{ "schemaVersion": "2.0", "generatedAt": "2026-09-12T13:44:57.260Z", "compatibility": { "legacyMatterFieldsRetained": true, "issueDocumentsAreNotTimelineEvents": true }, "matter": { "id": "matter-21", "slug": "li-v-liu-ai-image", "titleZh": "李某诉刘某 AI 文生图著作权案", "formalName": "Li v. Liu — AI-generated image copyright case", "aliases": [ "北京互联网法院 AI 文生图案", "春风送来了温柔" ], "summary": "北京互联网法院认定，用户通过提示词选择、调整和反复生成形成的案涉图片体现了自然人的独创性智力投入，可构成作品；被告转载构成侵权。", "professionalSummary": "（2023）京0491民初11279号把判断焦点放在人类对表达的控制与个性化选择，并明确 AI 模型本身不能成为中国著作权法上的作者。", "whyItMatters": "它是中国首批正面承认特定 AI 辅助生成图片受著作权保护的公开判决。", "status": "decided", "primaryTopic": "copyright", "secondaryTopics": [], "aiRoles": [ "model-output" ], "jurisdiction": "中国·北京互联网法院", "industries": [ "视觉艺术", "生成式 AI" ], "significance": { "legalNovelty": 29, "impactScope": 22, "institutionalLevel": 17, "crossBorder": 8, "sustainedCoverage": 14, "total": 90 }, "highProfile": true, "featured": true, "firstPublishedAt": "2026-07-15", "lastUpdatedAt": "2026-07-16", "proceedings": [ { "id": "matter-21:proceeding-1", "matterId": "matter-21", "formalName": "Li v. Liu — AI-generated image copyright case", "identifier": "（2023）京0491民初11279号", "identifiers": { "docketNumber": "（2023）京0491民初11279号" }, "forum": "北京互联网法院", "jurisdiction": "中国·北京互联网法院", "type": "civil-litigation", "stage": "judgment", "status": "decided", "startedAt": "2023-11-27", "precedentialWeight": "persuasive", "officialUrl": "https://english.bjinternetcourt.gov.cn/pdf/BeijingInternetCourtCivilJudgment112792023.pdf" } ], "events": [ { "id": "matter-21:event-1", "matterId": "matter-21", "proceedingId": "matter-21:proceeding-1", "date": "2023-11-27", "type": "judgment", "title": "法院认定案涉 AI 辅助生成图片构成作品", "summary": "北京互联网法院认定案涉图片体现原告的独创性智力投入并构成美术作品，同时指出 AI 模型不能成为作者。", "documentIds": [ "matter-21:document-1" ], "claimIds": [ "matter-21:claim-1", "matter-21:claim-procedure", "matter-21:claim-event" ] } ], "documents": [ { "id": "matter-21:document-1", "familyId": "matter-21:family-1", "matterId": "matter-21", "eventId": "matter-21:event-1", "title": "Beijing Internet Court Civil Judgment 11279/2023", "originalTitle": "Beijing Internet Court Civil Judgment 11279/2023", "url": "https://english.bjinternetcourt.gov.cn/pdf/BeijingInternetCourtCivilJudgment112792023.pdf", "kind": "official-document", "sourceId": "beijing-internet-court", "publishedAt": "2023-11-27", "primaryOrSecondary": "primary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": { "docketNumber": "（2023）京0491民初11279号" }, "language": "zh-CN" } ], "claims": [ { "id": "matter-21:claim-1", "matterId": "matter-21", "eventId": "matter-21:event-1", "text": "北京互联网法院认定案涉图片体现原告的独创性智力投入并构成美术作品，同时指出 AI 模型不能成为作者。", "kind": "legal-holding", "status": "confirmed", "documentIds": [ "matter-21:document-1" ], "asOf": "2023-11-27" }, { "id": "matter-21:claim-procedure", "matterId": "matter-21", "eventId": "matter-21:event-1", "text": "（2023）京0491民初11279号 是本站记录的正式程序编号，程序由 北京互联网法院 处理。", "kind": "procedural-fact", "status": "confirmed", "documentIds": [ "matter-21:document-1" ], "asOf": "2023-11-27" }, { "id": "matter-21:claim-event", "matterId": "matter-21", "eventId": "matter-21:event-1", "text": "2023-11-27，案卷记录“法院认定案涉 AI 辅助生成图片构成作品”这一程序节点；该日期与事件由所引直接材料支持。", "kind": "procedural-fact", "status": "confirmed", "documentIds": [ "matter-21:document-1" ], "asOf": "2023-11-27" } ], "caseBackground": { "narrativeZh": "原告李某通过选择、调整提示词并反复生成，取得案涉 AI 文生图图片；被告刘某随后转载该图片。北京互联网法院在（2023）京0491民初11279号中审查这种生成过程是否体现自然人的独创性智力投入，以及未经许可转载是否侵权。", "partiesZh": [ "原告：李某", "被告：刘某" ], "aiSystemZh": "接受用户提示词并生成图片的 AI 文生图工具", "challengedConductZh": "刘某转载李某经提示词选择、调整和反复生成所得的案涉图片。", "allegedHarmZh": "李某主张其对案涉图片享有著作权，未经许可转载侵害其权利。", "proceduralOriginZh": "李某向北京互联网法院提起著作权民事诉讼；法院于 2023 年 11 月 27 日作出一审判决。", "claimIds": [ "matter-21:claim-1", "matter-21:claim-procedure", "matter-21:claim-event" ], "documentIds": [ "matter-21:document-1" ] }, "issues": [ { "id": "matter-21:issue-human-authorship", "matterId": "matter-21", "titleZh": "提示词与生成过程中的人类创作投入", "questionZh": "用户选择、调整提示词并反复生成的过程，是否足以使最终图片体现自然人的独创性智力投入？", "contextZh": "本案没有把“AI 生成”本身当作作品成立或不成立的捷径，而是具体考察用户对表达形成所作的选择和调整。", "topic": "copyright", "status": "resolved", "courtTreatmentZh": "北京互联网法院认定案涉生成过程体现了原告的独创性智力投入，最终图片可以构成美术作品。", "claimIds": [ "matter-21:claim-1" ], "positions": [ { "id": "matter-21:issue-human-authorship:position-1", "issueId": "matter-21:issue-human-authorship", "sideZh": "原告李某", "positionZh": "以其提示词选择、调整及反复生成过程为基础，主张案涉图片体现其个人智力投入。", "claimIds": [ "matter-21:claim-1" ], "documentIds": [ "matter-21:document-1" ] }, { "id": "matter-21:issue-human-authorship:position-2", "issueId": "matter-21:issue-human-authorship", "sideZh": "被告刘某", "positionZh": "现有底库未记录刘某就原告生成过程和独创性提出的具体答辩，不据此补写其立场。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "matter-21:issue-model-as-author", "matterId": "matter-21", "titleZh": "AI 模型能否成为作者", "questionZh": "生成图片的 AI 模型本身能否成为中国著作权法上的作者？", "contextZh": "作品保护与作者身份必须分开判断：即使输出可受保护，也不意味着生成工具取得作者资格。", "topic": "copyright", "status": "resolved", "courtTreatmentZh": "法院明确 AI 模型不能成为著作权法上的作者，并将可归责的创作投入定位于自然人用户。", "claimIds": [ "matter-21:claim-1" ], "positions": [ { "id": "matter-21:issue-model-as-author:position-1", "issueId": "matter-21:issue-model-as-author", "sideZh": "法院确认的分析路径", "positionZh": "作者资格属于自然人；模型是生成图片的工具，而不是享有作者身份的主体。", "claimIds": [ "matter-21:claim-1" ], "documentIds": [ "matter-21:document-1" ] }, { "id": "matter-21:issue-model-as-author:position-2", "issueId": "matter-21:issue-model-as-author", "sideZh": "其他当事方", "positionZh": "现有底库未记录任何当事方主张由 AI 模型取得作者身份。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "matter-21:issue-unauthorized-reposting", "matterId": "matter-21", "titleZh": "转载生成图片是否侵权", "questionZh": "在案涉图片构成作品的前提下，刘某转载该图是否构成侵权？", "contextZh": "侵权判断建立在法院先确认图片受保护的基础上，针对的是案内具体转载行为。", "topic": "copyright", "status": "resolved", "courtTreatmentZh": "法院认定被告转载案涉图片构成著作权侵权。", "claimIds": [ "matter-21:claim-1" ], "positions": [ { "id": "matter-21:issue-unauthorized-reposting:position-1", "issueId": "matter-21:issue-unauthorized-reposting", "sideZh": "原告李某", "positionZh": "主张刘某未经许可转载其享有著作权的图片。", "claimIds": [ "matter-21:claim-1" ], "documentIds": [ "matter-21:document-1" ] }, { "id": "matter-21:issue-unauthorized-reposting:position-2", "issueId": "matter-21:issue-unauthorized-reposting", "sideZh": "被告刘某", "positionZh": "现有底库未记录刘某对转载行为或授权状态的具体答辩。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] } ] } ], "decisions": [ { "id": "matter-21:decision-1", "matterId": "matter-21", "proceedingId": "matter-21:proceeding-1", "eventId": "matter-21:event-1", "date": "2023-11-27", "outcomeZh": "北京互联网法院判定案涉 AI 辅助生成图片构成美术作品，并认定刘某转载构成侵权。", "holdingsZh": [ "用户对提示词的选择、调整和反复生成体现了可归于自然人的独创性智力投入。", "AI 模型不能成为中国著作权法上的作者。", "在案涉图片受保护的前提下，被告的转载行为构成侵权。" ], "reasoningZh": [ "法院以案内具体生成流程中的人类选择和控制为判断中心，而不是仅凭图片由 AI 工具生成作结论。", "作者资格与工具使用相区分：保护最终表达不等于赋予模型法律主体或作者地位。" ], "reliefZh": "现有底库确认法院判定转载侵权，但未记录赔偿数额或其他具体救济内容，因此本摘要不补写。", "scopeAndLimitsZh": "结论针对李某在本案中展示的提示词选择、调整和反复生成过程，不表示所有 AI 生成图片当然构成作品。", "precedentialWeight": "persuasive", "appealStatusZh": "底库仅收录北京互联网法院一审判决，未记录上诉或改判；前台按中国普通民事裁判的说服性材料展示。", "documentIds": [ "matter-21:document-1" ], "claimIds": [ "matter-21:claim-1" ] } ], "issueDocumentLinks": [ { "id": "issue-document-matter-21-matter-21:issue-human-authorship-knowledge-authors-and-machines", "matterId": "matter-21", "issueId": "matter-21:issue-human-authorship", "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 5 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "descriptive", "confidence": 0.9500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "issue-document-matter-21-matter-21:issue-model-as-author-knowledge-authors-and-machines", "matterId": "matter-21", "issueId": "matter-21:issue-model-as-author", "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 3 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "descriptive", "confidence": 0.9500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "issue-document-matter-21-matter-21:issue-model-as-author-knowledge-generative-ai-meets-copyright", "matterId": "matter-21", "issueId": "matter-21:issue-model-as-author", "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 1 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "descriptive", "confidence": 0.8500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "news-context-link-matter-21-matter-21:issue-model-as-author-news-context-ai-liability-ip-harms", "matterId": "matter-21", "issueId": "matter-21:issue-model-as-author", "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 2 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "mixed", "confidence": 0.9, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "issue-document-matter-21-matter-21:issue-unauthorized-reposting-knowledge-authors-and-machines", "matterId": "matter-21", "issueId": "matter-21:issue-unauthorized-reposting", "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": "issue-document-matter-21-matter-21:issue-unauthorized-reposting-knowledge-generative-ai-meets-copyright", "matterId": "matter-21", "issueId": "matter-21:issue-unauthorized-reposting", "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 1 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "descriptive", "confidence": 0.8500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "news-context-link-matter-21-matter-21:issue-unauthorized-reposting-news-context-ai-liability-ip-harms", "matterId": "matter-21", "issueId": "matter-21:issue-unauthorized-reposting", "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 2 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "mixed", "confidence": 0.9, "assignedBy": "rule" } ] }, "issueDocuments": [ { "link": { "id": "issue-document-matter-21-matter-21:issue-human-authorship-knowledge-authors-and-machines", "matterId": "matter-21", "issueId": "matter-21:issue-human-authorship", "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 5 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "descriptive", "confidence": 0.9500000000000001, "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": "issue-document-matter-21-matter-21:issue-model-as-author-knowledge-authors-and-machines", "matterId": "matter-21", "issueId": "matter-21:issue-model-as-author", "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 3 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "descriptive", "confidence": 0.9500000000000001, "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": "issue-document-matter-21-matter-21:issue-model-as-author-knowledge-generative-ai-meets-copyright", "matterId": "matter-21", "issueId": "matter-21:issue-model-as-author", "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 1 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "descriptive", "confidence": 0.8500000000000001, "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": "news-context-link-matter-21-matter-21:issue-model-as-author-news-context-ai-liability-ip-harms", "matterId": "matter-21", "issueId": "matter-21:issue-model-as-author", "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 2 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "mixed", "confidence": 0.9, "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-21-matter-21:issue-unauthorized-reposting-knowledge-authors-and-machines", "matterId": "matter-21", "issueId": "matter-21:issue-unauthorized-reposting", "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": "issue-document-matter-21-matter-21:issue-unauthorized-reposting-knowledge-generative-ai-meets-copyright", "matterId": "matter-21", "issueId": "matter-21:issue-unauthorized-reposting", "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 1 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "descriptive", "confidence": 0.8500000000000001, "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": "news-context-link-matter-21-matter-21:issue-unauthorized-reposting-news-context-ai-liability-ip-harms", "matterId": "matter-21", "issueId": "matter-21:issue-unauthorized-reposting", "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 2 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "mixed", "confidence": 0.9, "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": "beijing-internet-court", "slug": "beijing-internet-court", "name": "Beijing Internet Court", "homepage": "https://english.bjinternetcourt.gov.cn/", "type": "court", "grade": "A", "primaryOrSecondary": "primary", "score": { "traceability": 25, "corrections": 18, "ownershipTransparency": 20, "expertise": 20, "historicalAccuracy": 15, "total": 98 }, "rationale": "法院、政府或监管机构自有发布渠道；程序状态以其正式文书与登记信息为准。", "methodologyVersion": "1.0", "reviewedAt": "2026-07-15" }, { "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": "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": "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" } } ], "canonicalUrl": "/cases/li-v-liu-ai-image" }