人工智能世界中的自主创造

C. Asay
{"title":"人工智能世界中的自主创造","authors":"C. Asay","doi":"10.25148/lawrev.14.2.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Scholars have long debated whether the outputs of AI systems should be subject to copyright. On the one hand, the automated nature of many AI systems may make copyright unnecessary as an incentive for the creation of those AI systems’ outputs, in which case society would be better off withholding copyright protections from them. On the other hand, those outputs often exhibit sufficient creativity to merit copyright protection, and without copyright, parties that use AI systems to create such outputs may lack the necessary incentives to do so. \n \nIn this Essay, prepared as part of the Florida International University Law Review's symposium on intelligent entertainment, I argue that copyright law’s independent creation defense, as well as the widespread availability of AI systems for helping authors in their creative efforts, help address some of the concerns embedded in these debates. Historically, the independent creation defense has rarely applied, simply because independent creation of similar expression is highly unusual. But as this Essay explores, AI increases the likelihood of multiple parties creating similar expression independently, meaning that the defense can help defuse worries that applying copyright to AI outputs will result in a copyright quagmire. Furthermore, the availability of AI systems for assisting authors in their creative efforts means that authors have tools for more readily creating unique works that avoid many of the remaining copyright landmines. \n \nOther copyright issues linger, however, and the last part of this Essay examines some of these concerns in brief. In particular, parties may wish to use specific AI outputs in their own creative efforts, and neither the independent creation defense nor the availability of AI tools for creating something unique help address this problem. Copyright law’s fair use defense may, however, and the Essay concludes by briefly examining how.","PeriodicalId":300333,"journal":{"name":"FIU Law Review","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Independent Creation in a World of AI\",\"authors\":\"C. Asay\",\"doi\":\"10.25148/lawrev.14.2.5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Scholars have long debated whether the outputs of AI systems should be subject to copyright. On the one hand, the automated nature of many AI systems may make copyright unnecessary as an incentive for the creation of those AI systems’ outputs, in which case society would be better off withholding copyright protections from them. On the other hand, those outputs often exhibit sufficient creativity to merit copyright protection, and without copyright, parties that use AI systems to create such outputs may lack the necessary incentives to do so. \\n \\nIn this Essay, prepared as part of the Florida International University Law Review's symposium on intelligent entertainment, I argue that copyright law’s independent creation defense, as well as the widespread availability of AI systems for helping authors in their creative efforts, help address some of the concerns embedded in these debates. Historically, the independent creation defense has rarely applied, simply because independent creation of similar expression is highly unusual. But as this Essay explores, AI increases the likelihood of multiple parties creating similar expression independently, meaning that the defense can help defuse worries that applying copyright to AI outputs will result in a copyright quagmire. Furthermore, the availability of AI systems for assisting authors in their creative efforts means that authors have tools for more readily creating unique works that avoid many of the remaining copyright landmines. \\n \\nOther copyright issues linger, however, and the last part of this Essay examines some of these concerns in brief. In particular, parties may wish to use specific AI outputs in their own creative efforts, and neither the independent creation defense nor the availability of AI tools for creating something unique help address this problem. Copyright law’s fair use defense may, however, and the Essay concludes by briefly examining how.\",\"PeriodicalId\":300333,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"FIU Law Review\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-11-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"FIU Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25148/lawrev.14.2.5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"FIU Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25148/lawrev.14.2.5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

学者们长期以来一直在争论人工智能系统的产出是否应该受到版权的保护。一方面,许多人工智能系统的自动化特性可能使版权成为创造这些人工智能系统输出的一种不必要的激励,在这种情况下,社会对它们不提供版权保护会更好。另一方面,这些产出往往表现出足够的创造力,值得版权保护,如果没有版权,使用人工智能系统创造此类产出的各方可能缺乏必要的动机。在这篇文章中,作为佛罗里达国际大学法律评论关于智能娱乐的研讨会的一部分,我认为版权法的独立创作辩护,以及帮助作者进行创造性工作的人工智能系统的广泛可用性,有助于解决这些辩论中嵌入的一些问题。从历史上看,独立创作辩护很少适用,原因很简单,因为独立创作的类似表达非常罕见。但正如本文所探讨的那样,人工智能增加了多方独立创造类似表达的可能性,这意味着辩护可以帮助消除对将版权应用于人工智能输出将导致版权困境的担忧。此外,人工智能系统的可用性有助于作者进行创造性工作,这意味着作者拥有更容易创作独特作品的工具,可以避免许多剩余的版权地雷。然而,其他版权问题仍然存在,本文的最后一部分简要地考察了其中的一些问题。特别是,各方可能希望在自己的创造性工作中使用特定的AI输出,而无论是独立创作辩护还是用于创造独特内容的AI工具的可用性都无助于解决这一问题。然而,版权法的合理使用辩护可能会发生这种情况,本文最后简要地考察了如何做到这一点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Independent Creation in a World of AI
Scholars have long debated whether the outputs of AI systems should be subject to copyright. On the one hand, the automated nature of many AI systems may make copyright unnecessary as an incentive for the creation of those AI systems’ outputs, in which case society would be better off withholding copyright protections from them. On the other hand, those outputs often exhibit sufficient creativity to merit copyright protection, and without copyright, parties that use AI systems to create such outputs may lack the necessary incentives to do so. In this Essay, prepared as part of the Florida International University Law Review's symposium on intelligent entertainment, I argue that copyright law’s independent creation defense, as well as the widespread availability of AI systems for helping authors in their creative efforts, help address some of the concerns embedded in these debates. Historically, the independent creation defense has rarely applied, simply because independent creation of similar expression is highly unusual. But as this Essay explores, AI increases the likelihood of multiple parties creating similar expression independently, meaning that the defense can help defuse worries that applying copyright to AI outputs will result in a copyright quagmire. Furthermore, the availability of AI systems for assisting authors in their creative efforts means that authors have tools for more readily creating unique works that avoid many of the remaining copyright landmines. Other copyright issues linger, however, and the last part of this Essay examines some of these concerns in brief. In particular, parties may wish to use specific AI outputs in their own creative efforts, and neither the independent creation defense nor the availability of AI tools for creating something unique help address this problem. Copyright law’s fair use defense may, however, and the Essay concludes by briefly examining how.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Against Imperial Arbitrators: The Brilliance of Canada's New Model Investment Treaty "COVID-19 Was the Publicist for Homeschooling" and States Need to Finally Take Homeschooling Regulations Seriously Post-Pandemic Second Annual Report to The Editor-In-Chief Gender Inequality in Contracts Casebooks: Representations of Women in the Contracts Curriculum You'll Grow Into It: How Federal and State Courts Have Erred in Excluding Persons Under Twenty-One from 'the people' Protected by the Second Amendment
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1