Edit: 英国AI与版权法裁决引发争议

编辑文章

标题 *

URL 别名 *

内容 * (支持 Markdown 格式)

原文:
Britain | Tech firms and copyright law A British legal ruling about AI delights nobody The government will have to lay down the law  Save  Share  Summary Marked up contact prints from the 1956 Picture Post story held in the Getty Archives photograph: getty images Nov 6th 2025 | 2 min read Listen to this story  It was not the verdict artists hoped for. On November 4th the High Court ruled that Stability ai, a technology company, was not liable for copyright infringement despite training its image generator with content from Getty Images, a media firm. The case was an early British attempt to answer questions about whether ai firms should be allowed to train their systems using copyrighted materials generated by people. Getty lost not because evidence was lacking but because legislation is outdated. Britain’s copyright laws were written before the notion of robots trained on human art was conceivable. In her ruling, Judge Joanna Smith described her findings as “historic and extremely limited in scope”, judicial shorthand for saying she had little choice. The decision leaves both the tech industry and the creative sector eager for clearer rules. The government is keen to encourage ai firms to invest in Britain. But the country has high commercial electricity prices—a big disincentive for an energy-hungry industry. And the ruling highlights another drawback. Firms will be reluctant to invest without guarantees that they will not face lawsuits for training their models on material that is copyrighted in Britain. In December 2024 ministers launched a consultation on ai and copyright, aiming to establish a framework that “rewards human creativity, incentivises innovation and provides legal certainty”. That is easier said than done. Britain enjoys a global reputation for its creative sector. Artists such as J.K. Rowling and Ed Sheeran boost the economy and, in a hard-to-measure way, national pride. The prospect of ai ingesting their work is controversial. In 2021 a consultation on ai and intellectual property received fewer than 100 responses. The current one got over 11,500. Hundreds of writers, musicians and artists signed an open letter accusing Sir Keir Starmer, the prime minister, of “giving away” their work. One proposal in the government’s consultation is to let tech firms train models on copyrighted works unless the rights holder opts out, as is the case in the eu. Many artists see the opt-out exception as burdensome. Hopes are now pinned on the outcome of the government consultation. “The government needs to decide which way to jump. Will it change the law to favour the content creators, or ai?” says Arty Rajendra, head of ip disputes at Osborne Clarke, a law firm. The longer policymakers dither, the greater the danger that technology firms will settle on countries like America and Japan, where the rules suit them better

翻译:
# 英国AI与版权法裁决引发争议

/ Britain | Tech firms and copyright law
/ 英国 | 科技公司与版权法

A British legal ruling about AI delights nobody
英国一项关于人工智能的法律裁决令无人满意

The government will have to lay down the law
政府将不得不制定法律

Save Share
保存 分享

Summary Marked up contact prints from the 1956 Picture Post story held in the Getty Archives photograph: getty images Nov 6th 2025 | 2 min read Listen to this story
摘要 1956年《图片邮报》故事的标记接触印样，存放在盖蒂图片社档案中 照片：getty images 2025年11月6日 | 阅读时长2分钟 听取此报道

It was not the verdict artists hoped for.
这不是艺术家们所期望的判决。

On November 4th the High Court ruled that Stability ai, a technology company, was not liable for copyright infringement despite training its image generator with content from Getty Images, a media firm.
11月4日，高等法院裁定，尽管人工智能技术公司Stability AI使用媒体公司Getty Images的内容来训练其图像生成器，但该公司不承担版权侵权责任。

The case was an early British attempt to answer questions about whether ai firms should be allowed to train their systems using copyrighted materials generated by people.
此案是英国早期试图回答人工智能公司是否应被允许使用由人类创作的受版权保护的材料来训练其系统的尝试。

Getty lost not because evidence was lacking but because legislation is outdated.
盖蒂公司败诉并非因为证据不足，而是因为立法已经过时。

Britain’s copyright laws were written before the notion of robots trained on human art was conceivable.
英国的版权法是在可以想象出通过人类艺术训练的机器人这一概念之前制定的。

In her ruling, Judge Joanna Smith described her findings as “historic and extremely limited in scope”, judicial shorthand for saying she had little choice.
在她的裁决中，乔安娜·史密斯法官将她的发现描述为“历史性的且范围极其有限的”，这是司法上的简洁说法，意指她别无选择。

The decision leaves both the tech industry and the creative sector eager for clearer rules.
这一决定使得科技行业和创意行业都迫切希望获得更明确的规则。

The government is keen to encourage ai firms to invest in Britain.
政府热切希望鼓励人工智能公司在英国进行投资。

But the country has high commercial electricity prices—a big disincentive for an energy-hungry industry.
但该国商业电价很高——这对一个能源密集型行业来说是一个很大的抑制因素。

And the ruling highlights another drawback.
而这项裁决突显了另一个弊端。

Firms will be reluctant to invest without guarantees that they will not face lawsuits for training their models on material that is copyrighted in Britain.
如果没有保证称其在英国受版权保护的材料上训练模型不会面临诉讼，企业将不愿投资。

In December 2024 ministers launched a consultation on ai and copyright, aiming to establish a framework that “rewards human creativity, incentivises innovation and provides legal certainty”.
2024年12月，大臣们发起了关于人工智能和版权的磋商，旨在建立一个“奖励人类创造力、激励创新并提供法律确定性”的框架。

That is easier said than done.
这说起来容易做起来难。

Britain enjoys a global reputation for its creative sector.
英国的创意产业享有全球声誉。

Artists such as J.K. Rowling and Ed Sheeran boost the economy and, in a hard-to-measure way, national pride.
像J.K.罗琳和艾德·希兰这样的艺术家提振了经济，并以一种难以衡量的方式提升了民族自豪感。

The prospect of ai ingesting their work is controversial.
人工智能吸收他们作品的前景是有争议的。

In 2021 a consultation on ai and intellectual property received fewer than 100 responses.
2021年，一项关于人工智能和知识产权的磋商只收到了不到100份回复。

The current one got over 11,500.
当前的磋商收到了超过11,500份回复。

Hundreds of writers, musicians and artists signed an open letter accusing Sir Keir Starmer, the prime minister, of “giving away” their work.
数百名作家、音乐家和艺术家签署了一封公开信，指责首相基尔·斯塔默将他们的作品“拱手相让”。

One proposal in the government’s consultation is to let tech firms train models on copyrighted works unless the rights holder opts out, as is the case in the eu.
政府磋商中的一项提议是允许科技公司在受版权保护的作品上训练模型，除非权利持有人选择退出，这与欧盟的情况相同。

Many artists see the opt-out exception as burdensome.
许多艺术家认为“选择退出”的例外是一个负担。

Hopes are now pinned on the outcome of the government consultation.
目前的希望寄托在政府磋商的结果上。

“The government needs to decide which way to jump.
“政府需要决定如何抉择。

Will it change the law to favour the content creators, or ai?” says Arty Rajendra, head of ip disputes at Osborne Clarke, a law firm.
它会修改法律以偏向内容创作者，还是偏向人工智能？”律师事务所奥斯本·克拉克知识产权纠纷主管阿尔蒂·拉金德拉说。

The longer policymakers dither, the greater the danger that technology firms will settle on countries like America and Japan, where the rules suit them better
政策制定者犹豫得越久，科技公司就越有可能选择像美国和日本这样规则更适合它们的国家。

分析:
# 英国AI版权判决的困境与法律真空

## 1. 文章大意

英国高等法院裁定Stability AI在未经授权使用Getty Images受版权保护内容训练AI模型一案中不构成侵权。这一判决并非基于法律的完善，而是因为现行版权法未能预见到AI训练场景，被法官描述为“历史性和限制性极强”。该裁决令科技界和创意产业双方都不满意，凸显了英国在鼓励AI投资与保护本国创意产业（如作家、音乐家）之间的两难境地。政府正试图通过正在进行的版权磋商来确立新框架，但面临着创作者对“选择退出”（opt-out）提议的抵制，政策的迟疑可能导致科技投资转向监管更明确的国家。

## 2. 写作手法

1. **事实陈述与案例引用：** 以2025年11月4日具体法院判决（Stability AI 诉 Getty Images）作为核心事件开篇，增强新闻的权威性和时效性。
2. **对比与冲突（Dichotomy）：** 明确指出判决的结果让“无人高兴”（delights nobody），随后对比了AI行业（寻求法律确定性）和创意行业（要求保护作品）的对立立场。
3. **引用权威观点：** 引用法官对判决的定性（“historic and extremely limited in scope”）和法律专家的评论（Arty Rajendra的总结），支撑论点。
4. **情景分析：** 探讨了政策对经济的实际影响，如高昂的电价和缺乏明确法律保障对科技投资的“双重抑制”。
5. **数据支撑：** 通过提及公众咨询的参与度变化（2021年不足100份回复对当前超过11,500份回复），强调了议题的紧迫性和公众关注度。

## 3. 结构分析

文章结构清晰，逻辑性强，采用“事件引出问题—分析各方反应与困境—探讨政策解决方向—结论/警示”的模式展开：

1. **引言（开篇）：** 直接引述英国高等法院的判决结果（Stability AI胜诉），并定调为立法滞后的产物。
2. **问题阐述与各方反应：** 详细说明判决对创意产业（失望）和科技行业（需要确定性）的影响，指出法律的局限性是判决的关键原因。
3. **宏观背景与政策挑战：** 扩大讨论范围，提到政府鼓励AI投资的意图与国内高昂电价、法律不确定性构成的障碍。同时，引入对本国创意名人（如J.K. Rowling）的提及，强调保护的社会价值。
4. **政策讨论与争议点：** 聚焦政府正在进行的磋商，重点对比了“选择退出”（Opt-out）提议及其在创作者中的争议，展示了政策制定者面临的权衡。
5. **结论与警示：** 以法律专家的观点收尾，强调政府决策的紧迫性（“decide which way to jump”），并发出警告：政策拖延可能导致AI投资流向监管更有利的国际市场。

词汇:
# 英国AI版权判决与法律滞后性分析

**重点词汇分析：**

1. **Infringement**
    * **词性:** 名词
    * **定义:** 侵犯，违反（法律、权利、协议等）。在法律语境中常指侵犯知识产权（如版权、专利权）。
    * **用法示例:** The court ruled that the company was not liable for copyright **infringement**.
    * **词汇扩展/同义词:** Violation, breach, trespass.

2. **Outdated**
    * **词性:** 形容词
    * **定义:** 过时的，陈旧的，不适应当今情况的。
    * **用法示例:** The case was lost because the legislation is **outdated**.
    * **词汇扩展/同义词:** Obsolete, antiquated, passé.

3. **Conceivable**
    * **词性:** 形容词
    * **定义:** 可以想象的，可以设想的，理论上可能的。
    * **用法示例:** Britain’s copyright laws were written before the notion of robots trained on human art was **conceivable**.
    * **词汇扩展/同义词:** Imaginable, conceivable, plausible.

4. **Judicial shorthand**
    * **词性:** 名词短语（Judicial: 形容词；shorthand: 名词）
    * **定义:** 法官的“速记”或“行话”；指法官用简短、技术性或约定俗成的语言表达复杂或限制性意见的方式。
    * **用法示例:** The judge described her findings as “historic and extremely limited in scope,” which is **judicial shorthand** for saying she had little choice.
    * **词汇扩展/同义词:** Legal jargon, judicial phraseology.

5. **Disincentive**
    * **词性:** 名词
    * **定义:** 抑制因素；削弱或阻碍某人采取行动的因素。
    * **用法示例:** High commercial electricity prices are a big **disincentive** for an energy-hungry industry.
    * **词汇扩展/同义词:** Deterrent, discouragement, impediment.

6. **Consultation**
    * **词性:** 名词
    * **定义:** 咨询，商议；（政府）就某一政策或法案征求公众或利益相关方意见的正式过程。
    * **用法示例:** Ministers launched a **consultation** on AI and copyright.
    * **词汇扩展/同义词:** Discussion, deliberation, poll.

7. **Framework**
    * **词性:** 名词
    * **定义:** 框架，结构；一套指导原则或规则体系。
    * **用法示例:** Aiming to establish a **framework** that rewards human creativity.
    * **词汇扩展/同义词:** Structure, system, blueprint.

8. **Ingesting**
    * **词性:** 动词的现在分词（原形：ingest）
    * **定义:** 摄取，吸收（尤指数据或信息）。在AI语境中，指AI模型对大量数据的处理和学习过程。
    * **用法示例:** The prospect of AI **ingesting** their work is controversial.
    * **词汇扩展/同义词:** Absorbing, assimilating, processing (data).

9. **Burdensome**
    * **词性:** 形容词
    * **定义:** 繁重的，累赘的，造成负担的。
    * **用法示例:** Many artists see the opt-out exception as **burdensome**.
    * **词汇扩展/同义词:** Onerous, cumbersome, taxing.

10. **Dither**
    * **词性:** 动词
    * **定义:** 犹豫不决，踌躇；（尤指在重要决策上）迟疑不前。
    * **用法示例:** The longer policymakers **dither**, the greater the danger becomes.
    * **词汇扩展/同义词:** Hesitate, vacillate, waver.

配图 (可多选)

选择新图片文件或拖拽到此处

标签