在大多数（如果不是所有）国家中，著作权法下的合理使用原则旨在确保公众保留版权作品访问权的合法利益不会受到过度损害，即使事先未征得版权持有人的许可或拒绝征得许可也是如此。公众的这种合法利益与版权持有人的经济权利明显存在冲突，因为这导致版权持有人无法享受其专有权的绝对垄断。达成这种不定形的平衡给世界各地的立法者和法院都带来了很大困难。这导致合理使用原则在各个国家之间和内部的应用都存在很大困难和不一致。在合理使用框架能够解决上述困难和不一致之前，人工智能生成内容（“AIGC”）的激增给世界各地的著作权法带来了更多、更深层次、有时甚至是生存问题。合理使用原则在这方面也未能幸免，而当前围绕合理使用的困难不可避免地因 AIGC 而加剧。上述困难和不一致的核心在于未能准确定义和划定在这种背景下，在合理使用分析中必须保护（或至少考虑）的公众合法利益是什么。本文试图为这个问题提供两种解决方案：（a）首先，立法修正将《中华人民共和国著作权法》（2020 年修订）第 24 条转变为开放式合理使用模式；或者，（b）在没有对第 24 条进行任何立法修订的情况下，现行《中华人民共和国著作权法》（2020 年修订）框架仍然允许对侵犯版权进行“公共利益辩护”。因此，本文试图实现以下目标。首先，简要介绍合理使用以及美国、英国和中华人民共和国对合理使用的不同方法。第二，明确AIGC给合理使用原则，特别是《中华人民共和国著作权法（2020年修订）》第24条规定的合理使用框架，带来的各种问题和困难。第三，解释上述提出的两种解决方案背后的理由、原理和机制。

Fair use doctrine under copyright law, in most (if not all) jurisdictions, seeks to ensure that legitimate interests of the public in retaining access to copyrighted works are not unduly prejudiced even if prior permission from the copyright holder was not sought or permission sought in this regard was refused. Such legitimate interests of the public are in obvious tension with the economic rights of copyright holders because it results in copyright holders not enjoying an absolute monopoly of their exclusive rights. Striking this amorphous balance has posed much difficulty for both legislators and courts alike around the world. This had resulted in fair use doctrines being applied with much difficulty and inconsistency both between and within various jurisdictions.Before fair use doctrines could satisfactorily resolve this abovementioned difficulty and inconsistency and wade out of the quagmire it finds itself in, the proliferation of artificial intelligence-generated content (“AIGCs”) have posed further, deeper and, at times, existential problems to copyright frameworks around the world. Fair use doctrines have not been spared in this regard and the present difficulties surrounding fair use have inevitably been exacerbated by AIGCs. At the heart of the abovementioned difficulty and inconsistency lies a failure to precisely define and delineate what the legitimate interests of the public, which have to be protected (or at least considered) in a fair use analysis, are in this context. This paper seeks to offer two suggestions to this problem: (a) first, legislative amendments to convert Article 24 of the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China (2020 Amendment) to an open-ended fair use model; and, alternatively, (b) in the absence of any legislative amendments made to Article 24, a “public interest defense” to copyright infringement is nevertheless allowed under the existing Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China (2020 Amendment) framework.This paper therefore seeks to achieve the following. First, a brief introduction to fair use and different approaches to fair use in the United States, the United Kingdom and the People’s Republic of China. Second, an identification of the various problems and difficulties brought about by AIGCs to fair use doctrines and, in particular, the fair use framework provided for under Article 24 of the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China (2020 Amendment). Third, an explanation of the justifications, rationales and mechanics behind the abovementioned proposed two suggestions.