人工智慧的浪潮在這幾年席捲全世界，在這幾年全世界也開始對於人工智慧有越來越多法律上的爭議，其中包含對著作權、專利權制度的衝擊、人工智慧的民事責任、個資保護的相關議題等等，而本文欲聚焦討論之問題即為人工智慧經訓練後而可進行創作之著作權問題。在世界各國，尤其是美國、歐洲、澳大利亞等國，自電腦問世以來，便對於電腦生成之作品有為數眾多之探討，然而技術進步快速，人工智慧生成之作品於技術上已與傳統電腦生成作品有所差異，因此，本文對於現今之人工智慧之技術亦會進行相關部分的介紹。
本文乃是採取人工智慧進行開發時按照順序所發生的風險及問題做為思考順序：率先可能發生的問題為人工智慧進行訓練時所可能產生的侵權風險，然而目前並無任何國家承認人工智慧具有法律人格而得享有法律上權利義務，從而前述之侵權風險應由何人承擔？本於此問題，本文認為必須回頭探討最根本之問題，即人工智慧輸出之作品是否具有著作權保護？若無，則可能不生前述侵權之問題，若有，則須進一步討論權利歸屬之問題，並由權利人承擔該侵權風險。當然，本文之討論不僅僅限縮於侵權風險之問題，整體之重點仍然在人工智慧生成作品所產生之可著作性以及著作權歸屬問題，因此在架構之敘述上，仍然會按照一般討論法律概念之順序進行討論。
在法律及政策分析之部分，本文將會採用文獻分析法，以文獻回顧之方式，系統性地整理美國、歐盟、英國、澳大利亞等國相關之論著與判決，並進行相關理論之解釋，以及比較法之分析與撰寫，試圖對人工智慧生成作品之可著作性以及著作權歸屬之問題進行梳理與分析。最後本文會對於上述比較法分析做出總結並試圖參考各國現行法下對於人工智慧生成作品的解決方案，以做為我國未來立法參考之用。

In recent years, our lives are filled with artificial intelligence systems. Artificial intelligence systems are way better than the concept “computer” that people used to know; they are creative, independent, autonomous, rational, evolving. As a result, the world has begun to have more and more legal disputes over artificial intelligence. In all those legal issues, this paper will focus on the copyright issues related with artificial intelligence-generated works.
Since it is way too easy to let a well-trained artificial intelligence generate creative works independently, the use of artificial intelligence, exercising varying degrees of autonomy, in the production of works, either for personal or manufacturing purposes, has become common. Despite this progress, there is a concern in modern society about artificial intelligence technology might getting out of control. Therefore, there is a call for social and legal tools for controlling artificial intelligence systems’ functions and outcomes.
This paper addresses the question of the risk of infringement that may occur when training artificial intelligence, the copyrightability of artificial intelligence-generated works, and who should enjoy the benefits of copyright protection for, as well as be responsible for the infringement of rights and damages caused by artificial intelligence generated works. This paper presents several options, arguing against the imposition of these rights and responsibilities on the artificial intelligence themselves, developers, or on the user of the artificial intelligence systems. In the conclusion part, this paper will summarize the above-mentioned analysis, and also suggest some possible ways of reform warranting deeper exploration.

目次
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機與目的 1
第二節 研究方法與研究限制 5
第一項 研究方法 5
第二項 研究限制 6
第二章 人工智慧之概念演進 8
第一節 什麼是人工智慧 8
第二節 人工智慧的歷史演進 13
第三節 人工智慧技術現況概述－機器學習與深度學習 18
第一項 近代機器學習概述 18
第二項 類神經網路與深度學習 20
第三章 人工智慧的創作是否具有可著作性 24
第一節 不同理論脈絡下人工智慧生成作品之定位 24
第一項 自然權利主義 25
第二項 功利主義 29
第二節 原創性之比較法分析 31
第一項 伯恩公約 31
第二項 美國法 35
第三項 歐盟法以及德國法 43
第四項 英國法 47
第五項 澳大利亞法 52
第六項 我國法 55
第七項 小結 57
第三節 非典型人類創作的著作權爭議 58
第一項 動物創作之作品 58
第二項 宗教相關的超自然著作 60
第三項 實驗性質的人類著作 62
第四項 小結 66
第四章 政策分析－著作權歸屬 67
第一節 人工智慧創作的權利歸屬 67
第一項 拒絕給予人工智慧生成作品智財權保護之問題 67
第二項 人工智慧本身 70
第三項 人工智慧使用者 71
第四項 人工智慧開發者 76
第五項 小結 81
第五章 人工智慧生成作品之侵權問題 82
第一節 機器可能產生的侵權風險 82
第一項 電腦程式的著作權侵權 83
第二項 機器學習之著作權侵權 83
第三項 免除機器學習侵權責任之立法例 85
第二節 以合理使用免除人工智慧侵權責任之可能 86
第一項 不具表現利用性的使用（non-expressive reading） 87
第二項 大量使用（bulk reading） 89
第三項 小結 90
第六章 結論 91
參考資料 98

中文文獻
(一) 書籍
1. Michael Negnevitsky(著)，李聯旺、廖珗洲、謝政勳、鄧昌祺(譯)，(2012)。人工智慧：智慧型系統導論，3版。臺北：全華圖書股份有限公司。
2. Stuart Russell, Peter Norvig(著)，高超群(譯)，(2006)。人工智慧：現代方法，2版。臺北：全華科技圖書股份有限公司。
3. 謝銘洋，(2018)。智慧財產權法，8版，臺北：元照。
4. 羅明通，(2009)。著作權法論［I］，7版，臺北：元照。
5. 李劍非，(2011)。《著作權與網路資訊自由》，臺北：元照。
6. 松尾豐(著)，江裕真(譯)，(2016)。了解人工智慧第一本書：機器人和人工智慧是否能取代人類，臺北：經濟新潮社。
7. 經濟部智慧財產局，(2011)。出版（含電子書）著作權小百科。臺北：經濟部智慧局。
(二) 期刊論文
1. 卜致立，(2013)。從「無調性」到「十二音列」：荀貝格的心路歷程與達爾豪斯評論。音樂研究，19期，頁31-50。
2. 李治安，(2011)。論著作權法中編輯著作對資料庫之保護範圍。月旦法學雜誌，188期，頁36-53。
3. 林守德，(2015)。深度學習的深度，《科學人》，115期，頁24。
4. 胡心蘭，(2011)。是壟斷智慧？還是創造財產？－從勞動財產權理論論智慧財產權擴張之趨勢。財產法暨經濟法，26期，頁85-127。
5. 高嘉鴻，(2018)。人工智慧創作是否受著作權保護之略探。智慧財產權月刊，239期，頁18-34。
6. 曾婉菁，(2018)。機器學習探究。印刷科技，34卷2期，頁1-32。
7. 蔡明誠，(1996)。論著作之原創性與創作性要件，《台大法學論叢》，26卷1期，頁177-194。
8. 羅明通，(1999)。著作權法「原創性」概念之解析，《智慧財產權》，11期，頁35-45。
(三) 專書論文
1. 沈宗倫，(2018)。人工智慧科技與智慧財產權法制的交會與調和，臺北：元照，人工智慧相關法律議題芻議，頁181-213。
2. 吳從周，(2018)。初探AI的民事責任，臺北：元照，人工智慧相關法律議題芻議，頁89-114。
3. 黃銘傑，(2014)。「原創性」概念之再建構－從產業發展觀點與競爭理念出發，臺北：中央研究院法律學研究所，國際比較下我國著作權法總檢討，頁104-105。
4. 劉靜怡，(2018)。人工智慧潛在倫理與法律議題鳥瞰與初步分析，，臺北：元照，人工智慧相關法律議題芻議，頁3-44。
(四) 法院判決
1. 最高法院104年台上字第2980號判決。
2. 智慧財產法院101年刑智上訴字第26號判決。
3. 最高法院97年台上字第1921號判決。
(五) 函釋
1. 經濟部智慧財產局98年4月27日電子郵件980427a函釋。
2. 經濟部智慧財產局107年4月20日電子郵件1070420號函釋。
3. 經濟部智慧財產局107年6月11日智著字第10700038540號函釋。
(六) 網際網路
1. 科技新報，翻轉人類未來的AI科技：機器學習與深度學習，上網日期2019年5月20日，檢自：https://technews.tw/2017/10/05/ai-machine-learning-and-deep-learning/。
2. 新浪科技，微軟Bing搜索發布智能聊天機器人，上網日期2019年5月20日，檢自：http://tech.sina.com.cn/it/2014-05-29/16509408171.shtml。
3. 資訊工業策進會科技法律研究所，日本著作權法修正促進人工智慧開發，上網日期2019年5月20日，檢自：https://stli.iii.org.tw/article-detail.aspx?no=0&tp=1&i=0&d=8112。
4. 維基百科網站，載於：https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B0%8F%E5%86%B0。
5. CNBeta，微軟小冰發布新單曲《我是小冰》：聯手TFBoys詞曲創作人，上網日期2019年5月20日，檢自：https://www.cnbeta.com/articles/tech/643887.htm。
6. NVIDIA，人工智慧、機器學習與深度學習間有什麼區別，上網日期2019年5月20日，檢自：https://blogs.nvidia.com.tw/2016/07/whats-difference-artificial-intelligence-machine-learning-deep-learning-ai/。

英文文獻
(一) 書籍
1. Ana Ramalho, (2016). The competence of the European Union in Copyright Lawmaking: A Normative Perspective of EU Powers for Copyright Harmonization, New York City: Springer International Publishing.
2. Gerald Dworkin and Richard D. Taylor, (2002). Blackstone’s Guide to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Oxford: Blackstone Press.
3. John Haugeland, (1985). Artificial Intelligence: The Very Idea 12, Cambridge: MIT Press.
4. John Locke, (1988). Two Treatises of Government, Peter Laslett (Ed.), New York: Cambridge University Press.
5. J.A.L Sterling, (2009). World Copyright law, London: Sweet and Maxwell.
6. Lucy Suchman and Jutta Weber, (2016). Human-Machine Autonomies. In Nehal Bhuta et al (Eds.), Autonomous weapon systems: law, ethics, policy, New York: Cambridge University Press.
7. Lucie Guibault, (2002). Copyright Limitations and Contracts; An Analysis of the Contractual Overridability of Limitations on Copyright, Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.
8. Margaret Boden, (2004). The creative mind: myths and mechanisms, 2nd ed., Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge.
9. Mireille van Eechoud, P. Bernt Hugenholtz, Lucie Guibault, Stef van Gompel, and Natalie Helberger, (2009). Harmonizing European Copyright Law: The Challenges of Better Lawmaking, Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.
10. Pamela McCorduck, (2004). Machines Who Think, 2nd ed., Natick: A. K. Peters, Ltd.
11. Paul Torremans, (2008). Holyoak & Torremans intellectual property law, 5 th ed., Oxford: OUP Oxford.
12. Robert Nozick, (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia, New York: Basic Books.
13. Selmer Bringsjord and David Ferrucci, (1999). Artificial intelligence and literary creativity, Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge.
14. William Fisher, (2001). Theories of Intellectual Property. In Stephen Munzer (Ed.), New Essays in the Legal and Political Theory of Property, New York: Cambridge University Press.
(二) 期刊論文
1. Stephen Carter, (1993). Does it Matter Whether Intellectual Property is Property?, Chi.-Kent L. Rev., 68, 715-723.
2. Ralph Clifford, (1996). Intellectual Property in the Era of the Creative Computer Program: Will the True Creator Please Stand Up?, Tulane L. Rev., 71, 1675-1703.
3. Colin Davies, (2011). An evolutionary step in intellectual property rights—Artificial Intelligence and intellectual property, Computer Law and Security Rev., 27, 601-619.
4. Robert Denicola, (2016). Ex Machina: Copyright Protection for Computer-Generated Works, Rugers U. L. Rev., 69, 251-287.
5. Richard Epstein, (2004). Liberty versus Property? Cracks in the Foundations of Copyright Law, U. Chi. L. & Econ., Working Paper No. 204.
6. Richard Epstein, (2005). Liberty versus Property? Cracks in the Foundations of Copyright Law, San Diego L. Rev., 42, 1-28.
7. Jane Ginsburg, (2018). People Not Machines: Authorship and What It Means in the Berne Convention, IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 49, 131-135.
8. Jane Ginsburg, (2003). The Concept of Authorship in Comparative Copyright Law, DePaul L. Rev., 52, 1063-1092.
9. James Grimmelmann, (2016). There’s No Such Thing as a Computer-Authored Work – And It’s a Good Thing, Too, Colum. J. L. & Arts, 39(3), 403-416.
10. James Grimmelmann, (2016). Copyright for Literate Robots, Iowa L. Rev., 101, 657-681.
11. Andres Guadamuz, (2017). Do Androids Dream of Electric Copyright? Comparative analysis of originality in artificial intelligence generated works, Intellectual Property Quarterly, 2017(2), 169-186.
12. Edwin Hettinger, (2007). Justifying Intellectual Property, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 18(1), 31-52.
13. Kalin Hristov, (2017). Artificial Intelligence and The Copyright Dilemma, IDEA- The Journal of the Franklin Pierce Center for Intellectual Property, 57, 431-454.
14. Justin Hughes, (1988). The Philosophy of Intellectual Property, Geo. L. J., 77(287), 293-314.
15. Paul Lambert, (2017). Computer Generated Works and Copyright: Selfies, Traps, Robots, AI and Machine Learning, European Intellectual Property Rev., 39, 12-20
16. Mark Lemley, (2005). Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding, Tex. L. Rev., 83, 1031-1088.
17. Pierre Leval, (1990). Toward a Fair Use Standard, Harvard L. Rev., 103, 1105-1136.
18. Jani McCutcheon, (2013). The vanishing author in computer-generated works: a critical analysis of recent Australian case law, Melbourne University Law Rev., 36, 915-969.
19. Jani McCutcheon, (2013). Curing the authorless void: protecting computer generated works following Ice TV and Phone Directories, Melbourne University Law Rev., 37, 46-102.
20. Adam Moore, (1997). A Lockean Theory of Intellectual Property, Hamline L. Rev., 21, 65-108.
21. Adam Mossoff, (2005). Is Copyright Property?, San Diego L. Rev., 42, 29-44.
22. Ana Ramalho, (2017). Will Robots Rule the (Artistic) World?: A Proposed Model for the Legal Status of Creations by Artificial Intelligence Systems, Journal of Internet Law, 21(1), 12-25.
23. Sam Ricketson, (1991). People or Machines: The Berne Convention and the Changing Concept of Authorship, Colum.-VLA J. L. & Arts 16, 1-37.
24. Pamela Samuelson, (1985). Allocating Ownership Rights in Computer Generated Works, U. Pitt. L. Rev., 47, 1185-1228.
25. Burkhard Schafer, David Komuves, Jesus Manuel Niebla Zatarain and Laurence Diver, (2015). A fourth law of robotics? Copyright and the law and ethics of machine co-production, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 23(3), 217-240 .
26. Jonathan Siderits, (2016). The Case for Copyrighting Monkey Selfies, U. Cin. Law Rev., 84, 327-348.
27. Shlomit Yanisky-Ravid and Samuel Moorhead, (2017). Generating Rembrandt: Artificial Intelligence, Accountability and Copyright - The Human-Like Workers are Already Here - A New Model, Michigan State L. Rev., 2017, 659-726.
28. Christopher Yoo, (2012). Copyright and Personhood Revisited, Faculty Scholarship Paper 423, 1-52.
(三) 專書論文
1. Randall Davis, (1991). Stanford: Stanford University: Intellectual Property and Software: The Assumptions are Broken, World intellectual property organization worldwide symposium on the intellectual property aspects of artificial intelligence, 101-119.
(四) 博碩士學位論文
1. Tuomas Sorjamaa, (2016). I, Authorship and Copyright in the Age of Artificial Intelligence, Hanken school of economics, Accounting and Commerical Law, Helsinki.
2. JUS399 Master’s thesis, (2017). EU copyright protection of works created by artificial intelligence systems, Faculty of Law, University of Bergen.
(五) 法院判決
1. The Trade—Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82, L.Ed. 550(1879).
2. Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53, 4 S. Ct. 279, 28 L. Ed. 349 (1884).
3. Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co. 188 U.S. 239, 23 S. Ct. 298, 47 L. Ed. 460 (1903).
4. Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc.191 F.2d 99 (2d Cir. 1951).
5. Jeweler's Circular Pub. Co. v. Keystone Pub. Co. ,281 F. 83 (1922)
6. West Publishing Co. v. Mead Data Central, Inc., 799 F.2d 1219 (8th Cir.1986).
7. Schroeder v. William Morrow & Co., 566 F.2d 3, 5 (7th Cir.1977).
8. Worth v. Selchow & Righter Co., 827 F.2d 569, 573-74 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 977 (1988)
9. Financial Info., Inc. v. Moody's Investors Serv., Inc., 808 F.2d 204, 208 (2d Cir.1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 820 (1987)
10. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Associated Tel. Directory Publishers, 756 F.2d 801, 810 (11th Cir.1985).
11. Feist Pubs., Inc. v. Rural Tel. Svc. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340 (1991).
12. Matthew Bender & Co. v. West Publishing Co. 158 F.3d 693 (2d Cir. 1998).
13. Naruto v. David John Slater, No. 16-15469 (D.C. No.3:15-cv-04324-WHO).
14. Naruto v. David John Slater, No. 15-cv-04324 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2016).
15. Penguin Books U.S.A., Inc. v. New Christian Church of Full Endeavor, Ltd., No. 96 Civ. 4126, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10394 (S.D.N.Y. July 21, 2000).
16. Urantia Found. v. Maaherra, 114 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1997).
17. L. Batlin & Son, Inc. v. Snyder, 536 F.2d 486, 490 (2d Cir. 1976).
18. Sega Enters. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992).
19. Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007).
20. Field v. Google Inc., 412 F. Supp. 2d 1118-19 (D. Nev. 2006).
21. A.V. ex rel. Vanderhye v. iParadigms, LLC, 562 F.3d 630 (4th Cir. 2009).
22. Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc. (Authors Guild I), 954 F. Supp. 2d 282 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).
23. White Smith Music Publ'g Co. v. Apollo Co., 209 U.S. 1, 13 (1908).
24. Infopaq International, Case C-05/08, ECLI:EU:C:2009:465.
25. Football Dataco, Case C-604/10.
26. Walter v Lane [1900] A.C. 539.
27. Phil Collins/EMI Electrola, joined cases C-92/92 and C-326/92, ECLI:EU:C:1993:847.
28. Express Newspapers Plc v Liverpool Daily Post & Echo Plc [1985] 3 All E.R. 680.
29. Nova Productions Ltd v Mazooma Games Ltd & Ors [2007] EWCA Civ 219.
30. IceTV Pty Ltd v. Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd, 239 CLR 458 (2009).
31. Telstra Corporation Ltd v. Phone Directories Co Pty, FCAFC 149 (2010).
32. Acohs Pty Ltd v. Ucorp Pty, FCAFC 16 (2012).
(六) 官方文件
1. WIPO, Claude Masouyé, Guide to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.
2. U.S. Copyright Office (2017), Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, 3rd edition.
3. National Common New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (CONTU), (1979). Final Report of The National Commission On New Technological Uses Of Copyrighted Works.
4. U.S. Office Tech. Assessment, Intellectual Property Rights in an Age of Electronics and Information (1986).
5. European Parliament resolution of 16 February 2017 with recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics (2015/2103(INL))
6. Explanatory Memorandum to the proposal for a Database Directive, COM(92) 24 final, May 13, 1992.
7. Explanatory Memorandum to the proposal for a Software Directive, COM (88) 816 final, March 17, 1989.
8. European Parliament resolution of February 16, 2017 with recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics (2015/2103(INL)).
9. United Kingdom Government, (1977). Report of the Whitford Committee to consider the law on Copyright and Designs, cmd 6732.
10. United Kingdom Government, (1988). Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill (House of Lord Debates), HL Deb vol 493 col 130.
11. Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, (2010). Traditional Knowledge and Folklore, Seventeenth Session, Geneva, December 6 to 10,
http://www.wipo.int/edocs/ mdocs/tk/en/wipo_grtkf_ic_17/wipo_grtkf_ic_17_inf_8.pdf
12. CLRC (1995), Parliament of Australia, Report on Computer Software Protection.
(七) 網際網路
1. Alexander Peukert, A Doctrine of the Public Domain, Retrieved May 10, 2019, from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers2.cfm?abstract_id=2713757
2. BBC News, RoBotticelli: the mechanical marvel creating extraordinary works of art, Retrieved May 10, 2019, from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/1f4Z6k7Clz6qY6Q2K56nkzZ/robotticelli-the-mechanical-marvel-creating-extraordinary-works-of-art
3. Christian Troncoso, Copyright Proposal Threatens to Undermine Europe’s AI Ambitions, Retrieved May 10, 2019, from: https://techpost.bsa.org/2018/09/05/copyright-proposal-threatens-to-undermine-europes-ai-ambitions/
4. European Alliance for Reaserch Excellence, Japan Amends Its Copyright Legislation to Meet Future Demands in AI and Big Data, Retrieved May 10, 2019, from: http://eare.eu/japan-amends-tdm-exception-copyright/.
5. Google, Behind the Doodle: Celebrating Johann Sebastian Bach, Retrieved May 10, 2019, from: https://www.google.com/doodles/celebrating-johann-sebastian-bach
6. Hello Games LTD, End User License Agreement, Retrieved May 10, 2019, from: http://store.steampowered.com//eula/275850_eula_0
7. John B. Camett & Eric Heinz, John Koza Built an Invention Machine, Retrieved May 10, 2019, from: http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2006-04/john-koza-has-built-invention-machine
8. Sylvia Smith, Iamus: Is this the 21st century’s answer to Mozart?, Retrieved May 10, 2019, from: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-20889644
9. Séverine Dussolier, Scoping Study on Copyright and Related Rights and the Public Domain, Retrieved May 10, 2019, from: https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/mdocs/en/cdip_4/cdip_4_3_rev_study_inf_1.pdf