“This decision signals a significant development in how AI companies might manage the risk of copyright infringement while continuing to innovate and release new models. However, the court did not address whether collecting copyrighted material to train the AI models could be considered infringement.”
“这一判决标志着人工智能公司在继续创新和发布新模型的同时，在如何管理版权侵权风险方面取得了重大进展。不过，法院并未涉及收集受版权保护的材料来训练人工智能模型是否会被视为侵权的问题"。
The intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) technology and copyright law pits an irresistible force against an evolving and uncertain legal framework. The latest case making waves in this struggle is Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, in which Concord Music Group and other publishers alleged copyright infringement by the AI company Anthropic. One of the major issues in the case revolves around whether Anthropic’s AI models, specifically its large language models (LLMs), are generating infringing content because the results were derived from copyrighted works.
人工智能（AI）技术与版权法的交汇点是一股不可抗拒的力量与一个不断演变且不确定的法律框架之间的对抗。在这场斗争中掀起波澜的最新案件是 Concord Music Group, Inc. 该案的主要问题之一是，Anthropic 的人工智能模型，特别是其大型语言模型（LLMs），是否会产生侵权内容，因为其结果来源于受版权保护的作品。
The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction against Anthropic. They argued that without it, publishers would suffer irreparable harm due to the potential for widespread infringement resulting from Anthropic’s AI-generated outputs. They alleged that the AI models trained on copyrighted lyrics and compositions could generate text that closely resembles or replicates protected works, enabling unauthorized use and distribution.
原告要求对 Anthropic 下达初步禁令。他们认为，如果没有禁令，出版商将遭受无法弥补的损失，因为 Anthropic 的人工智能生成的结果可能会导致广泛的侵权行为。他们声称，根据受版权保护的歌词和作品训练的人工智能模型可以生成与受保护作品非常相似或复制的文本，从而使未经授权的使用和传播成为可能。
In its recent order adopting a settlement reached by the parties on the publisher’s motion, the court addressed a key aspect of the publishers’ request: whether Anthropic should be required to maintain its existing guardrails. In this case, “guardrails” refer to protective measures or safeguards that Anthropic has designed and implemented to prevent its AI systems from producing output that violates copyright laws. In short, these rules or filters are built into the AI to stop it from generating text that might copy or reproduce copyrighted works like song lyrics without permission.
在最近通过双方就出版商动议达成的和解令中，法院解决了出版商请求中的一个关键问题：是否应要求 Anthropic 维持其现有的技术防护措施。在本案中，“技术防护措施 ”是指 Anthropic 为防止其人工智能系统产生违反版权法的输出而设计和实施的保护措施或保障。简而言之，这些规则或过滤器内置于人工智能中，以阻止其生成可能未经许可复制或转载歌词等版权作品的文本。
Guardrails
技术防护措施
The court’s order focused on Anthropic’s stated commitment to maintaining these guardrails. However, the ruling does not address the larger (and potentially more impactful) question of whether the AI’s use of copyrighted data as “training data” to learn and train its algorithms and models could itself be a legal issue.
法院命令的重点是 Anthropic 所声明的维护这些技术防护措施的承诺。然而，该裁决并未涉及一个更大（也可能更有意义）的问题，即人工智能使用受版权保护的数据作为 “训练数据 ”来学习和训练其算法和模型本身是否会成为一个法律问题。
The court noted that the parties had reached an agreement that specifically resolved the guardrails issue. Under the agreement, Anthropic was required to continue using the guardrails it had already implemented in its AI models and product offerings. The stipulation also requires that any future AI models or new products Anthropic introduces contain the guardrails, thus ensuring that they will be applied consistently.
法院指出，双方已达成一项协议，专门解决了护栏问题。根据协议，Anthropic 公司必须继续使用已在其人工智能模型和产品中实施的防护措施。协议还要求 Anthropic 未来推出的任何人工智能模型或新产品都必须包含技术防护措施，从而确保技术防护措施的应用具有一致性。
This decision signals a significant development in how AI companies might manage the risk of copyright infringement while continuing to innovate and release new models. However, the court did not address whether collecting copyrighted material to train the AI models could be considered infringement. That is the critical unanswered question that remains at the center of the case. The order focused entirely on the use of guardrails to prevent the AI from generating infringing content, leaving unexamined the underlying issues of data collection and use.
这一判决标志着人工智能公司在继续创新和发布新模型的同时，在如何管理版权侵权风险方面取得了重大进展。然而，法院并未解决收集受版权保护的材料来训练人工智能模型是否会被视为侵权的问题。这是一个关键的未决问题，也是本案的核心所在。该命令的重点完全放在使用技术防护措施来防止人工智能生成侵权内容上，而对数据收集和使用的根本问题却未加审查。
The Unresolved Questions of Data Collection for Training Use
数据收集用于培训的未决问题
While the court addressed the effectiveness of guardrails, it does not resolve the fundamental issue of whether the use of copyrighted works to train AI systems could itself constitute infringement. This question remains a point of contention in many similar cases pending across the country and is a critical issue for AI developers, as well as for those generating content using AI systems.
虽然法院解决了技术防护措施的有效性问题，但并没有解决使用受版权保护的作品来训练人工智能系统本身是否会构成侵权这一根本问题。这个问题仍然是全国许多类似案件的争议焦点，也是人工智能开发者和使用人工智能系统生成内容者的关键问题。
The use of copyrighted data to train AI models raises the question of whether such training constitutes “fair use” permitted under copyright law or whether it infringes on the rights of copyright holders. Fair use is a legal doctrine that allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission from the rights holder, typically for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. This issue is especially complex when it comes to large-scale data collection for training, where the data may include copyrighted works without the permission of the rights holders.
使用受版权保护的数据来训练人工智能模型提出了这样一个问题：这种训练是否构成版权法允许的 “合理使用”，或者是否侵犯了版权持有者的权利。合理使用是一种法律原则，允许在未经权利人许可的情况下有限使用受版权保护的材料，通常用于批评、评论、新闻报道、教学、学术或研究等目的。这个问题在涉及大规模培训数据收集时尤为复杂，因为数据中可能包含未经权利人许可的版权作品。
While the publishers’ motion for a preliminary injunction in the Concord Music Group case did not directly address this issue, it is clear that the debate over whether the training of AI models on copyrighted data can constitute infringement is far from settled.
虽然出版商在 Concord Music Group 案中提出的初步禁令动议并未直接涉及这一问题，但很明显，关于在受版权保护的数据上训练人工智能模型是否构成侵权的争论远未尘埃落定。
Implications for the Fair Use Doctrine
对合理使用原则的影响
The focus on guardrails rather than data collection brings into play potential implications for the fair use doctrine. The fair use exception under U.S. copyright law permits certain uses of copyrighted material without permission, typically when the use is deemed transformative, noncommercial, or beneficial to the public. In the context of AI, one could argue that if a company such as Anthropic takes significant steps to protect copyrighted material by implementing guardrails to prevent the generation of infringing content, it could strengthen the case for fair use.
对技术防护措施而非数据收集的关注给合理使用原则带来了潜在的影响。美国版权法规定的合理使用例外允许在未经许可的情况下使用受版权保护的材料，通常是在这种使用被认为是变革性的、非商业性的或有益于公众的情况下。
Developers like Anthropic could potentially argue that its steps to mitigate infringement through the use of guardrails demonstrate a good faith effort to respect copyright laws. This proactive stance could make the fair use argument more plausible as the company is actively working to prevent the unlawful use of copyrighted content in its AI systems. By taking measures to prevent its outputs from infringing, Anthropic could bypass concerns that its collection and use of copyrighted materials for training purposes violates copyright laws. Instead, it would contend that such collection and use of copyrighted materials is part of a broader fair use framework.
Anthropic 这样的开发商可能会辩称，其通过使用技术防护措施来减少侵权的措施表明了尊重版权法的善意努力。这种积极主动的姿态可能会让合理使用的论点更加可信，因为该公司正在积极努力防止其人工智能系统非法使用受版权保护的内容。通过采取措施防止其输出内容侵权，Anthropic 公司可以避开人们对其为培训目的收集和使用受版权保护的材料违反版权法的担忧。相反，Anthropic 会辩称，收集和使用受版权保护的材料是更广泛的合理使用框架的一部分。
On the other hand, copyright holders may argue that even with guardrails in place, the use of copyrighted data for training purposes – without explicit permission – still presents significant risks of infringement. As AI technologies evolve, the courts will likely continue to examine these issues in detail, exploring how the fair use doctrine applies in the context of AI development and use.
另一方面，版权持有者可能会辩称，即使有了保护措施，在没有明确许可的情况下，为培训目的使用受版权保护的数据仍然会带来巨大的侵权风险。随着人工智能技术的发展，法院可能会继续详细审查这些问题，探索合理使用原则如何适用于人工智能的开发和使用。
The Concord Music Group v. Anthropic case provides interesting insight into the ongoing legal and ethical challenges surrounding AI and copyright law. While the court’s order on the guardrails represents a step toward mitigating the risk of AI-generated output infringement, the question of whether the use of copyrighted data for training models can be considered infringement remains unanswered. As AI continues to evolve, so too will the legal landscape. The challenge lies in how companies can accelerate their innovation on the AI superhighway while navigating the evolving intellectual property traffic laws, which are gradually taking shape as cases make their way through the courts.
Concord Music Group v. Anthropic 案为我们提供了一个有趣的视角，让我们了解围绕人工智能和版权法的法律和道德挑战。虽然法院关于技术防护措施的命令代表着向降低人工智能生成的输出侵权风险迈出了一步，但将受版权保护的数据用于训练模型是否会被视为侵权的问题仍然没有答案。随着人工智能的不断发展，法律环境也将不断变化。挑战在于企业如何在人工智能高速公路上加速创新，同时驾驭不断演变的知识产权交通法，这些法律正随着法院审理案件的进程而逐渐成形。