Search

Research on the Subject of Copyright Infringement Liability for Generative Artificial Intelligence

Author(s)

Shenggang Wang

Affiliation(s)

China Jiliang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

Abstract

The explosive development of generative artificial intelligence technology, while bringing about a revolution in content creation, is also profoundly challenging the boundaries and balance of the current copyright legal system. In the algorithmic black box environment, the diverse participation of generative artificial intelligence developers, service providers and users forms a responsibility gap, leading to the risk of diversified responsibility subjects and blurred responsibility boundaries. This study focuses on the latent copyright infringement risks throughout the entire chain of generative artificial intelligence applications. Based on risk identification and cause analysis, by deconstructing infringement disputes, institutional dilemmas, and judicial practices, it reveals the structural failures of current rules in application and proposes a hierarchical governance path, with the aim of achieving a dynamic balance between promoting creators' rights and interests and promoting artificial intelligence innovation.

Keywords

Generative Artificial Intelligence Copyright Infringement; Algorithm Black Box; Responsible Entity

References

[1]Song Weifeng. Copyright Risks and Regulatory Reshaping of Generative AI Training Data Sources: A Case Study of ChatGPT Application Scenarios. Journal of Dalian University of Technology (Social Sciences Edition), 2020, 46(02): 100-110. [2]Xu Wei. Determination of Tort Fault of Generative Artificial Intelligence Service Providers. Law, 2024, (07): 110-124. [3]Beck S. The problem of ascribing legal responsibility in the case of robotics. AI & society, 2016, 31: 473-48 1. [4]Hao Tiechuan: "Do not Imagine or Overestimate the Impact of Artificial Intelligence on the Rule of Law", Legal Daily, January 3, 2018. [5]See Guido Calabresi, Concerning Cause and the Law of Torts: An Essay for Harry Kalven, Jr., 43 U. Chi. L. Rev. 69 (1975⁃1976). [6]Wang Zejian. Infringement Acts. Beijing: Peking University Press, 2009, p. 521. [7]Feng Xiaoqing, Shen Yun. Determination of Copyright Infringement Liability of Generative Artificial Intelligence Service Providers. Rule of Law Studies, 2025, (01): 46-58. [8]Si Xiao. Establishment of Intellectual Property Care Obligations by Network Service Providers. Legal Science (Journal of Northwest University of Political Science and Law), 2018(1):78-88. [9]Wu Changhai, Huang Jingyi. Determination of Copyright Infringement by GAI Service Providers from the Perspective of Interest Balance. Intellectual Property, 2025, (03): 88-104. [10]Weston Kowert, “The Foreseeability of Human-Artificial Intelligence Interactions,” Texas Law Review, Vol.96, No.1, 2017, pp.183, 192. [11]John Martin Fischer and Mark Ravizza, Responsibility and Control, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000, p. 240.