EFF 呼吁法院不要因 AI 热潮重写版权法

好莱坞的夸张手法与作曲家约翰·菲利普·苏萨（John Phillip Sousa）的言论相呼应：https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/10/100-years-of-big-content-fearing-technologyin-its-own-words/，他在1906年声称播放器钢琴和留声机将会毁掉音乐创作；一些肖像画家害怕相机：https://daily.jstor.org/did-photography-really-kill-portrait-painting/ 会取代画笔。但这些事情都没有发生。例如，相机引发了肖像艺术的复兴，并且通过让更多人能够创作图像，带来了意想不到的发展——比如新闻摄影的兴起。

而这些案件中的原告至少还有另外两点错误。首先，研究表明：https://news.mit.edu/2026/when-ai-art-has-no-author-generated-images-often-cant-be-traced-to-training-data-0818，大型生成式人工智能模型不太可能产生侵权作品，因为模型训练的数据越多，任何单个训练样本对特定输出的重要性就越小。

其次，人工智能工具不一定会取代人类的创造力。举几个例子：

法院无权判断这些人不是艺术家，或者人工智能不能以积极的方式增强人类创造力。

更新：2026年8月5日，参议院商务委员会投票推进了这项法案。电子前哨基金会（EFF）继续反对该法案，该法案仍需全体参议院批准。人工智能正在快速改变教育和人们搜索信息的方式。家长、青少年、教师和学校都在努力应对棘手的问题……

《禁止伪造法》（NO FAKES Act）：https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/06/tell-congress-just-say-no-no-fakes 旨在针对有害的人工智能生成的冒充行为。但实际上，它将更容易压制：https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/06/tell-congress-just-say-no-no-fakes 评论、讽刺及其他合法言论。这就是为什么电子前哨基金会签署了一封信：https://cdt.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/NO-FAKES-Summer-2026_FINAL-1.pdf，敦促参议院司法委员会不要在现有形式下推进该法案。

查看我们在慈善导航上的四星评价：https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/043091431。

Hollywood’s hyperbole has echoed that of composer John Phillip Sousa：https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/10/100-years-of-big-content-fearing-technologyin-its-own-words/, who claimed in 1906 that the player piano and the gramophone would destroy music composition; portrait artists who feared the camera：https://daily.jstor.org/did-photography-really-kill-portrait-painting/ would replace the paintbrush. None of these things happened. Cameras, for example, sparked a resurgence of portraiture and, by making it possible for more people to create images, led to unexpected developments—like the rise of photojournalism.

And the plaintiffs in these cases get at least two other things wrong. First, research：https://news.mit.edu/2026/when-ai-art-has-no-author-generated-images-often-cant-be-traced-to-training-data-0818 shows that large generative AI models are unlikely to produce infringing works because the more data on which a model is trained, the less any individual training example matters to any particular output.

Second, AI tools aren’t necessarily displacing human creativity. To take a just a few examples:

It is not the place of courts to say these people are not artists or that AI cannot augment human creativity in a positive way.

Update: The Senate Commerce Committee voted to advance this bill on August 5, 2026. EFF continues to oppose the bill, which still needs approval from the full Senate. Artificial intelligence is rapidly changing education, and the way people search for information. Parents, teenagers, teachers, and schools are struggling with tough...

The NO FAKES Act：https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/06/tell-congress-just-say-no-no-fakes is supposed to target harmful AI-generated impersonations. But in reality, it will make it easier to suppress：https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/06/tell-congress-just-say-no-no-fakes commentary, satire, and other lawful speech. That's why EFF has signed a letter：https://cdt.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/NO-FAKES-Summer-2026_FINAL-1.pdf urging the Senate Judiciary Committee not to advance the bill in its current...

Check out our 4-star rating on Charity Navigator：https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/043091431.