摘要
在否定人工智能绘画作品属性的情况下,侵犯著作权罪的适用存在行为构造异化、超行为化的归责评价和难以确定被害人的问题;在肯定人工智能绘画作品属性的情况下,无法规制利用人工智能绘画创作过程进行间接营利的过程性营利。应当肯定规范层面人工智能绘画的作品属性和权利取得,但由个案进行具体司法判断。对于人工智能绘画,应当明确侵犯著作权罪的保护法益是著作权和著作权有关的权利,不以具体的权利人确定为刑事规制的前提,通过著作权和著作权有关的权利保护实现对作品和著作权人的间接保护,并根据保护法益的要求重新解释构成要件,确定归责视野,明确营利目的、复制发行和通过信息网络向公众传播的内涵。
In the case of denying that artificial intelligence painting belongs to a work,there are some problems in the application of the crime of copyright infringement,such as alienation of behavior structure,super-behavioral imputation evaluation and difficulty in determining the victim;In the case of affirming that artificial intelligence painting belongs to works,there is a problem that it is impossible to regulate the process of indirect profit-making by using artificial intelligence painting creation process.The law should affirm the work attribute and the right acquisition of the standard level artificial intelligence painting,but carries on the concrete judicature judgment by the individual case.As for artificial intelligence painting,it should be made clear that the law benefit of the crime of infringing copyright is the right related to copyright,not the specific obligee as the premise of criminal regulation,but the indirect protection of the work and the copyright owner through the protection of the copyright and copyright-related rights,and reinterpret the constitutive elements according to the requirements of the law benefit,determine the perspective of attribution,and clarify the connotation of profit-making,reproduction and distribution,and dissemination to the public through information network.
作者
胡江
王唯鉴
Hu Jiang;Wang Weijian
出处
《电子知识产权》
2023年第6期26-39,共14页
Electronics Intellectual Property
基金
2022年度最高人民检察院检察理论研究课题“新型网络犯罪刑事规制研究”(GJ2022C11)
重庆市新型犯罪研究中心2022年度规划项目“网络犯罪技术服务者的共犯退出机制研究”(22XXFZ42)。
关键词
人工智能绘画
侵犯著作权罪
过程性营利
刑事规制
Artificial Intelligence Painting
Crime of Copyright Infringement
Profit Based on Process Utilization
Criminal Regulation
作者简介
胡江,西南政法大学法学院副教授,法学博士;王唯鉴,重庆市新型犯罪研究中心助理研究员。
