📄 中文摘要
美国版权局（USCO）明确表示，完全由人工智能系统生成的作品不具备版权保护资格。这一立场基于现有法律先例，例如在<em>Feist v. Rural Telephone</em>案中强调的“人类创造力”是版权保护的基本要求。根据17 U.S.C. § 102(a)的规定，只有“原创著作作品”才能受到保护。此外，1884年的<em>Burrow-Giles v. Sarony</em>案确立了版权要求“智力概念”的必要性，进一步支持了人类著作权的必要性。此政策反映了对人工智能在创作领域的法律界限的明确界定。
📄 English Summary
Copyright office will not find human authorship where AI program generates works
The U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) asserts that works generated solely by AI systems lack eligibility for copyright protection. This position is grounded in existing legal precedents, such as the <em>Feist v. Rural Telephone</em> case, which underscores 'human creativity' as a fundamental requirement for copyright. According to 17 U.S.C. § 102(a), only 'original works of authorship' are protected. Furthermore, the 1884 case of <em>Burrow-Giles v. Sarony</em> established that copyright necessitates an 'intellectual conception,' reinforcing the need for human authorship. This policy delineates clear legal boundaries regarding the role of AI in creative endeavors.
Powered by Cloudflare Workers + Payload CMS + Claude 3.5
数据源: OpenAI, Google AI, DeepMind, AWS ML Blog, HuggingFace 等