简介：具身人工智能可以主动收集信息、调整行为来适应复杂多变的环境,并在没有人类直接干预的情况下自主地进行学习,通过"思想"与"身体"的协同,在"体验"中提升"创造"的能力.基于人工智能工具主义观,具身人工智能尽管具备了技术上的显著优势,仍然难以在著作权法律体系中获得主体资格,但如果忽视具身人工智能所引发的创作形态变革,否定其内容生成行为的创作属性,将导致著作权中创作标准的失序.对此,应当对权利主体与创造主体予以区分,以作品中心主义理论以及具身认知为正当性锚点,完善具身人工智能与人类的二元作者结构,建构委托关系下的具身人工智能开发者权利归属模式.Abstract：Embodied artificial intelligence can actively gather information and adjust behavior to adapt to complex and dynamic environments,autonomously learning without direct human intervention.Through the synergy of"mind"and"body",it enhances its creative abilities through"experience".From the perspective of AI instrumentalism,although embodied artificial intelligence has significant technical advantages,it struggles to achieve subject status within the copyright legal system.However,ignoring the transformative impact of embodied artificial intelligence on creative forms and denying the creative nature of its content generation activities will lead to the disarray of creation standards in copyright l...

简介：摘要：我国《著作权法》在第三次修改时引入了惩罚性赔偿制度,但立法语言的模糊导致司法裁判标准混乱.基于对687件裁判文书实证分析可知:一方面,法定赔偿暗含的惩罚属性压缩了惩罚性赔偿的适用空间,也带来了能否将这一实践中具有绝对主导地位的损害赔偿计算标准作为惩罚性赔偿基准额的争议;另一方面,惩罚性赔偿构成要件语义模糊、规范指引缺乏,导致裁判标准无法统一.要促进我国著作权侵权惩罚性赔偿制度的司法完善,须以类型化、体系化的思维统一惩罚性赔偿适用标准.具体而言,须厘清并协调"故意"与"情节严重"等构成要件的功能;允许在特定条件下将法定赔偿作为惩罚性赔偿的基数;降低数额认定的高精度期待,避免损害赔偿"数学化"而忽略其法律价值;厘清法定赔偿与惩罚性赔偿的边界,在防止对侵权事实重复评价的基础上促进二者的协调适用.Abstract：China's Copyright Law introduced punitive damage rule in third amendment,but the ambiguity of legisla-tive language led to the confusion on judicial standards.Based on the empirical analysis of 687 judging documents,it can be concluded that,the implied punitive attribute of statutory compensation has compressed the space for the appli-cation of punitive compensation,which also brought about the controversy of whether the standard of calculating dam-ages has an absolutely dominant position in the practice as the benchmark punitive compensation.However,the seman-tic ambiguity of the constituent elements of punitive compensation and the lack of normative guidelines hav...