AI生成内容侵权，平台方要承担何种责任？——中外近期案例对比解读

Core Insights - The article discusses the evolving legal landscape surrounding the responsibilities of AI content platforms in relation to copyright infringement, highlighting the need for a balance between protecting creators' rights and encouraging AI innovation [2][10]. Group 1: AI Content Generation and Infringement - AIGC infringement refers to the use of generative AI to create content that infringes on others' intellectual property rights, with two key stages: data training (input) and content generation/distribution (output) [3]. - The legal evaluation of potential infringement risks differs between these two stages, necessitating a clear understanding of the platform's actions in each context [3]. Group 2: Case Studies on AI Platform Responsibilities - The German court case GEMA vs. OpenAI established that unauthorized use of copyrighted lyrics for AI model training constitutes direct infringement, emphasizing that if an AI model can reproduce protected content, it may be deemed as illegal copying [4][5]. - In contrast, the UK case Getty Images vs. Stability AI found that if an AI model does not store or reproduce original images, the training process may not be considered direct infringement, reflecting a more lenient stance towards AI training practices [6]. - In China, the "Medusa" case highlighted that an AI platform can avoid liability if it acts as a neutral intermediary and promptly removes infringing content upon notification, while the "Ultraman" case demonstrated that platforms can be held liable for facilitating infringement if they knowingly allow infringing models to persist [8][9]. Group 3: Future Responsibilities and Challenges for AI Platforms - AI platforms are expected to enhance compliance measures in both input and output stages, ensuring that training data is legally sourced and that content review mechanisms are robust to prevent infringement [11]. - The article suggests that the legal challenges posed by AI-generated content present an opportunity for legal and technological advancement, emphasizing the need for ongoing adaptation to evolving legal standards [11][10].