{ "schemaVersion": "2.0", "generatedAt": "2026-07-16T12:09:49.392Z", "compatibility": { "legacyMatterFieldsRetained": true, "issueDocumentsAreNotTimelineEvents": true }, "matter": { "id": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc", "slug": "cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc", "titleZh": "广州“奥特曼”AIGC 著作权案", "formalName": "上海新创华文化发展有限公司诉某生成式人工智能服务提供者著作权侵权案", "aliases": [ "广州奥特曼 AIGC 案", "（2024）粤0192民初113号", "Ultraman AIGC case (Guangzhou)" ], "summary": "广州互联网法院认定，生成式 AI 服务根据提示词输出与奥特曼形象构成实质性相似的图片，侵犯复制权和改编权；法院同时把停止侵权义务限定为服务商能够采取的技术措施。", "professionalSummary": "（2024）粤0192民初113号区分了输出端侵权、服务商注意义务与底层模型训练责任。法院判赔 1 万元，但未支持删除训练数据，因为现有证据不能证明被告训练了底层模型。", "whyItMatters": "该案是中国生成式 AI 服务输出侵权和技术性停止措施的早期裁判，也提示不能把模型提供者、应用运营者与训练者的责任混为一谈。", "status": "decided", "primaryTopic": "copyright", "secondaryTopics": [ "platform-liability" ], "aiRoles": [ "model-output", "training-data" ], "jurisdiction": "中国·广州互联网法院", "industries": [ "生成式 AI", "影视与角色授权" ], "significance": { "legalNovelty": 29, "impactScope": 22, "institutionalLevel": 14, "crossBorder": 6, "sustainedCoverage": 13, "total": 84 }, "highProfile": true, "featured": true, "firstPublishedAt": "2026-07-16", "lastUpdatedAt": "2026-07-16", "proceedings": [ { "formalName": "上海新创华文化发展有限公司诉某生成式人工智能服务提供者著作权侵权纠纷", "identifier": "（2024）粤0192民初113号", "identifiers": { "docketNumber": "（2024）粤0192民初113号" }, "forum": "广州互联网法院", "jurisdiction": "中国·广东·广州", "type": "civil-litigation", "stage": "judgment", "status": "decided", "startedAt": "2024-01-05", "endedAt": "2024-02-08", "precedentialWeight": "persuasive", "officialUrl": "https://www.ciplawyer.cn/articles/152937.html", "id": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:proceeding:first-instance", "matterId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc" } ], "events": [ { "date": "2024-01-05", "type": "filed", "title": "广州互联网法院受理案件", "summary": "权利人就生成式 AI 服务输出奥特曼相关图片提起著作权侵权诉讼。", "id": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:event:filed", "matterId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc", "proceedingId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:proceeding:first-instance", "documentIds": [ "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:document:judgment-transcript" ], "claimIds": [ "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:claim:filing" ] }, { "date": "2024-02-08", "type": "judgment", "title": "法院认定复制权和改编权侵权", "summary": "法院认定案涉输出与奥特曼作品实质性相似，并判令采取技术措施、赔偿 1 万元。", "id": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:event:judgment", "matterId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc", "proceedingId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:proceeding:first-instance", "documentIds": [ "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:document:judgment-transcript" ], "claimIds": [ "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:claim:outputs", "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:claim:holding", "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:claim:relief", "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:claim:training-limit" ] } ], "documents": [ { "title": "广州互联网法院（2024）粤0192民初113号民事判决书转录", "originalTitle": "（2024）粤0192民初113号民事判决书", "url": "https://www.ciplawyer.cn/articles/152937.html", "kind": "official-document", "sourceId": "china-ip-lawyer", "publishedAt": "2024-02-08", "primaryOrSecondary": "primary", "relationship": "independent", "locator": "裁判文书转录全文", "id": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:document:judgment-transcript", "familyId": "family-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc-judgment-transcript", "matterId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc", "eventId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:event:judgment", "identifiers": { "docketNumber": "（2024）粤0192民初113号" }, "language": "zh-CN" }, { "title": "中国奥特曼 AI 案：生成式 AI 服务商版权责任", "originalTitle": "Ultraman AI Case in China: Defining Copyright Liability for Generative AI Providers", "url": "https://intellectual-property-helpdesk.ec.europa.eu/news-events/news/ultraman-ai-case-china-defining-copyright-liability-generative-ai-providers-2025-02-18_en", "kind": "professional-commentary", "sourceId": "eu-ip-helpdesk", "publishedAt": "2025-02-18", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "id": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:document:eu-analysis", "familyId": "family-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc-eu-analysis", "matterId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc", "identifiers": { "docketNumber": "（2024）粤0192民初113号" }, "language": "en" } ], "claims": [ { "text": "广州互联网法院于 2024 年 1 月 5 日受理（2024）粤0192民初113号。", "kind": "procedural-fact", "status": "confirmed", "asOf": "2024-01-05", "id": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:claim:filing", "matterId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc", "eventId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:event:filed", "documentIds": [ "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:document:judgment-transcript" ] }, { "text": "法院查明，用户输入含奥特曼名称的提示词后，服务会生成与权利作品角色形象高度近似的图片。", "kind": "fact-finding", "status": "confirmed", "asOf": "2024-02-08", "id": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:claim:outputs", "matterId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc", "eventId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:event:judgment", "documentIds": [ "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:document:judgment-transcript" ] }, { "text": "法院认定案涉生成和向用户提供图片的行为侵犯复制权和改编权；对信息网络传播权不再重复评价。", "kind": "legal-holding", "status": "confirmed", "asOf": "2024-02-08", "id": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:claim:holding", "matterId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc", "eventId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:event:judgment", "documentIds": [ "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:document:judgment-transcript" ] }, { "text": "法院判令被告采取技术措施防止继续生成侵权图片，并赔偿原告经济损失及合理费用合计 1 万元。", "kind": "legal-holding", "status": "confirmed", "asOf": "2024-02-08", "id": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:claim:relief", "matterId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc", "eventId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:event:judgment", "documentIds": [ "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:document:judgment-transcript" ] }, { "text": "法院未支持删除训练数据的请求，因为证据显示被告接入第三方模型，不能证明其实施了底层模型训练。", "kind": "legal-holding", "status": "confirmed", "asOf": "2024-02-08", "id": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:claim:training-limit", "matterId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc", "eventId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:event:judgment", "documentIds": [ "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:document:judgment-transcript" ] } ], "caseBackground": { "narrativeZh": "原告经授权经营奥特曼系列形象。被告运营的生成式 AI 网站接入第三方底层模型，用户输入角色名称等提示词后可生成并下载相关图片。原告主张输出复制、改编其角色作品，并要求停止侵权、删除训练数据和赔偿。", "partiesZh": [ "原告：上海新创华文化发展有限公司", "被告：某生成式 AI 服务运营公司" ], "aiSystemZh": "接入第三方底层模型的生成式图片服务", "challengedConductZh": "根据用户提示词生成、展示并允许下载与奥特曼角色形象实质性相似的图片。", "allegedHarmZh": "角色作品的复制权、改编权及相关传播利益受到侵害。", "proceduralOriginZh": "原告于 2024 年 1 月提起民事诉讼，广州互联网法院同年 2 月作出一审判决。", "documentIds": [ "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:document:judgment-transcript", "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:document:eu-analysis" ], "claimIds": [ "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:claim:filing", "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:claim:outputs", "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:claim:holding" ] }, "issues": [ { "id": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:issue:output-infringement", "matterId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc", "titleZh": "生成图片是否侵犯角色作品著作权", "questionZh": "提示词驱动的输出与奥特曼作品实质性相似时，应用服务商是否实施复制和改编？", "contextZh": "争议集中在输出端，而不是抽象地判断所有生成式 AI 训练是否合法。", "courtTreatmentZh": "法院结合测试生成过程和图片比对，认定复制权、改编权侵权；未再对信息网络传播权作重复评价。", "topic": "copyright", "status": "resolved", "claimIds": [ "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:claim:outputs", "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:claim:holding" ], "positions": [ { "id": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:issue:output-infringement:position:plaintiff", "issueId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:issue:output-infringement", "sideZh": "原告", "positionZh": "输出保留奥特曼角色的独创性表达，服务商应对生成和提供行为负责。", "claimIds": [ "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:claim:outputs" ], "documentIds": [ "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:document:judgment-transcript" ] }, { "id": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:issue:output-infringement:position:defendant", "issueId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:issue:output-infringement", "sideZh": "被告", "positionZh": "其仅接入第三方模型并提供生成服务，不应被等同为底层模型训练者。", "claimIds": [ "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:claim:training-limit" ], "documentIds": [ "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:document:judgment-transcript" ] } ] }, { "id": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:issue:technical-remedy", "matterId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc", "titleZh": "平台注意义务与技术性停止措施", "questionZh": "生成服务应采取何种可执行措施阻止相同角色侵权输出？", "contextZh": "停止侵权必须与应用运营者实际控制能力相匹配。", "courtTreatmentZh": "法院要求采取关键词过滤等技术措施，但没有把无法证明由被告实施的训练行为纳入删除命令。", "topic": "platform-liability", "status": "partly-resolved", "claimIds": [ "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:claim:relief", "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:claim:training-limit" ], "positions": [ { "id": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:issue:technical-remedy:position:rights-holder", "issueId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:issue:technical-remedy", "sideZh": "权利人", "positionZh": "仅删除现有输出不足以制止可重复发生的生成行为。", "claimIds": [ "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:claim:relief" ], "documentIds": [ "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:document:judgment-transcript" ] }, { "id": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:issue:technical-remedy:position:service-provider", "issueId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:issue:technical-remedy", "sideZh": "服务商", "positionZh": "救济不应延伸到其未训练、也不能控制的底层模型数据。", "claimIds": [ "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:claim:training-limit" ], "documentIds": [ "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:document:judgment-transcript" ] } ] } ], "decisions": [ { "date": "2024-02-08", "outcomeZh": "原告部分胜诉。", "holdingsZh": [ "案涉输出侵犯奥特曼作品的复制权和改编权。", "对应用运营者未实施的底层模型训练，不以删除训练数据作为救济。" ], "reasoningZh": [ "测试生成结果与权利作品在角色形象表达上构成实质性相似。", "停止措施应依据服务商在产品层能够采取的技术手段确定。" ], "reliefZh": "采取技术措施停止侵权；赔偿经济损失及合理费用合计人民币 1 万元。", "scopeAndLimitsZh": "普通一审民事判决，仅具说服性；结论针对案内输出、控制能力和证据，不等于认定所有模型训练均侵权。", "precedentialWeight": "persuasive", "appealStatusZh": "公开材料未见上诉裁判。", "id": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:decision:first-instance", "matterId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc", "proceedingId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:proceeding:first-instance", "eventId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:event:judgment", "documentIds": [ "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:document:judgment-transcript" ], "claimIds": [ "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:claim:holding", "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:claim:relief", "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:claim:training-limit" ] } ], "issueDocumentLinks": [ { "id": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:issue-document:eu-analysis-output", "matterId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc", "issueId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:issue:output-infringement", "documentId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:document:eu-analysis", "relationship": "direct-case-analysis", "relevanceSummaryZh": "欧盟委员会知识产权帮助台从比较视角概括本案输出侵权和服务商责任，不作为程序状态证据。", "viewpoint": "descriptive", "confidence": 0.95, "assignedBy": "editor" }, { "id": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:issue-document:eu-analysis-remedy", "matterId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc", "issueId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:issue:technical-remedy", "documentId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:document:eu-analysis", "relationship": "comparative-authority", "relevanceSummaryZh": "该评论讨论关键词过滤、训练数据删除与责任边界，可帮助比较救济范围。", "viewpoint": "mixed", "confidence": 0.9, "assignedBy": "editor" }, { "id": "issue-document-matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc-matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:issue:output-infringement-knowledge-generative-ai-meets-copyright", "matterId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc", "issueId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:issue:output-infringement", "documentId": "knowledge-generative-ai-meets-copyright", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "用于概览生成式 AI 版权诉讼的主要请求与尚未形成定论的合理使用问题。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 2 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "descriptive", "confidence": 0.9, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "issue-document-matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc-matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:issue:output-infringement-knowledge-authors-and-machines", "matterId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc", "issueId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:issue:output-infringement", "documentId": "knowledge-authors-and-machines", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "提供以构思和执行衡量人类作者贡献的框架，可比较不同提示、选择和编辑行为。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 2 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "descriptive", "confidence": 0.9, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "news-context-link-matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc-matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:issue:output-infringement-news-context-ai-liability-ip-harms", "matterId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc", "issueId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:issue:output-infringement", "documentId": "news-context-ai-liability-ip-harms", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "用于比较生成式 AI 供应链中训练复制、近似输出、元数据去除、商标和公开权的不同责任入口。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 4 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "mixed", "confidence": 0.95, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "issue-document-matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc-matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:issue:technical-remedy-knowledge-copyright-safety-generative-ai", "matterId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc", "issueId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:issue:technical-remedy", "documentId": "knowledge-copyright-safety-generative-ai", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为模型记忆、角色复现、训练去重与输出过滤等争议提供版权和工程交叉背景。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 2 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "mixed", "confidence": 0.9, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "news-context-link-matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc-matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:issue:technical-remedy-news-context-ai-liability-ip-harms", "matterId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc", "issueId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:issue:technical-remedy", "documentId": "news-context-ai-liability-ip-harms", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "用于比较生成式 AI 供应链中训练复制、近似输出、元数据去除、商标和公开权的不同责任入口。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 3 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "mixed", "confidence": 0.95, "assignedBy": "rule" } ] }, "issueDocuments": [ { "link": { "id": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:issue-document:eu-analysis-output", "matterId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc", "issueId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:issue:output-infringement", "documentId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:document:eu-analysis", "relationship": "direct-case-analysis", "relevanceSummaryZh": "欧盟委员会知识产权帮助台从比较视角概括本案输出侵权和服务商责任，不作为程序状态证据。", "viewpoint": "descriptive", "confidence": 0.95, "assignedBy": "editor" }, "document": { "title": "中国奥特曼 AI 案：生成式 AI 服务商版权责任", "originalTitle": "Ultraman AI Case in China: Defining Copyright Liability for Generative AI Providers", "url": "https://intellectual-property-helpdesk.ec.europa.eu/news-events/news/ultraman-ai-case-china-defining-copyright-liability-generative-ai-providers-2025-02-18_en", "kind": "professional-commentary", "sourceId": "eu-ip-helpdesk", "publishedAt": "2025-02-18", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "id": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:document:eu-analysis", "familyId": "family-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc-eu-analysis", "matterId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc", "identifiers": { "docketNumber": "（2024）粤0192民初113号" }, "language": "en" } }, { "link": { "id": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:issue-document:eu-analysis-remedy", "matterId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc", "issueId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:issue:technical-remedy", "documentId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:document:eu-analysis", "relationship": "comparative-authority", "relevanceSummaryZh": "该评论讨论关键词过滤、训练数据删除与责任边界，可帮助比较救济范围。", "viewpoint": "mixed", "confidence": 0.9, "assignedBy": "editor" }, "document": { "title": "中国奥特曼 AI 案：生成式 AI 服务商版权责任", "originalTitle": "Ultraman AI Case in China: Defining Copyright Liability for Generative AI Providers", "url": "https://intellectual-property-helpdesk.ec.europa.eu/news-events/news/ultraman-ai-case-china-defining-copyright-liability-generative-ai-providers-2025-02-18_en", "kind": "professional-commentary", "sourceId": "eu-ip-helpdesk", "publishedAt": "2025-02-18", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "id": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:document:eu-analysis", "familyId": "family-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc-eu-analysis", "matterId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc", "identifiers": { "docketNumber": "（2024）粤0192民初113号" }, "language": "en" } }, { "link": { "id": "issue-document-matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc-matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:issue:output-infringement-knowledge-generative-ai-meets-copyright", "matterId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc", "issueId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:issue:output-infringement", "documentId": "knowledge-generative-ai-meets-copyright", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "用于概览生成式 AI 版权诉讼的主要请求与尚未形成定论的合理使用问题。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 2 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "descriptive", "confidence": 0.9, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "knowledge-generative-ai-meets-copyright", "familyId": "knowledge-family-generative-ai-meets-copyright", "title": "生成式 AI 遇上版权法", "originalTitle": "Generative AI Meets Copyright", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adi0656", "kind": "academic-research", "sourceId": "science", "publishedAt": "2023-07-14", "author": "Pamela Samuelson", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": { "doi": "10.1126/science.adi0656" }, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "概述生成式 AI 训练与输出引发的版权诉讼路径，强调合理使用是逐案判断，正在进行的案件会同时影响开发者、部署者和普通使用者。", "venue": "Science 381(6654): 158–161", "publisher": "American Association for the Advancement of Science", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": true }, "stableIdentifier": { "kind": "doi", "value": "10.1126/science.adi0656" }, "legalTopics": [ "copyright" ], "aiRoles": [ "training-data", "model-output" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "issue-document-matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc-matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:issue:output-infringement-knowledge-authors-and-machines", "matterId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc", "issueId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:issue:output-infringement", "documentId": "knowledge-authors-and-machines", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "提供以构思和执行衡量人类作者贡献的框架，可比较不同提示、选择和编辑行为。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 2 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "descriptive", "confidence": 0.9, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "knowledge-authors-and-machines", "familyId": "knowledge-family-authors-and-machines", "title": "作者与机器", "originalTitle": "Authors and Machines", "url": "https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38SF2MC24", "kind": "academic-research", "sourceId": "berkeley-technology-law-journal", "publishedAt": "2019", "author": "Jane C. Ginsburg; Luke Ali Budiardjo", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": { "doi": "10.15779/Z38SF2MC24" }, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "以作品构思和执行为两项支柱分析机器辅助创作，主张关键问题不是机器能否成为作者，而是设计者或使用者的人类贡献是否足以构成作者身份。", "venue": "Berkeley Technology Law Journal 34(2): 343–448", "publisher": "Berkeley Technology Law Journal", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "stableIdentifier": { "kind": "doi", "value": "10.15779/Z38SF2MC24" }, "legalTopics": [ "copyright" ], "aiRoles": [ "model-output", "agentic-action" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "news-context-link-matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc-matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:issue:output-infringement-news-context-ai-liability-ip-harms", "matterId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc", "issueId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:issue:output-infringement", "documentId": "news-context-ai-liability-ip-harms", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "用于比较生成式 AI 供应链中训练复制、近似输出、元数据去除、商标和公开权的不同责任入口。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 4 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "mixed", "confidence": 0.95, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "news-context-ai-liability-ip-harms", "familyId": "news-family-ai-liability-ip-harms", "title": "AI 造成知识产权损害时，责任如何分配", "originalTitle": "AI Liability for Intellectual Property Harms", "url": "https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/ai-liability-for-intellectual-property-harms", "kind": "professional-commentary", "sourceId": "lawfare", "publishedAt": "2024-09-23", "author": "Katrina Geddes", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": {}, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "文章分别分析未经许可训练、近似输出、版权管理信息、商标和形象商业利用，强调开发者、部署者与用户的责任不能用一个统一答案概括。", "venue": "Lawfare", "publisher": "Lawfare Institute", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "editorialSummaryZh": "这篇评论把训练、输出和传播链条拆开，说明同一生成内容可能同时触发版权、商标与人格商业利用争议；它提供责任分配框架，不代表法院已经采纳其中结论。", "legalTopics": [ "copyright", "trademark", "personality-deepfake", "platform-liability" ], "aiRoles": [ "training-data", "model-output", "deepfake" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "issue-document-matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc-matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:issue:technical-remedy-knowledge-copyright-safety-generative-ai", "matterId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc", "issueId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:issue:technical-remedy", "documentId": "knowledge-copyright-safety-generative-ai", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为模型记忆、角色复现、训练去重与输出过滤等争议提供版权和工程交叉背景。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 2 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "mixed", "confidence": 0.9, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "knowledge-copyright-safety-generative-ai", "familyId": "knowledge-family-copyright-safety-generative-ai", "title": "生成式 AI 的版权安全", "originalTitle": "Copyright Safety for Generative AI", "url": "https://houstonlawreview.org/article/92126-copyright-safety-for-generative-ai", "kind": "academic-research", "sourceId": "houston-law-review", "publishedAt": "2023-12-11", "author": "Matthew Sag", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": {}, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "区分通常的非表达性训练与模型记忆、近似复现等边缘风险，并提出去重、训练记录、敏感提示处理和输出过滤等版权安全措施。", "venue": "Houston Law Review 61: 295", "publisher": "Houston Law Review", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "stableIdentifier": { "kind": "publisher-record", "value": "houston-law-review:61:2:295" }, "legalTopics": [ "copyright", "platform-liability" ], "aiRoles": [ "training-data", "model-output" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "news-context-link-matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc-matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:issue:technical-remedy-news-context-ai-liability-ip-harms", "matterId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc", "issueId": "matter-cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc:issue:technical-remedy", "documentId": "news-context-ai-liability-ip-harms", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "用于比较生成式 AI 供应链中训练复制、近似输出、元数据去除、商标和公开权的不同责任入口。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 3 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "mixed", "confidence": 0.95, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "news-context-ai-liability-ip-harms", "familyId": "news-family-ai-liability-ip-harms", "title": "AI 造成知识产权损害时，责任如何分配", "originalTitle": "AI Liability for Intellectual Property Harms", "url": "https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/ai-liability-for-intellectual-property-harms", "kind": "professional-commentary", "sourceId": "lawfare", "publishedAt": "2024-09-23", "author": "Katrina Geddes", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": {}, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "文章分别分析未经许可训练、近似输出、版权管理信息、商标和形象商业利用，强调开发者、部署者与用户的责任不能用一个统一答案概括。", "venue": "Lawfare", "publisher": "Lawfare Institute", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "editorialSummaryZh": "这篇评论把训练、输出和传播链条拆开，说明同一生成内容可能同时触发版权、商标与人格商业利用争议；它提供责任分配框架，不代表法院已经采纳其中结论。", "legalTopics": [ "copyright", "trademark", "personality-deepfake", "platform-liability" ], "aiRoles": [ "training-data", "model-output", "deepfake" ] } } ], "sources": [ { "id": "china-ip-lawyer", "slug": "china-ip-lawyer", "name": "China IP Lawyer", "nativeName": "知产宝 / 中国知识产权律师网", "homepage": "https://www.ciplawyer.cn/", "type": "legal-database", "grade": "B", "primaryOrSecondary": "mixed", "score": { "traceability": 23, "corrections": 14, "ownershipTransparency": 17, "expertise": 18, "historicalAccuracy": 11, "total": 83 }, "rationale": "提供具备案号和裁判结构的文书转录及专业案例整理；转录可用于定位和交叉核对，但程序状态优先采用法院自有发布。", "methodologyVersion": "1.0", "reviewedAt": "2026-07-16" }, { "id": "eu-ip-helpdesk", "slug": "eu-ip-helpdesk", "name": "European IP Helpdesk", "nativeName": "European Commission European IP Helpdesk", "homepage": "https://intellectual-property-helpdesk.ec.europa.eu/", "type": "government", "grade": "B", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "score": { "traceability": 23, "corrections": 17, "ownershipTransparency": 20, "expertise": 15, "historicalAccuracy": 8, "total": 83 }, "rationale": "欧盟委员会知识产权服务的公开案例解读，机构与作者责任明确；其中国案件摘要按二手专业评论展示。", "methodologyVersion": "1.0", "reviewedAt": "2026-07-16" }, { "id": "science", "slug": "science", "name": "Science", "homepage": "https://www.science.org/", "type": "academic", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "rationale": "AAAS 出版的学术期刊，具有 DOI、作者和卷期记录；评论栏目不自动标记为同行评审研究。", "grade": "A", "score": { "traceability": 25, "corrections": 19, "ownershipTransparency": 20, "expertise": 20, "historicalAccuracy": 15, "total": 99 }, "methodologyVersion": "1.0", "reviewedAt": "2026-07-16" }, { "id": "berkeley-technology-law-journal", "slug": "berkeley-technology-law-journal", "name": "Berkeley Technology Law Journal", "homepage": "https://btlj.org/", "type": "academic", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "rationale": "学生编辑科技法评论，由 Berkeley Law 保存稳定卷期和仓储记录。", "grade": "A", "score": { "traceability": 24, "corrections": 16, "ownershipTransparency": 18, "expertise": 18, "historicalAccuracy": 12, "total": 88 }, "methodologyVersion": "1.0", "reviewedAt": "2026-07-16" }, { "id": "lawfare", "slug": "lawfare", "name": "Lawfare", "homepage": "https://www.lawfaremedia.org/", "type": "newsroom", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "rationale": "作者和编辑准则公开，长期提供国家安全、平台治理和科技法分析；具体案件结论仍回溯官方材料。", "grade": "A", "score": { "traceability": 23, "corrections": 18, "ownershipTransparency": 19, "expertise": 19, "historicalAccuracy": 13, "total": 92 }, "methodologyVersion": "1.0", "reviewedAt": "2026-07-16", "ingestion": { "feedEnabled": false, "feedUrl": null, "verification": "not-verified", "allowedUse": "discovery-metadata-and-deep-links" } }, { "id": "houston-law-review", "slug": "houston-law-review", "name": "Houston Law Review", "homepage": "https://houstonlawreview.org/", "type": "academic", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "rationale": "学生编辑法学评论，文章页提供卷期、引注、作者和公开全文；观点按学术评论展示。", "grade": "A", "score": { "traceability": 24, "corrections": 16, "ownershipTransparency": 18, "expertise": 17, "historicalAccuracy": 12, "total": 87 }, "methodologyVersion": "1.0", "reviewedAt": "2026-07-16" } ], "canonicalUrl": "/cases/cn-guangzhou-ultraman-aigc" }