作者：蒋舸
作者介绍：清华大学法学院长聘副教授，法学博士
出版日期：2025年4月9日
内容提要 迄今为止，关于用户AIGC版权主张的讨论集中在本体论层面，有必要从认知经济性视角出发，增强人们对“最低限度创造性标准”在AI时代仍然适用的信心。从认识论角度来看，区分高独创性AIGC与低独创性AIGC的认知成本过高而认知收益过低。以“独立创作不侵权”为核心的一系列排他权限制性规则，足以确保低独创性AIGC的版权不会过度侵害公众行动自由。在版权法之外通过原则条款或者新增邻接权等方式来追求利益平衡的做法在认知层面极为低效。版权法的合理策略是在权利客体环节保持“理性无知”，承认做出最低限度创造性贡献的用户有权禁止原样照抄。只有在用户主张禁止非原样照抄和高额赔偿的极少量案件中，法院才需要通过权利内容、限制和救济等后续环节的规范来评估用户贡献的具体程度。法院需要通过动态评估执法效果来确保用户贡献程度与救济水平相当，尤其应当重视排他范围和损害赔偿这两项因素对于潜在诉讼双方行为的引导效果。
关键词 人工智能生成内容 最低限度创造性标准 认知经济性 独立创作 邻接权
Abstract: Discussions on the users’ claims to the copyright of AI-generated content (AIGC) have mainly focused on the ontological level. It is imperative to reinforce confidence in the continued applicability of the ‘minimal creativity standard’ in the AI era from the perspective of the cognitive economy. Distinguishing between high-originality AIGC and low-originality AIGC is cognitively inefficient, since the cost of distinction is inevitably high, while the marginal benefit to society is insignificant. A series of exclusive rights limitation rules centered on the principle that ‘independent creation does not constitute infringement’ are sufficient to ensure that copyright protection for low-originality AIGC does not infringe on the public’s freedom of action. Efforts to achieve a balance of interests outside the scope of copyright law through principle-based clauses or the addition of neighboring rights are cognitively inefficient. A reasonable strategy for copyright law is to maintain ‘rational ignorance’ at the stage of defining the object of rights, acknowledging that users who make a minimum creative contribution are entitled to exclude others’ use of basically identical content. Only in exceptional cases should courts assess the specific extent of the user’s contribution through subsequent norms regarding the content, limitations, and remedies of rights. Courts need to dynamically evaluate the effects of law enforcement to ensure that the level of user contribution aligns with the corresponding remedies, with a particular emphasis on how the scope of exclusivity and damages influences the behavior of potential litigants on both sides.