复制权与改编权侵权判定标准的区分

发布时间：2018-05-07 01:03

本文选题：复制权 + 改编权　；参考：《西南政法大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：一直以来,司法实践中对复制权的侵权认定与改编权的侵权认定采取相同的判定标准,即接触加实质性相似。并且对此观点学者及相关法律人士均持承认的态度,但笔者认为,无论是从立法中复制权和改编权的规定,还是改编权的发展形成过程,都有区分复制权的侵权判定标准和改编权的侵权判定标准的必要。因此本文试图通过对复制权、改编权的介绍,以及复制权与改编权联系的探讨,结合复制品与改编作品的不同,来探寻侵犯复制权的侵权判定标准与侵犯改编权的侵权判定标准的不同,并得出自己的浅见。为此,全文共分为五个部分。第一部分主要是简要介绍什么是复制权和改编权,以及两者的特征。该部分通过对复制权和改编权的介绍,理清复制权和改编权的相关问题,为后续比较奠定基础。第二部分旨在讨论复制权与改编权的联系。该部分首先探讨了改编权是复制权扩张的产物,而后介绍了司法实践中复制权侵权与改编权侵权混淆交叉,甚至出现复制权的范围覆盖改编权范围的情况。在本部分的最后,为了方便后文的讨论,笔者还简单梳理现在比较常用的实质性相似的判断标准。第三部分主要讨论区分复制权侵权判定标准与改编权侵权判定标准的必要性。为阐明区分两者的必要性,笔者从司法实践与立法的冲突,以及改编权的发展形成过程两方面进行探讨。笔者认为无论是从立法的要求的角度,还是从改编权的发展形成过程的角度,区分两者的侵权判定标准均是有必要的。第四部分是本文的主要及重点内容,着重探讨在司法实践中如何区分复制权和改编权的侵权判定标准。该部分又分为两点,首先笔者主要以美国及我国的司法判例为基础,通过对相关案例的分析总结,梳理出复制品与改编作品的区别,并以文学作品和美术作品为例,具体分析说明探讨如何判定改编作品,以期为后续讨论做铺垫。本部分的第二点,主要讨论了在司法实践中如何区分复制权与改编权的侵权判定标准,并以相关案例加以说明,最后笔者认为只要被比较的两个作品在最主要的核心的内容上存在实质性相似,即原告作品最主要的核心的内容正好是被诉侵权作品最主要的核心的内容,即可认定被诉侵权作品侵犯的原告作品的改编权,而无需考虑被诉侵权作品在剽窃原作品的核心内容之外还有多少与原作品的不同。第五部分是结语部分,主要是对全文内容的简单梳理,以及在此基础上总结笔者的观点。即复制权的侵权认定标准应与改编权的侵权认定标准相区别,且两者的主要区别在于侵犯改编权的判断标准低于侵犯复制权的判定标准。
[Abstract]:In judicial practice, the same standard is adopted for the infringement of the right of reproduction and the tort of the right of adaptation, that is, contact and substantial similarity. And the scholars and relevant legal personages all hold the attitude of recognition to this viewpoint, but the author thinks, whether it is the regulation of the right to copy and the right of adaptation from the legislation, or the process of the development and formation of the right of adaptation, It is necessary to distinguish the tort judgment standard of reproduction right from the tort judgment standard of adaptation right. Therefore, this paper attempts to introduce the rights of reproduction and adaptation, as well as the relationship between the right of reproduction and the right of adaptation, and to combine the difference between the right of reproduction and the right of adaptation. To explore the infringement of the infringement of the right to copy and the infringement of the adaptation of the infringement of the different criteria, and draw their own views. Therefore, the full text is divided into five parts. The first part is a brief introduction of the rights of reproduction and adaptation, as well as the characteristics of the two. Through the introduction of the rights of reproduction and adaptation, this part clarifies the related problems of the rights of reproduction and adaptation, and lays the foundation for further comparison. The second part aims to discuss the relationship between the right of reproduction and the right of adaptation. This part first discusses that the adaptation right is the product of the expansion of the right of reproduction, then introduces the confusion and intersection between the infringement of the right of reproduction and the infringement of the right of adaptation in judicial practice, and even the situation that the scope of the right of reproduction covers the scope of the right of adaptation. At the end of this part, in order to facilitate the later discussion, the author also briefly combs the commonly used judgment criteria of substantial similarity. The third part mainly discusses the necessity of distinguishing the judgment standard of copyright infringement from that of adaptation right. In order to clarify the necessity of distinguishing the two, the author discusses the conflict between judicial practice and legislation, and the development and formation process of the right of adaptation. The author thinks that it is necessary to distinguish the tort judgment standard of both from the angle of legislative requirement or from the angle of the development and formation process of the adaptation right. The fourth part is the main content of this paper, focusing on how to distinguish the right of replication from the right of adaptation in judicial practice. This part is divided into two parts. Firstly, based on the judicial precedents of the United States and our country, the author combs out the differences between the reproductions and the adapted works through the analysis and summary of the relevant cases, and takes literary works and fine arts works as examples. The concrete analysis explains how to judge the adaptation works in order to pave the way for the follow-up discussion. The second point of this part mainly discusses how to distinguish the right of reproduction from the right of adaptation in judicial practice, and explain it with relevant cases. Finally, the author thinks that as long as the two works compared have substantial similarities in the most important core contents, that is, the most important core content of the plaintiff's works is exactly the most important core content of the works being sued for infringement. We can determine the adaptation right of the plaintiff's works infringed by the alleged infringing works without considering how many differences between the infringed works and the original works in addition to the core contents of the original works. The fifth part is the conclusion part, mainly summarizes the author's viewpoint on the basis of the brief combing of the full text content. That is to say, the standard of copyright infringement should be different from that of adaptation right, and the main difference between them is that the judgment standard of infringement of adaptation right is lower than that of infringement of reproduction right.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923.41

【相似文献】