Core Viewpoint - The case of singer G.E.M. Tang and her former agency Hummingbird Music highlights the significance of the statutory licensing system in China's copyright law, which has provided a legal avenue for artists to navigate contractual disputes and reclaim their rights [1][4]. Group 1: Statutory Licensing System - The statutory licensing system under China's copyright law is seen as a crucial tool for artists, allowing them to reproduce and distribute music without needing prior permission from the original copyright holders, provided they pay the required fees [1][5]. - This system aims to facilitate the dissemination of music works, promoting broader access while balancing the rights of copyright owners [3][5]. Group 2: Legal Precedents and Implications - A notable precedent involved singer Dao Lang and his contract with a cultural company, which ultimately led to a Supreme Court ruling affirming that once a music work is publicly available, others can use it under statutory licensing without needing additional permissions [3][5]. - The ongoing legal battle between G.E.M. Tang and Hummingbird Music raises questions about the applicability of statutory licensing in Hong Kong, where different legal standards may apply compared to mainland China [7][9]. Group 3: Contractual and Copyright Issues - The complexity of copyright law is underscored by the potential for disputes over contracts signed at a young age, as G.E.M. Tang claims her original contract was signed under duress, complicating the legal landscape [7][8]. - The involvement of collective management organizations, such as the Hong Kong Composers and Authors Society (CASH), adds another layer of complexity regarding the transfer and management of copyright rights [8][9]. Group 4: Market Impact and Future Considerations - The uncertainty surrounding the legal status of G.E.M. Tang's music may lead to market hesitance among consumers and stakeholders, emphasizing the need for clear legal resolutions [9]. - The case serves as a potential precedent for other artists facing similar contractual challenges, highlighting the importance of understanding copyright laws and their implications for artistic freedom and financial security [9].

那么，人工智能生成内容是否构成著作权法意义上的作品？ 近日，由上海市浦东新区法律服务业协会指导，北京德和衡律师事务所知产业务中心与德和衡研究 院主办的"德和衡大师公开课"系列活动开讲。我国知识产权法学界知名专家、华东政法大学学术委员会 副主任委员、博士生导师王迁教授担任主讲嘉宾，为大家带来了一场题为"人工智能生成内容与著作权 保护"的精彩课程。 "近年来，以ChatGPT及Deepseek为代表的生成式人工智能技术，不仅在技术层面取得了突飞猛进 的发展，还迅速实现了商业化应用，对各行各业产生了强烈冲击。"北京德和衡律师事务所全国知识产 权业务中心总监、高级权益合伙人、上海所常务副主任黄政燏律师指出，人工智能根据用户的提示词所 生成的各种内容，包括文字、图片、音乐和视频，在形式上和人创作的作品已高度接近，甚至已引发许 多创作者对工作前景的担忧，也由此引发一系列著作权问题。 对此，王迁表示，"以鼓励作品创作为已任的著作权法不会将包括ChatGPT在内的人工智能生成的 内容视为作品并提供保护。此类内容不能被解释为'视法人或者其他组织为作者'的作品，也不能被认定 为人工智能研发者以人工智能为工具创作的作品。某些人工智 ...