The Legislation about AI

1.The challenge of the emergence of virtual property to the traditional legal theory and the corresponding solutions

The economic value of virtual property has been widely accepted by the market; however the integrated virtual property rights system has not been established. With the feeling of desire for the ownership of their virtual property, virtual property users acquire the legal position for their virtual property. As direct guidance in virtual world, end users licence agreements mostly focus on the regulation about the obligation and right between users and service providers. Compared with traditional physical property, the conflicts which virtual property owners should deal with are more complicated.

For the conflicts among different users, this project adopts ‘relative-exclusive property rights or ’external property rights’ to describe the virtual property rights which are used to against the infringement from other users. Even owners need the technical support from service providers to record evidence once their virtual property rights were infringed by others, for other users, owners could claim exclusive virtual property rights over their virtual property and exclude other users from infringing these rights. For the conflicts between users and service providers, this project adopts ‘restrained-exclusive property rights’ or ‘fundamental property rights’ to describe users’ property claims against service providers. This type of virtual property rights indicate that service providers not only have the obligation to protect the operation of users’ virtual property, but they also have the obligation to assist users to avoid the infringement from other users.

2.Adhering to the traditional standard of originality in the era of artificial intelligence 

Whether it is a common law country that adheres to the "commercial copyright theory" or a civil law country that focuses on "authorship rights", the criteria for determining originality have undergone a process of continuous adjustment with the development of information technology.  The adherence to the originality judgment standard is not to arbitrarily believe that all types of works should be judged according to an originality standard, nor is it complacent to ignore the changes in creation methods and communication modes brought about by technology, we allow the expression of different works.  Make corresponding adjustments and explanations. Appropriate adjustments and explanations are our response to technological progress, but what we stick to is the principle and bottom line of adjustment and interpretation, that is, the original intention and purpose of copyright law legislation, to encourage the creation of excellent cultural works and  Spread and promote the prosperity of culture.

3.The Selection of Paradigm for the Protection of work generated by Artificial Intelligence

The creative process of generative artificial intelligence, which is based on massive data input and usage of deep learning and data analysis as methods, will cause data ownership and data use risks, algorithm abuse and algorithm monopoly risks, generated content infringement risks, and multiple legal liability entities risk. Due to the diversification of interested parties and the blurring of ownership boundaries, the current protection model has many drawbacks. To address this situation, there are three different protection models around the world. The U.S. Copyright Office stipulates that works automatically generated by artificial intelligence "lack" elements of human creation, and non-human artificial intelligence cannot create works. In order to protect and promote investment in the field of artificial intelligence, British legislation stipulates through Article 9(3) of the CDPA that the author of an artificial intelligence product "shall be deemed to have made the arrangements necessary to create the work." The protection model adopted by our country is, neither does it simply exclude the copyright attributes of artificial intelligence products based on the single reason that there is no natural human subject, nor does it generally conclude that AIGC should be protected or should not be protected. Instead, it should take into account the specific circumstances of the case and comprehensively consider the degree of originality and the degree of AIGC's originality. The contribution of natural persons to AIGC will be comprehensively evaluated.