proposes a “layered approach to generative process determination”, shifting the originality assessment from a “result-oriented” to a “process-oriented” framework. The analysis proceeds along three dimensions: “human intent injection” during the data input stage, “parameter intervention space” during algorithmic operation, and “identifiability of expressive form” during the output stage. On this basis, a “contribution factor weight reference framework” is constructed to incorporate data, algorithms, prompts, and post-editing into the rights allocation system. Furthermore, this paper examines the evidentiary issues of the process-oriented approach in judicial practice, designing supporting mechanisms such as logging standards, third-party preservation, expert assistants, and burden of proof rules. In terms of technological governance, this paper confronts the limitations of blockchain technology and proposes legal countermeasures including layered disclosure and smart contract review. Overall, this paper advocates a shift in copyright protection from a “rights-centered” to a “conduct-regulation” approach, promoting the formation of a more systematic governance scheme.
文章引用:刘文. 生成式人工智能著作权保护的路径转型[J]. 社会科学前沿, 2026, 15(6): 807-816. https://doi.org/10.12677/ass.2026.156536

参考文献

[1] 蔡琳. AIGC可版权性认定的一般规则构建[J]. 政法论丛, 2024(2): 138-150.
[2] 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): 183-201.
[3] 崔国斌. 人工智能生成物可版权性司法案例评述[J]. 中国版权, 2025(2): 15-23.
[4] 董慧娟, 余非. AIGC可版权的必要非充分要件: “有限控制论”的证成与适用展开[J]. 科技与出版, 2025(8): 113-127.
[5] 朱溯蓉. 从“提示”到作品: AIGC作品著作权的源头探究与法律重构[J]. 科学与社会, 2025, 15(2): 116-133.
[6] De Rosa Palmini, M.T. and Cetinic, E. (2024) Patterns of Creativity: How User Input Shapes AI-Generated Visual Diversity.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.06768
[7] 邓文. 以ChatGPT为代表的生成式AI内容的可版权性研究[J]. 政治与法律, 2023(9): 84-97.
[8] 丁晓东. 著作权的解构与重构: 人工智能作品法律保护的法理反思[J]. 法制与社会发展, 2023, 29(5): 109-127.
[9] 熊琦. 人工智能生成内容的著作权认定[J]. 知识产权, 2017(3): 3-8.
[10] 中国保护知识产权网. 英国高等法院就Getty Images诉Stability AI案作出裁决[EB/OL].
https://ipr.mofcom.gov.cn/article/gjxw/gbhj/bmz/mg/202511/1993780.html, 2026-06-26.
[11] 张涛. 人工智能大模型训练的著作权困境及其调适路径[J]. 现代法学, 2025, 47(2): 189-208.
[12] 梁志文. 版权法上生成式人工智能输出的定性及其责任规则[J]. 法学, 2025(6): 129-146.
[13] 熊琦. 人工智能与版权——法律涵摄技术的路径选择[J]. 中国版权, 2023(3): 6-16.
[14] 蔡琳. 生成式人工智能语料来源可追溯义务的法律构造[J]. 江苏社会科学, 2025(2): 161-169+243-244.
[15] 林秀芹. 人工智能时代著作权合理使用制度的重塑[J]. 法学研究, 2021, 43(6): 170-185.
[16] 中国保护知识产权网. 德国法院: 非商业性人工智能训练数据符合版权侵权的科学研究例外[EB/OL].
https://ipr.mofcom.gov.cn/article/gjxw/ajzz/bqajzz/202410/1988637.html, 2025-12-15.
[17] 姚叶. 论“文本与数据挖掘”的合理使用规则建构[J]. 科技与法律(中英文), 2024(1): 32-42.