論「創作之著作」保護要件──以涉及人工智慧之創作為例

The“Works of Authorship”Requirement: The Case of Works Involving the Use of Artificial Intelligence

近年生成式人工智慧之應用，具備不仰賴人類操作、產出與人類創作相仿、具經濟價值等特質，引起是否透過著作權保護產出之爭論。實務見解及學術觀點的多樣性，凸顯著作保護要件認定之歧異。原創性要件的擴大適用，使得「創作之著作」要件較少被提出討論。創作之著作要件，係由創作主體及創作行為組成，意義上包含著作保護類型之認定。以創作主體論述之觀點，主張「人類創作要件」，是個案判斷之重心。然而，創作主體之判斷，無法替代創作行為而單獨形成保護要件。
創作之著作要件，透過「構思與實行之判斷」、「採納創作理論」及「選擇與安排」之創作判斷，皆有適用上不明或缺陷之處。僅以作者「縝密地構思」並「受控地實行」的創作行為判斷，無法普遍適用於現今多變的創作方法。採納、選擇及安排之認定，不易證明創作主體與創作成果間之關聯性。故創作因果關係之判斷－涵蓋「意圖創作」、「創作行為之貢獻」與「創作行為之控制」要素，能符合智慧財產基礎理論，並兼顧各類創作行為之判斷，俾以排除不應受保護之情境。

In recent years, the application of generative artificial intelligence—characterized by its independence from human involvement, its ability to produce outputs identical to human creations, and its potential economic value—has sparked debates over whether such outputs should qualify for copyright protection. Divergent views on the requirements for copyright protection are reflected in both judicial opinions and academic perspectives. The overinclusive application of the originality requirement has, in turn, resulted in relatively little discussion of the requirement of“works of authorship.”
The requirement of“works of authorship”consists of both the“author”and the“act of authorship,”and the categories of copyright subject matter. From the perspective of the author, some argue that the“human authorship requirement”is the most critical requirement for analysis. However,“authorship”cannot exist without an“act of authorship.”
The requirement of“works of authorship”has traditionally relied on the theories of“conception and execution,”“authorship-by-adoption,”and“selection and arrangement,”all of which have given rise to ambiguities and shortcomings in application. The standards of“detailed conception”and“controlled execution”by the author cannot be universally applied to the diverse creative methods of today. Similarly, reliance on“authorship by adoption”and“selection and arrangement”renders it difficult to establish a causal connection between the author and the resulting work.
This paper argues that the introduction of“authorship causation”—encompassing the elements of“intent to create,”“contribution in the act of authorship,”and“control over the act of authorship”—better accords with the foundations of intellectual property law, ensures applicability across diverse forms of authorship, and filters out circumstances that should not receive copyright protection.