“[G]iven current generally available technology, prompts alone do not provide sufficient human control to make users of an AI system the authors of the output.” – Copyright Office report
“鉴于目前普遍可用的技术，单凭提示并不能提供足够的人为控制，使人工智能系统的用户成为输出结果的作者"。- 版权局报告
The U.S. Copyright Office has released Part 2 of its multi-part artificial intelligence (AI) report, this one focusing on copyrightability of works made by or using AI.
美国版权局发布了由多个部分组成的人工智能（AI）报告的第二部分，这一部分重点讨论了由人工智能制作或使用人工智能制作的作品的版权问题。
Part 1 of the report was published in July 2024 and addressed digital replicas created by AI. Among the Copyright Office’s recommendations was the need for passage of a federal law that would create a new form of property right for a person’s digital replica to disincentivize the creation of realistic but false depictions of individuals. However, the agency advised against making that right assignable and suggested that the duration of licenses should not exceed one decade. On the same day that report was issued, a group of senators introduced a bill—the “NO FAKES Act”—to create a right for individuals to control digital replicas of their voice and likeness.
报告的第一部分于2024年7月发布，涉及人工智能创造的数字复制品。版权局的建议之一是，有必要通过一项联邦法律，为个人的数字复制品创建一种新的产权形式，以抑制创作逼真但虚假的个人肖像。不过，该机构建议不要让这种权利具有可转让性，并建议许可证的期限不应超过十年。就在该报告发布的同一天，一群参议员提出了一项法案--“无假货法案”--旨在为个人创造一项控制其声音和肖像的数字复制品的权利。
Parts 2 and 3 were slated to publish by the end of 2024 but Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter told the Senate IP Subcommittee in November “we’ve been trying to set and follow our own ambitious deadlines” and that her key concern was to be “accurate and thoughtful.”
第二部分和第三部分原定于 2024 年底发布，但版权注册官希拉-珀尔马特（Shira Perlmutter）在 11 月告诉参议院知识产权小组委员会，“我们一直在努力设定并遵守自己雄心勃勃的最后期限”，她主要关注的是 “准确和周到”。
The report published today follows previous Office rulings and guidance. “After considering the extensive public comments and the current state of technological development, our conclusions turn on the centrality of human creativity to copyright,” said Perlmutter, adding:
“Where that creativity is expressed through the use of AI systems, it continues to enjoy protection. Extending protection to material whose expressive elements are determined by a machine, however, would undermine rather than further the constitutional goals of copyright.”
今天发布的报告遵循了专利局之前的裁决和指导。“珀尔马特说："在考虑了广泛的公众意见和当前的技术发展状况后，我们的结论转向了人类创造力对版权的核心作用：
“如果这种创造力是通过使用人工智能系统表现出来的，那么它将继续受到保护。然而，将保护范围扩大到由机器决定其表现元素的材料，将损害而不是促进版权的宪法目标。
Some key conclusions of the report are that there is no need for legislative changes to accommodate works made using AI; copyright does not extend to purely AI-generated works and that includes works made using AI “prompts”; and whether there is sufficient human control to warrant authorship must be determined on a case-by-case basis.
该报告的一些主要结论是：没有必要修改立法以适应使用人工智能制作的作品；版权并不延伸至纯粹由人工智能生成的作品，这包括使用人工智能 “提示 ”制作的作品；是否有足够的人为控制来证明作者身份必须根据具体情况来确定。
The report noted that the Office received more than 10,000 comments in response to its Notice of Inquiry (NOI) issued in August 2023. The NOI followed the launch of the Office’s g copyright and AI initiative to examine policy issues related to generative AI platforms, after several high profile cases brought these issues into the spotlight.
报告指出，针对 2023 年 8 月发布的调查通知（NOI），该办公室收到了 10,000 多条意见。在该调查通知发布之前，该办公室启动了 “版权与人工智能倡议”，以审查与生成式人工智能平台有关的政策问题，此前的几个备受关注的案件将这些问题推到了聚光灯下。
With respect to prompts, the Review Board of the U.S. Copyright Office published a decision in September 2023 denying registration of a work created using the generative artificial intelligence (GAI) system, Midjourney, in which the Board found that Jason M. Allen’s two-dimensional artwork, titled “Théâtre D’opéra Spatial,” contained “more than a de minimis amount” of AI-created content and that the AI content must therefore be disclaimed. Allen had in part argued that he “input numerous revisions and text prompts at least 624 times to arrive at the initial version of the image.” But the Board said he must disclaim the features of the work created by Midjourney.
在提示方面，美国版权局审查委员会于 2023 年 9 月公布了一项决定，拒绝注册使用生成式人工智能（GAI）系统 “Midjourney ”创作的作品，委员会在该决定中认定，杰森-M-艾伦（Jason M. Allen）名为 “Théâtre D'opéra Spatial ”的二维艺术作品含有 “超过最小量 ”的人工智能创作内容，因此必须对人工智能内容进行免责声明。艾伦的部分理由是，他“输入了无数次修改和文本提示，至少 624 次才得到了图像的初始版本”。但委员会表示，他必须对 Midjourney 创作的作品的特征作出免责声明。
In line with that decision, the report issued today explained that the practice of “prompt engineering” is too unpredictable to constitute authorship:
根据这一决定，今天发布的报告解释说，“提示工程 ”的做法太难以预测，无法构成作者身份：
“[T]he output of current generative AI systems may include content that was not specified and exclude content that was. Although AI technology continues to advance, uncertainty around how a particular prompt or other input will influence the output may be inherent in complex AI systems built on models with billions of parameters. Some observers describe AI as a “black box,”27 and even expert researchers are limited in their ability to understand or predict the behavior of specific models.”
“目前人工智能生成系统的输出可能包括未指定的内容，也可能排除指定的内容。虽然人工智能技术在不断进步，但在拥有数十亿参数的模型上建立的复杂人工智能系统中，特定提示或其他输入将如何影响输出可能是固有的不确定性。一些观察家将人工智能描述为一个 “黑盒子”，即使是专家研究人员在理解或预测特定模型行为方面的能力也是有限的。
But the report distinguished between “using AI as a tool to assist in the creation of works and using AI as a stand-in for human creativity.” The former does not limit copyright protection while the latter does.
但报告区分了 “将人工智能作为协助创作的工具和将人工智能作为人类创造力的替身”。前者不会限制版权保护，而后者则会。
While there was a range of views in the comments submitted to the NOI as to whether prompt engineering should be considered authorship, the Office ultimately concluded that:
虽然在提交给 NOI 的意见中，对提示工程是否应被视为作者身份存在各种观点，但版权局最终得出结论认为：
“[G]iven current generally available technology, prompts alone do not provide sufficient human control to make users of an AI system the authors of the output…. While highly detailed prompts could contain the user’s desired expressive elements, at present they do not control how the AI system processes them in generating the output.”
“鉴于目前普遍可用的技术，仅凭提示并不能提供足够的人为控制，使人工智能系统的用户成为输出的作者....。虽然高度详细的提示可以包含用户所需的表达元素，但目前用户无法控制人工智能系统在生成输出时如何处理这些元素"。
It also provided examples of prompts and outputs where some of the prompt request showed up in the final work but some did not. For example, in the prompt and output pictured left, which the Copyright Office generated itself, “the resulting image reflects some of these instructions (e.g., a bespectacled cat smoking a pipe), but not others (e.g., a highly detailed wood environment). Where no instructions were provided, the AI system filled in the gaps.”
它还提供了一些提示和输出的例子，其中一些提示要求出现在最终作品中，而另一些则没有。例如，在版权局自己生成的提示和输出中，"生成的图像反映了其中的一些指令（例如，一只抽着烟斗的长胡子猫），但没有反映其他指令（例如，高度精细的木质环境）。如果没有提供说明，人工智能系统就会填补空白"。
In another example of an actual work submitted to the Office for registration, a hand-drawn illustration used as an AI input was eligible for copyright, and the AI output was registered because the applicant disclaimed “‘any non-human expression’ appearing in the final work, such as the realistic, three-dimensional representation of the nose, lips, and rosebuds, as well as the lighting and shadows in the background.’” Ultimately, the Office registered the work “with an annotation stating: ‘Registration limited to unaltered human pictorial authorship that is clearly perceptible in the deposit and separable from the non-human expression that is excluded from the claim.’”
在另一个提交给版权局注册的实际作品案例中，作为人工智能输入的手绘插图有资格获得版权，而人工智能输出则获得了注册，因为申请人否认了 “最终作品中出现的‘任何非人类表达’，如鼻子、嘴唇和玫瑰花蕾的逼真三维表现，以及背景中的光影”。'“最终，该局对该作品进行了注册，”并在注释中指出：'注册仅限于未经改动的人类图像著作权，这种著作权在交存物中清晰可辨，并可与被排除在权利要求之外的非人类表达相分离'。