{ "schemaVersion": "2.0", "generatedAt": "2026-09-12T13:44:57.261Z", "compatibility": { "legacyMatterFieldsRetained": true, "issueDocumentsAreNotTimelineEvents": true }, "matter": { "id": "matter-22", "slug": "tencent-v-yingxun-dreamwriter", "titleZh": "腾讯 Dreamwriter 自动写作著作权案", "formalName": "Shenzhen Tencent Computer Systems Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Yingxun Technology Co., Ltd.", "aliases": [ "Dreamwriter case", "腾讯机器人写稿案" ], "summary": "深圳市南山区法院认定，一篇由 Dreamwriter 辅助生成、体现团队安排与选择的财经报道构成法人作品，未经许可转载构成侵权。", "professionalSummary": "（2019）粤0305民初14010号强调涉案文章生成流程中人员的选择、数据输入和表达安排；裁判并未把软件本身认定为作者。", "whyItMatters": "它较早展示了自动化内容生产中的人类组织、法人作者与作品认定路径。", "status": "decided", "primaryTopic": "copyright", "secondaryTopics": [ "platform-liability" ], "aiRoles": [ "model-output", "automated-decision" ], "jurisdiction": "中国·深圳市南山区人民法院", "industries": [ "新闻媒体", "金融信息" ], "significance": { "legalNovelty": 26, "impactScope": 20, "institutionalLevel": 14, "crossBorder": 7, "sustainedCoverage": 13, "total": 80 }, "highProfile": true, "featured": false, "firstPublishedAt": "2026-07-15", "lastUpdatedAt": "2026-07-16", "proceedings": [ { "id": "matter-22:proceeding-1", "matterId": "matter-22", "formalName": "Shenzhen Tencent Computer Systems Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Yingxun Technology Co., Ltd.", "identifier": "（2019）粤0305民初14010号", "identifiers": { "docketNumber": "（2019）粤0305民初14010号" }, "forum": "深圳市南山区人民法院", "jurisdiction": "中国·深圳市南山区人民法院", "type": "civil-litigation", "stage": "judgment", "status": "decided", "startedAt": "2019-12-24", "precedentialWeight": "persuasive", "officialUrl": "https://english.court.gov.cn/2020-01/09/c_761820.htm" } ], "events": [ { "id": "matter-22:event-1", "matterId": "matter-22", "proceedingId": "matter-22:proceeding-1", "date": "2019-12-24", "type": "judgment", "title": "法院判决自动生成财经报道受保护", "summary": "南山区法院认定涉案文章构成由原告主持创作的法人作品；该结论针对案内具体生成流程。", "documentIds": [ "matter-22:document-1" ], "claimIds": [ "matter-22:claim-1", "matter-22:claim-procedure", "matter-22:claim-event" ] } ], "documents": [ { "id": "matter-22:document-1", "familyId": "matter-22:family-1", "matterId": "matter-22", "eventId": "matter-22:event-1", "title": "Court rules AI-written article has copyright", "originalTitle": "Court rules AI-written article has copyright", "url": "https://english.court.gov.cn/2020-01/09/c_761820.htm", "kind": "official-document", "sourceId": "china-courts", "publishedAt": "2019-12-24", "primaryOrSecondary": "primary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": { "docketNumber": "（2019）粤0305民初14010号" }, "language": "zh-CN" } ], "claims": [ { "id": "matter-22:claim-1", "matterId": "matter-22", "eventId": "matter-22:event-1", "text": "南山区法院认定涉案文章构成由原告主持创作的法人作品；该结论针对案内具体生成流程。", "kind": "legal-holding", "status": "confirmed", "documentIds": [ "matter-22:document-1" ], "asOf": "2019-12-24" }, { "id": "matter-22:claim-procedure", "matterId": "matter-22", "eventId": "matter-22:event-1", "text": "（2019）粤0305民初14010号 是本站记录的正式程序编号，程序由 深圳市南山区人民法院 处理。", "kind": "procedural-fact", "status": "confirmed", "documentIds": [ "matter-22:document-1" ], "asOf": "2019-12-24" }, { "id": "matter-22:claim-event", "matterId": "matter-22", "eventId": "matter-22:event-1", "text": "2019-12-24，案卷记录“法院判决自动生成财经报道受保护”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-22:document-1" ], "asOf": "2019-12-24" } ], "caseBackground": { "narrativeZh": "腾讯使用 Dreamwriter 自动化系统生产财经报道，生成流程包含团队安排、数据输入、选择和表达组织。上海盈讯转载其中一篇报道后，腾讯在（2019）粤0305民初14010号中主张该文属于其法人作品并受到侵害。", "partiesZh": [ "原告：深圳市腾讯计算机系统有限公司", "被告：上海盈讯科技有限公司" ], "aiSystemZh": "Dreamwriter 自动写作系统", "challengedConductZh": "盈讯未经许可转载由 Dreamwriter 生产的案涉财经报道。", "allegedHarmZh": "腾讯主张其法人作品被未经许可复制和传播。", "proceduralOriginZh": "腾讯向深圳市南山区人民法院提起著作权民事诉讼；法院于 2019 年 12 月 24 日作出判决。", "claimIds": [ "matter-22:claim-1", "matter-22:claim-procedure", "matter-22:claim-event" ], "documentIds": [ "matter-22:document-1" ] }, "issues": [ { "id": "matter-22:issue-corporate-work", "matterId": "matter-22", "titleZh": "自动生成报道能否构成法人作品", "questionZh": "Dreamwriter 生成的财经报道在何种人类组织与控制下可以构成由腾讯主持创作的法人作品？", "contextZh": "法院审查的不是软件能否成为作者，而是团队安排、输入和表达选择能否使文章的创作成果归属于法人。", "topic": "copyright", "status": "resolved", "courtTreatmentZh": "南山区法院认定涉案文章的具体生成流程体现人员选择、数据输入和表达安排，构成由腾讯主持创作的法人作品。", "claimIds": [ "matter-22:claim-1" ], "positions": [ { "id": "matter-22:issue-corporate-work:position-1", "issueId": "matter-22:issue-corporate-work", "sideZh": "原告腾讯", "positionZh": "主张团队对自动写作流程的安排和控制使涉案财经报道成为其法人作品。", "claimIds": [ "matter-22:claim-1" ], "documentIds": [ "matter-22:document-1" ] }, { "id": "matter-22:issue-corporate-work:position-2", "issueId": "matter-22:issue-corporate-work", "sideZh": "被告盈讯", "positionZh": "现有底库未记录盈讯针对法人作品成立要件提出的具体答辩。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "matter-22:issue-software-authorship", "matterId": "matter-22", "titleZh": "自动写作软件与作者身份", "questionZh": "Dreamwriter 软件本身是否因生成文章而成为作者？", "contextZh": "自动化程度可能影响创作投入的证明，但不当然改变作者必须是法律主体的分析。", "topic": "copyright", "status": "resolved", "courtTreatmentZh": "法院没有把 Dreamwriter 软件认定为作者，而是把作品归属建立在人类团队和法人主持的生成流程上。", "claimIds": [ "matter-22:claim-1" ], "positions": [ { "id": "matter-22:issue-software-authorship:position-1", "issueId": "matter-22:issue-software-authorship", "sideZh": "法院确认的分析路径", "positionZh": "软件是内容生产工具，作品资格与权利归属取决于人类和法人的组织投入。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] }, { "id": "matter-22:issue-software-authorship:position-2", "issueId": "matter-22:issue-software-authorship", "sideZh": "其他当事方", "positionZh": "底库未记录任何当事方主张 Dreamwriter 软件自身应成为作者。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "matter-22:issue-republication", "matterId": "matter-22", "titleZh": "未经许可转载自动生成报道", "questionZh": "盈讯转载案涉财经报道是否侵害腾讯的著作权？", "contextZh": "转载责任取决于案涉报道先被认定为受保护作品及腾讯享有相应权利。", "topic": "copyright", "status": "resolved", "courtTreatmentZh": "法院认定未经许可转载案涉报道构成侵权。", "claimIds": [ "matter-22:claim-1" ], "positions": [ { "id": "matter-22:issue-republication:position-1", "issueId": "matter-22:issue-republication", "sideZh": "原告腾讯", "positionZh": "主张盈讯未经许可转载其法人作品。", "claimIds": [ "matter-22:claim-1" ], "documentIds": [ "matter-22:document-1" ] }, { "id": "matter-22:issue-republication:position-2", "issueId": "matter-22:issue-republication", "sideZh": "被告盈讯", "positionZh": "现有底库未记录其对转载授权或侵权成立的具体答辩。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] } ] } ], "decisions": [ { "id": "matter-22:decision-1", "matterId": "matter-22", "proceedingId": "matter-22:proceeding-1", "eventId": "matter-22:event-1", "date": "2019-12-24", "outcomeZh": "深圳市南山区人民法院判定 Dreamwriter 生成的案涉财经报道构成腾讯主持创作的法人作品，并认定盈讯未经许可转载构成侵权。", "holdingsZh": [ "团队的选择、数据输入和表达安排使案涉文章具备可归属于腾讯的创作基础。", "Dreamwriter 软件未被认定为作者。", "未经许可转载受保护的案涉文章构成侵权。" ], "reasoningZh": [ "法院把自动化生成流程拆解为人员安排、输入和表达选择，依据这些具体的人类与组织投入判断作品属性。", "作品由自动化系统输出并不排除保护，但保护来自案内可识别的创作组织，而非软件自身资格。" ], "reliefZh": "底库确认法院判定转载侵权，但未列明赔偿数额或其他具体救济，故不补写未收录内容。", "scopeAndLimitsZh": "裁判只评价 Dreamwriter 在本案所呈现的生产流程，不等于所有自动生成文本均当然属于法人作品。", "precedentialWeight": "persuasive", "appealStatusZh": "底库只收录南山区法院判决，未记录上诉或改判；该中国普通民事裁判作为说服性材料展示。", "documentIds": [ "matter-22:document-1" ], "claimIds": [ "matter-22:claim-1" ] } ], "issueDocumentLinks": [ { "id": "issue-document-matter-22-matter-22:issue-corporate-work-knowledge-authors-and-machines", "matterId": "matter-22", "issueId": "matter-22:issue-corporate-work", "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 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": "issue-document-matter-22-matter-22:issue-software-authorship-knowledge-authors-and-machines", "matterId": "matter-22", "issueId": "matter-22:issue-software-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 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": "issue-document-matter-22-matter-22:issue-republication-knowledge-generative-ai-meets-copyright", "matterId": "matter-22", "issueId": "matter-22:issue-republication", "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-22-matter-22:issue-republication-news-context-ai-liability-ip-harms", "matterId": "matter-22", "issueId": "matter-22:issue-republication", "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-22-matter-22:issue-corporate-work-knowledge-authors-and-machines", "matterId": "matter-22", "issueId": "matter-22:issue-corporate-work", "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 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-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-22-matter-22:issue-software-authorship-knowledge-authors-and-machines", "matterId": "matter-22", "issueId": "matter-22:issue-software-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 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-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-22-matter-22:issue-republication-knowledge-generative-ai-meets-copyright", "matterId": "matter-22", "issueId": "matter-22:issue-republication", "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-22-matter-22:issue-republication-news-context-ai-liability-ip-harms", "matterId": "matter-22", "issueId": "matter-22:issue-republication", "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": "china-courts", "slug": "china-courts", "name": "Supreme People's Court of China", "homepage": "https://english.court.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/tencent-v-yingxun-dreamwriter" }