인공지능 생성물의 저작권법상의 보호 방안 — 중국 저작권법상 직무저작제도의 적용여부를 중심으로 —

It is no exaggeration to say that almost all rights and obligations under the Copyright Law have been enacted centering on the author, as the author is the most important element in the Copyright Law. Therefore, when new subject matter or technology emerges as society develops, the first issue to be dealt with in copyright law is also the issue of authors. For example, if the current work-for-hire system was born due to copyright issues against corporations, and if a work was produced by a computer with the advent of computers in the 20th century, who would be the author of that work? Problems with authors of various subjects have arisen. Recently, the issue of authorship or copyright attribution has also arisen in products generated by artificial intelligence. Therefore, in the following content, we will examine examples of products created by artificial intelligence, and from this we will derive what kind of role humans will participate in the process of creating artificial intelligence products. We investigated whether it is possible to protect copyrighted works under corporate copyrighted “corporation work” and “works-for-hire” regulations. In other words, based on the form and type of human participation in the overall process of generating artificial intelligence products from artificial intelligence examples, ① When a human participates in creative acts and directly contributes to the originality of the relevant product, ② When humans participate indirectly by indirect actions, influencing the general direction and structure of the product through imperative actions such as directing and supervising, rather than creative actions, ③ AI can operate without human action. It can be classified into a total of three types, which is the action of pressing the “start button”. Here, in the case of ① and ③ whether or not a work can be clearly protected can be determined based on whether or not it participated as a human creative act, but in the case of ② the problem is not a creative act but an imperative act. is. In conclusion, the case of ② is subsumed by the corporate work regulations and the work for hire regulations, which are the work-for-hire system under the Chinese Copyright Law, in an attempt to protect artificial intelligence products.