“Allen said his inability to obtain copyright registration for the work has led to infringement that ‘has crushed the Plaintiff’s ability to monetize his artistic creation.’”
“艾伦说，他无法获得作品的版权注册，导致侵权行为'粉碎了原告将其艺术创作货币化的能力'"。
Jason Allen, the author of the two-dimensional digital artwork, titled “Théâtre D’opéra Spatial,” which was rejected by the U.S. Copyright Office last year, has filed a request for declaratory judgment with the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado asking the court to find that his work is eligible for copyright registration.
去年被美国版权局驳回的名为 “Théâtre D'opéra Spatial ”的二维数字艺术作品的作者杰森-艾伦（Jason Allen）向美国科罗拉多州地区法院提交了一份声明性判决申请，要求法院认定其作品有资格进行版权登记。
The Review Board of the U.S. Copyright Office published a final decision denying registration of Allen’s work in September 2023. The work was created using the generative artificial intelligence (GAI) system, Midjourney.
美国版权局复审委员会于 2023 年 9 月公布了驳回艾伦作品注册的最终决定。该作品是使用生成式人工智能（GAI）系统 “Midjourney ”创作的。
According to the complaint, Allen said his inability to obtain copyright registration for the work has led to infringement that “has crushed the Plaintiff’s ability to monetize his artistic creation.” In addition to providing specific examples of such infringement, the complaint also details the amount of time and effort Allen put into creating the work, which amounted to a total of 6,864 minutes (114.4 hours) “selecting, arranging, and instructing the AI on what he wanted it to generate.” This does not take into consideration “the time he spent thoughtfully crafting each instruction, taking breaks to return with fresh eyes, reflecting on what he might be doing wrong, understanding why the AI was unable to comprehend all his instructions, and devising creative solutions to tackle these issues,” added the complaint.
根据诉状，艾伦表示，他无法获得该作品的版权注册，导致侵权行为 “粉碎了原告将其艺术创作货币化的能力”。除了提供此类侵权的具体事例外，诉状还详细列出了艾伦为创作该作品所花费的时间和精力，“选择、安排和指导人工智能生成他想要的内容 ”的时间总计达 6864 分钟（114.4 小时）。这还没有考虑到 “他花了多少时间深思熟虑地制作每一条指令，花了多少时间休息以便以全新的眼光重新审视，花了多少时间反思自己可能做错了什么，花了多少时间了解为什么人工智能无法理解他的所有指令，以及花了多少时间设计创造性的解决方案来解决这些问题”。
In March 2023, following some high-profile cases involving works made using GAI, the Copyright Office issued a statement of policy indicating that, in assessing registrability of works including AI-generated content, it will first ask “whether the ‘work’ is basically one of human authorship, with the computer [or other device] merely being an assisting instrument, or whether the traditional elements of authorship in the work (literary, artistic, or musical expression or elements of selection, arrangement, etc.) were actually conceived and executed not by man but by a machine.”
2023 年 3 月，在涉及使用 GAI 制作的作品的一些备受瞩目的案件之后，版权局发布了一份政策声明，指出在评估包括人工智能生成内容在内的作品的可注册性时，版权局将首先询问“‘作品’是否基本上是人类作者的作品，计算机[或其他设备]只是辅助工具，或者作品中传统的作者要素（文学、艺术或音乐表达或选择、编排等要素）是否实际上不是由人类而是由机器构思和执行的”。
If a work contains AI-generated material, the Office will first consider “whether the AI contributions are the result of ‘mechanical reproduction’ or instead of an author’s ‘own original mental conception, to which [the author] gave visible form.’” This will depend on the particular circumstances, how the AI tool works and how it was used, and will be determined on a case-by-case basis.
如果作品包含人工智能生成的材料，版权局将首先考虑 “人工智能的贡献是‘机械复制’的结果，还是作者‘自己的原始思想构想，[作者]赋予其可见形式’的结果”。这将取决于具体情况、人工智能工具的工作原理和使用方式，并将逐案确定。
If a work is determined to have been created solely by a machine, it will not be registered. The Office called out Midjourney as an example of AI tools that generate complex musical, visual and written works with a simple prompt from a human. “Based on the Office’s understanding of the generative AI technologies currently available, users do not exercise ultimate creative control over how such systems interpret prompts and generate material,” wrote the USCO.
如果作品被认定完全由机器创作，将不予注册。版权局以《Midjourney》为例，指出人工智能工具可以通过人类的简单提示生成复杂的音乐、视觉和文字作品。“美国版权局写道："根据该局对目前可用的人工智能生成技术的了解，用户并不能对这些系统如何解释提示和生成材料行使最终的创作控制权。
In line with that guidance, the decision to reject Allen’s work cited “more than a de minimis amount” of AI-created content and said that the AI content was not disclaimed.
According to the Copyright Office guidance, where AI-generated works also contain enough human authorship to support copyright protection, the Office will grant registration of “the human-authored aspects of the work,” but the AI-generated portions must be disclaimed and the use of AI tools disclosed.
根据该指南，驳回艾伦作品的决定引用了 “超过最小量 ”的人工智能创作内容，并称人工智能内容未被免责。
根据版权局的指导意见，如果人工智能生成的作品也包含足以支持版权保护的人类作者，版权局将批准注册 “作品中人类作者的部分”，但人工智能生成的部分必须免责，并披露人工智能工具的使用情况。
Allen did not disclose his use of Midjourney to create the work in the application, but his work had drawn national attention as “the first AI-generated image to win the 2022 Colorado State Fair’s annual fine art competition,” according to the decision. The examiner therefore requested additional information about the use of Midjourney in creating the work.
艾伦没有在申请中披露他使用 Midjourney 创作了这件作品，但根据裁决，他的作品作为 “第一个赢得 2022 年科罗拉多州博览会年度美术竞赛的人工智能生成图像”，引起了全国的关注。因此，审查员要求提供更多信息，说明在创作作品时使用 Midjourney 的情况。
Allen’s complaint cites Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, in which the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2024 overruled its own seminal case on administrative agency deference, Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
Loper Bright mandates that the district court should review the “factual situation and law with a fresh set of eyes,” says Allen’s complaint, giving the Copyright Office decision only “some weight.”
艾伦在诉状中援引了 Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo 案，在该案中，美国最高法院于 2024 年 6 月推翻了自己关于行政机构服从的开创性案例--Chevron U. S. A. Inc.
艾伦在诉状中称，洛珀-布莱特案要求地方法院 “以全新的视角 ”审查 “事实情况和法律”，只给予版权局的决定 “一定的权重”。
The complaint goes on to charge that the Copyright Office decision was arbitrary and capricious, flouting the Copyright Act’s standard for protection; that Section 313.2 of the Compendium of Copyright Office Practices does not bar registration of the work because a) the elements of authorship were conceived by a human and b) a human executed the elements of authorship; that the Office misapplied the human authorship requirement; and that, in denying registration of the work, the Office has “failed to remain technologically neutral,” among other arguments.
The complaint claims violations of the Administrative Procedures Act and the Copyright Act and seeks an order that the Office must register the work.
诉状还指控版权局的决定任意妄为，蔑视《版权法》的保护标准；《版权局做法汇编》第 313.2 条并不禁止注册该作品，因为 a) 作者身份的要素是由人类构思的，b) 作者身份的要素是由人类执行的；版权局错误地适用了人类作者身份的要求；版权局在拒绝注册该作品时 “未能保持技术中立”，等等。
申诉书声称，该局违反了《行政程序法》和《版权法》，并要求下令该局必须对作品进行注册。