最近常撰寫AI著作權短文，此間又以美國案例居多，而美國法就著作權侵害態樣可分為Copyright Infringement — Direct, Vicarious and Contributory等；接下來分別介紹這三種侵害類型。
The United States Copyright Office defines Direct Copyright Infringement as the violation of a copyright holder’s exclusive rights, which include the impermissible reproduction, distribution, performance, public display, or creation of a derivative work of copyrighted work. Title 17 of the United States Code, §§ 501–513 govern copyright infringement and related legal remedies. In addition, copyright infringement may be vicarious and contributory.美國著作權局定義直接侵害著作權係違逆著作權人排他權，其包括未經允許重製、散布、演出、公開展示或改作。Title 17 of the United States Code, §§ 501–513 規範侵害著作權及相關法定救濟。此外，著作權侵害尚有vicarious 與contributory兩種。
代償或代受或轉嫁侵害著作權係基於習慣法之雇主負責原則，此原則認為假設員工之行為係在僱傭關係存續中，雇主要為其員工行為負法律責任。為了成立代償責任，前提須有直接侵害之情狀。然而雇主無須對直接侵害有認識，但雇主對侵害有金錢上利益，同時有能力支配侵害。
Vicarious Copyright Infringement is based on respondeat superior, a common law principle that holds employers legal responsible for the acts of an employee, if such acts are within the scope and nature of the employment. In order to establish vicarious liability, there must be an instance of direct infringement. While the employer does not have to have direct knowledge of the infringement, the employer must have a financial interest in the infringement and the ability to control the infringement. In Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, the court found Grokster liable for vicarious copyright infringement for distributing peer-to-peer software that allowed users to share electronic files. The court explained that by distributing a device that promoted or allowed infringement, a party is liable for the secondary infringement, regardless of whether the device has lawful uses.
Contributory Copyright Infringement holds a party liable for infringement where the party induced or substantially contributed to copyright infringement by another party. Here, the contributing party must have reasonably known, or had reason to know, of the infringement. In Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., the United States Supreme Court held that Sony was not liable for contributory copyright infringement for its sale of home video tape recorders. The court explained that the average member of the public used the recorders to record television programs to watch at a later time, which increased viewership to include people who would not otherwise have been able to watch the program due to scheduling conflicts. Where the objecting parties were unable to demonstrate depreciation of commercial value of their copyrights, there was no basis for a copyright infringement claim.