美國法官裁定人工智慧創作的作品不符合版權保護資格

This decision is timely given the widespread fear of generative AI.

鑑於人們對生成式人工智慧的普遍恐懼，這項決定是及時的。

Judge Howell stressed the importance of human authorship under copyright law.

豪厄爾法官強調了版權法下人類作者身份的重要性。

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell has ruled that works fully created by artificial intelligence are not eligible for copyright protection. Thus, upholding the view of the U.S. Copyright Office. This decision is timely given the widespread fear that generative AI may one day replace human creators in fields like art and other similar fields.

美國地區法官貝麗爾·豪厄爾（Beryl Howell）裁定，完全由人工智慧創作的作品不符合版權保護資格。因此，支持美國版權局的觀點。鑑於人們普遍擔心生成式人工智慧有一天可能會在藝術和其他類似領域取代人類創造者，這項決定是及時的。

Concerns about AI eventually taking over scriptwriting have intensified as the writer’s strike has stretched on for more than a hundred days. But intellectual property law has always held that copyrights are exclusively given for human-made works.

隨著編劇罷工持續一百多天，人們對人工智慧最終接管劇本創作的擔憂加劇。但智慧財產權法一直認為版權專屬於人造作品。

Human Authorship

人類作者身份

Stephen Thaler challenged the governing body’s reluctance to register AI-generated works in court. Imagination Engines’ CEO and neural network expert, Thaler, believes that AI should be given authorship credit when it achieves the necessary standards. Therefore, the person who owns the machine should be considered the owner of the product.

史蒂芬‧塞勒 (Stephen Thaler) 對管理機構不願在法庭上註冊人工智慧生成的作品提出質疑。 Imagination Engines 的執行長兼神經網路專家 Thaler 認為，當人工智慧達到必要的標準時，就應該給予作者署名權。因此，擁有機器的人應被視為產品的所有者。

However, Judge Howell ruled otherwise, stressing the importance of human authorship under copyright law. She referred to earlier precedents that ruled that only human authors’ unique ideas deserved legal protection.

然而，豪厄爾法官卻做出了相反的裁決，強調版權法下人類作者的重要性。她提到了早期的先例，這些先例規定，只有人類作者的獨特想法才值得法律保護。

Judge Howell explained the rationale for copyright legislation, noting that it is meant to inspire people to create. She pointed out that the governing body was originally founded to safeguard copyrights and patents because it was believed that granting people exclusive rights in these areas would encourage innovation in various fields. As courts debate whether or not it is permissible for AI corporations to train their algorithms on copyrighted works, this decision is timely.

豪厄爾法官解釋了版權立法的基本原理，指出它的目的是激勵人們創造。她指出，該管理機構最初成立的目的是為了保護版權和專利，因為人們相信授予人們在這些領域的專屬權將鼓勵各個領域的創新。當法院爭論是否允許人工智慧公司在受版權保護的作品上訓練其演算法時，這項決定是及時的。

Highlighted Crypto News Today:

今日重點加密新聞：

Key Dogecoin Developer Hints at Exit Amid Concerns Over Proof-of-Stake

由於對權益證明的擔憂，狗狗幣主要開發商暗示退出