2025年9月8日 周一
The standardized solution path of infringement disputes involving virtual digital man driven by algorithm
CSTR:
Author:
Clc Number:

D923;D922.16;D922.17;TP18

  • Article
  • | |
  • Metrics
  • |
  • Reference [28]
  • |
  • Related [2]
  • | | |
  • Comments
    Abstract:

    As a typical representative of generative artificial intelligence, the algorithm-driven virtual digital human can interact with humans through autonomous analysis of massive big data (text, pictures, audio, video, etc.) on the basis of metadata feeding. The virtual digital human equipped with ChatGPT technology will realize the 3D scene application of algorithm-driven + human modeling/virtual image. Its output content (artificial intelligence products) includes music, dance, text and other forms. Because of the four characteristics of interactivity, digitization, personification and uniqueness, the algorithm-driven virtual digital human has produced controversial issues such as the protection of the rights of the virtual digital human itself and the demarcation of the ownership of the relevant content generated due to its interactivity.The first category is the damage caused by the algorithm-driven virtual digital human to the subject of data rights in the process of pre-training data collection and optimization of training data at the beginning of research and development; the second type is the infringement that the algorithm-driven virtual digital person itself or the R & D subject who has property rights and interests in it may suffer. Specifically, it can be divided into two situations:the ownership dispute that may be faced by the products with original content independently generated by the algorithm-driven virtual digital person and the different ownership classification generated by the algorithm-driven virtual digital person based on different creation modes. In the case of unilateral creation of the operating company, the rights and interests of the algorithm-driven virtual digital person should be classified into the operating company. However, if the user is also involved in the creation process of the virtual digital person, it can be subdivided into three forms:‘materialism',‘creationism' and ‘cooperationism', which correspond to the three ownership subjects of platform ownership, user ownership and common ownership.At present, as a digital tool, virtual digital people do not have the personal dignity of the premise of personal interests, so it is not appropriate to identify them as having independent personality and enjoying personal interests. By deconstructing the various parts of the virtual digital person, such as portrait, name, voice and reputation, the interests generated mainly adopt the ‘property theory' to protect, while the reputation of the virtual digital person is usually relieved by the ‘same theory'. In addition, the copyrightability of intelligent virtual digital human products is essentially the copyrightability of artificial intelligence products based on deep learning technology, and there is a controversy in the academic community about whether it should be included in the public domain.In the process of the development of generative artificial intelligence, China can consider exploring the way of unified legislation of artificial intelligence. Specifically, the first is to balance the distribution of regulatory obligations between the generated artificial intelligence service provider and the government by enhancing the large-scale infrastructure service obligations of the generated artificial intelligence service provider. The second is to construct a moderate exemption rule for the metadata collection of the generated artificial intelligence service provider from the perspective of encouraging development. The third is to clarify that the artificial intelligence product should not enter the public domain directly at this stage, and its ownership division is mainly based on the agreement between the service provider and the user.

    Reference
    [1] 郭倩,王井怀,袁小康.技术向"新"产业"智"变:从第七届世界智能大会一窥人工智能未来[N].经济参考报,2023-05-22(02).
    [2] 陈龙强,张丽锦.虚拟数字人3.0:人"人"共生的元宇宙大时代[M].北京:中译出版社,2022:7,15,23.
    [3] 谢新水.虚拟数字人的进化历程及成长困境:以"双重宇宙"为场域的分析[J].南京社会科学,2022(6):77-87,95.
    [4] 陈亚慧.论数据空间中虚拟人的道德任性问题[J].伦理学研究,2020(5):90-95.
    [5] JESSE L.Hey,you stole my avatar:Virtual Reality and Its Risks to Identity Protection[J].Emory Law Journal,2020,4:835.
    [6] OLIVEA K.Me,myself,and my avatar:The right to the likeness of our digital selves[J].I/S:A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society,2010,3:448,465.
    [7] JONM G.Legal implications of a ubiquitous metaverse and a Web3 future[J].Marquette Law Review,2022,1:165.
    [8] TIFFANY D.Avatar rights in a constitutionless world[J].Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal(Comm/Ent),2009,1:138.
    [9] NORA S,ROBIN R,TINA E.The digital avatar on a blockchain:E-Identity,anonymity and human dignity[J].Austrian Law Journal,2021,2:204.
    [10] 玛蒂娜·罗斯布拉特.虚拟人[M].郭雪,译.浙江:浙江人民出版社,2016:2.
    [11] 寿步.人工智能中agent的中译正名及其法律意义[J].科技与法律(中英文),2022(3):1-13.
    [12] TSHIMANGA K.Global legal intellectual property issues generated by artificial intelligence[J].European Interllectual Property Review,2023,45(4):196-206.
    [13] GUADAMU Z.Do androids dream of electric copyright? Comparative analysis of originality in artifici al intelligence generated works[J].Intellectual Property Quarterly,2017,2:169-186.
    [14] XIAO Y.Decoding authorship:is there really no place for an algorithmic author under copyright law?[J].IIC-International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law,2023,54(1):5-25.
    [15] 李艾真.美国人工智能生成物著作权保护的探索及启示[J].电子知识产权,2020(11):81-92.
    [16] 曾雄,梁正,张辉.欧盟人工智能的规制路径及其对我国的启示:以《人工智能法案》为分析对象[J].电子政务,2022(9):63-72.
    [17] 王庆华.人工智能的法律规制路径:一个框架性讨论[J].现代法学,2019(2):54-63.
    [18] 王迁.论人工智能生成的内容在著作权法中的定性[J].法律科学,2017(5):148-155.
    [19] 刘银良.论人工智能作品的著作权法地位[J].政治与法律,2020(3):2-13.
    [20] SAMTANI A,ABIGAIL L,CHIU M.Who is thy author? Recommendations to integrat'machin e-authored' works into the copyright domain in Singapore[J].European Interllectual Property Review,2022,1:5-19.
    [21] 熊琦.人工智能生成内容的著作权认定[J].知识产权,2017(3):3-8.
    [22] WIETSE V.Copyright challenged by art created by artificial intelligence[J].European Interllectual Property Review,2021,8:495-503.
    [23] 梁志文.论人工智能创造物的法律保护[J].法律科学,2017(5):156-165.
    [24] SAMUELSON P.Allocating ownership rights in computer-generated works[J].University of Pittsburgh Law Review,1986,47:1185.
    [25] 杨利华.人工智能生成物著作权问题探究[J].现代法学,2021(4):102-114.
    [26] 文心一言用户协议[EB/OL].(2023-08-31)[2023-10-11]. https://yiyan.baidu.com/infoUser.
    [27] Open AI.Terms of use[EB/OL].(2023-03-14)[2023-10-11].https://openai.com/policies/terms-of-use.
    [28] GATES B.The future of agents ai is about to completely change how you use computers and upend the software industry[EB/OL].(2023-11-09)[2024-02-27].https://www.gatesnotes.com/AI-agents.
    Cited by
    Comments
    Comments
    分享到微博
    Submit
Get Citation

颜卉.算法驱动型虚拟数字人涉侵权纠纷的规范解决路径[J].重庆大学学报社会科学版,2024,30(2):182~194

Copy
Share
Article Metrics
  • Abstract:449
  • PDF: 958
  • HTML: 1821
  • Cited by: 0
History
  • Online: May 08,2024
Article QR Code