Scientific Development Research
Scientific Development Research . 2022; 2: (3) ; 10.12208/j.sdr.20220091 .
总浏览量: 343
浙江元新律师事务所 浙江丽水
*通讯作者: 程弋娉,单位:浙江元新律师事务所 浙江丽水;
近年来随着人工智能的迅速发展,人工智能创作物已较多出现且具有特定含义。比较法学理论上存在的诸多学说,除孳息说较具合理性外,作品说及其他非作品说均存在一定的不足。权衡利弊、择优而言,可将人工智能创作物界定为一种特殊的法定孳息。在孳息说框架内,仍可通过对交易习惯作出限制解释、建立人工智能创作物明示制度、合理平衡及利用所涉及的公共利益、探索科学合理的利益平衡机制等途径,实现对人工智能创作物的合理保护。
In recent years, with the rapid development of artificial intelligence, artificial intelligence crea- tions have appeared more and have specific meanings. Among the many theories existing in the theory of com- parative law, except the theory of fruitfulness, which is more reasonable, the theory of works and other theories of non-works have certain shortcomings. In terms of weighing the pros and cons and choosing the best, artificial in- telligence creations can be defined as a special legal fruit. Within the framework of the theory of fruitfulness, it is still possible to realize the creation of artificial intelligence by restricting and explaining trading habits, establishing an explicit system for artificial intelligence creations, rationally balancing and utilizing the public interests involved, and exploring a scientific and reasonable interest balance mechanism. reasonable protection of things.
[1]於兴中. 人工智能、话语理论与可辩驳推理.载葛洪义主编.法律方法与法律思维(第3辑)[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社.2005:118.
[2]郭如愿. 论人工智能生成内容的信息权保护[J].知识产权.2020(2):48.
[3]刘瑛,何丹曦. 论人工智能生成物的可专利性[J].科技与法律.2019(4):7.
[4]胡光. 人工智能生成对象版权法基本理论探讨:历史、当下与未来[J].当代传播.2018(4):80-90.
[5]孙山. 人工智能生成内容著作权法保护的困境与出路[J].知识产权.2018(11):60-65.
[6]易继明. 人工智能创作物是作品吗?[J].法律科学(西北政法大学学报).2017(5):139.
[7]黄汇,黄杰. 人工智能“创作”物被视为作品保护的合理性[J].江西社会科学.2019(2):33-42.
[8]季连帅,何颖. 人工智能创作物著作权归属问题研究[J].学习与探索.2018(10):106-110.
[9]丛立先. 人工智能生成内容的可版权性与版权归属[J].中国出版.2019(1):11-14.
[10]冯刚. 人工智能生成内容的法律保护路径初探[J].中国出版.2019(1):5-10.
[11]黄玉烨,司马航. 孳息视角下人工智能生成作品的权利归属[J].河南师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版).2018(4):23-29.