論用戶主張AIGC版權的“最低限度創造性標準”

AIGC的特定表達細節可以被視為用戶的貢獻，因為它是用戶對AI的內容生成潛力加以個性化固定的結果。AI並非純粹的消極工具，但其非消極性為人所欲、忠人之事，應當被理解為AI作為工具的優勢而不是貶低人類貢獻的理由。用戶利用AI生成文藝內容的行為與委託或者提供被演繹內容的行為缺乏可比性，因而不能機械地套用後兩種行為的默認規範來進行評價。針對作品和作者的解釋方案應當在不違背法律文本的前提下盡可能實現良好的政策效果。“較低貢獻對應薄版權、較高貢獻對應厚版權”乃界權成本收益分析在版權領域的體現，在AI時代無需也不應改變。針對創作激勵與公眾自由平衡這一目標，核心在於確保知識產權的保護程度與權利人的實際貢獻相匹配，防止知識產權的排他性範圍過度擴張、保護力度過強。

The specific expressive details of AIGC (Artificial Intelligence Generated Content) can be regarded as the user's contribution, as they represent the personalized and fixed outcome of the user's engagement with the AI's content-generation potential. AI is not merely a passive tool. Its content-generation potential is directed by the user's will and serves the user's purposes. It should be seen as an advantage of AI as a tool, rather than a reason to discount human contribution in AIGC. An AI user's content-generating activity is not comparable to commissioning a work or providing raw material for derivative works, and therefore the default norms applied to commissioned works or derivative works should not be extended to AIGC. Interpretations regarding works and authors should strive to achieve the best possible policy outcomes, as long as such interpretations can be read out of the legal text. The principle that“lower contributions merit thinner copyright protection, higher contributions merit thicker copyright protection”embodies the cost-benefit analysis for delineating rights. There is no need—nor justification—to abandon it in the AI era. In balancing creative incentives with public freedom, the core objective remains to ensure that the scope and strength of intellectual property rights align with the rights holder's actual contribution, thereby preventing excessive expansion of exclusivity and overly strong protection.