人工智能著作權訴訟權衡之關鍵因子 ：
如同我國著作權法第1條，究竟是要保障著作人之著作權益，還是要調和社會公共利益，促進國家文化發展；那個要保護多一點？取決於個案及法官的正義。
| Factor | Why It Matters | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Human Authorship | Most copyright laws require a human creator. AI-generated works challenge this. | In Li v. Liu, China’s court ruled an AI image was copyrightable due to human input. |
| Fair Use Doctrine | Determines if AI training on copyrighted data is legal. | OpenAI and Stability AI argue training is like human learning. |
| Economic Harm to Creators | Courts assess whether AI tools reduce income or visibility for original authors. | Penske Media claims Google’s AI Overviews reduce traffic to their sites. |
| Transformative Use | If AI output adds new meaning or value, it may be protected. | Courts debate whether AI-generated art is truly “transformative.” |
| Transparency in Training Data | Creators want to know if their work was used to train AI. | NYT sued OpenAI for using millions of articles without consent. |
| Cultural Enrichment | AI can democratize creativity and expand access to knowledge. | AI-generated music, art, and literature are reshaping global expression. |
| Attribution and Credit | Even if AI uses content legally, creators may deserve recognition. | Some propose metadata tagging or revenue-sharing models |
