内容治理的破局不仅仅在于责任分配和技术优化，更在于塑造 一个健康的舆论生态。平台不应只是消极防守的"删帖机器"， 而应积极引导优质内容的生产与传播。通过激励原创、提升内 容质量、扶持正向价值，平台才能让用户感受到"好内容更容 易被看到"而非仅仅"坏内容会被删除"。 作者：宋玉茹 封图：图虫创意 今年以来，中央网信办持续部署开展"清朗"系列专项行动，重点针对"自媒体"发布不实信息、短 视频领域恶意营销、AI技术滥用乱象、恶意挑动负面情绪等乱象集中时间、集中力量进行打击。 专项行动剑指网络空间乱象，也让平台内容审查的责任边界问题愈发凸显。平台已成为信息传播、 社交互动的核心载体，但电商平台与内容平台的责任逻辑差异显著，个人用户违规成本低、平台权 责不对等、社会期待与治理能力落差等问题交织，都让审查工作陷入多重困境。 厘清责任归属、探索破局之道，既是落实"清朗"行动要求的关键，也是构建健康网络生态的必然 之举。 责任主体难确认 在数字社会中，平台作为"看门人"，已成为信息获取与交流的核心渠道。但不同类型平台的责任 归属存在显著差异，尤其在内容审查领域，需结合其运作逻辑明确第一责任主体。 近期，多家知名互联网平台因热 ...

Core Viewpoint - The rapid development of social media platforms has led to governance challenges regarding personal information security, platform responsibility, consumer rights, and intellectual property protection [1][2][3] Group 1: Case Statistics and Trends - The number of cases related to social media platforms has been increasing annually, with 458 cases in September-December 2018, 8011 cases in 2019, and 10424 cases in 2020, representing a year-on-year increase of 30.12% [1] - Copyright disputes constitute the highest proportion of social media platform disputes, accounting for 87.71% [1] Group 2: Intellectual Property Protection in New Business Models - New business models in areas such as online gaming, video, digital music, and online education are presenting new challenges for intellectual property protection [2] - A case involving a website operator and an app operator highlighted the issue of unauthorized sharing of premium content, leading to a ruling that the app operator must compensate the website operator 2 million yuan for economic losses [2] Group 3: Legislative Changes and Challenges - The revised Copyright Law effective from June 1 expands the protection scope of audiovisual works, emphasizing rights protection in emerging fields [3] - The application of new technologies like AI, big data, and cloud computing is significantly impacting traditional infringement recognition rules [3] Group 4: Mixed Business Operations and Legal Responsibilities - The traditional "safe harbor" principle is facing challenges due to the evolution of social media platforms into multi-service providers, leading to complex legal responsibilities [4][5] - Platforms are increasingly required to ensure compliance with legal obligations related to content regulation and data security as they diversify their services [4] Group 5: Consumer Rights and Data Protection - Issues with platform format clauses have been identified, where platforms often exempt themselves from liability while increasing consumer responsibility [6] - The court emphasized that platforms must not harm users' rights while exploring new business models, particularly in cases involving subscription services [6] Group 6: Future Directions - The Beijing Internet Court plans to strengthen the protection of fair market competition and address issues like online fraud and identity theft [7] - There is a focus on clarifying the rights attributes, protection scope, and accountability mechanisms for new types of intellectual property in the digital economy [7]

Core Viewpoint - The case highlights the intersection of AI technology and copyright law, focusing on the unauthorized use of original video content by a company using AI face-swapping technology, raising questions about originality and copyright infringement [2][4][6]. Group 1: Case Background - A photographer discovered that her original videos were used in an AI face-swapping app called "某颜" without her permission, leading her to file a lawsuit for copyright infringement [1][2]. - The app, developed by a company, utilized AI algorithms to create face-swapped videos, which included many elements identical to the photographer's original works [2][3]. Group 2: Legal Considerations - The court recognized the photographer's original videos as protected works under copyright law due to their originality in content arrangement, camera angles, and other creative aspects [3][4]. - The defendant argued that the AI-generated videos were sufficiently different from the originals, but the court maintained that the core elements of the original works remained intact, constituting substantial similarity [3][6]. Group 3: Copyright and Commercial Use - The case raised complex legal questions regarding the commercial use of AI-generated content and the responsibilities of platforms in such scenarios [4][5]. - The company was found to have violated copyright laws by using the original works for profit without proper authorization, thus breaching the rights of the original creator [5][6]. Group 4: Platform Liability - The company attempted to invoke the "safe harbor" principle, claiming limited liability as a platform provider, but the court ruled that they failed to exercise reasonable care in monitoring the content [8][9]. - The court emphasized that platforms cannot ignore obvious copyright infringements and must take appropriate actions when notified [8][9]. Group 5: Industry Implications - The case serves as a cautionary tale for small tech companies about the importance of understanding copyright laws and the potential legal ramifications of using AI technologies [9][10]. - The court suggested that the company enhance its compliance awareness and improve its content review processes to avoid future legal issues [9][10].