“转化性使用”规则的适用条件

发布时间：2018-05-17 12:34

本文选题：合理使用 + 转化性使用　；参考：《华东政法大学》2016年硕士论文

【摘要】：在合理使用判定的过程中,如果使用者的使用行为是以新的、富有成效的方式使用原作或者以完全不同于原作的意图使用原作,且使用者为原作品添加了新价值、新意义或新美感,即可认定这一使用原作品的行为构成“转化性地使用”。这一概念最初是由Pierre N.Leval法官在其《论合理使用标准》(“Toward a Fair Use Standard”)一文中提出,该文章发表于1990年的《哈佛法学评论》。Leval法官之所以提出“转化性使用”,主要是为了对美国版权制度中的“合理使用四要素”中的第一个要素(使用的目的与性质)进行判断。一般而言,使用人行为一旦被认定为具有“转化性”,就极有利于“合理使用”的成立,而可能免于承担著作权侵权责任。在我国的著作权“权利的限制与例外”的制度下,对于合理使用的情形明确以具体列举的方式加以限定,这虽然使得立法具有可预见性,且在一定程度上使得司法具有相当高的可操作性;但是随着技术的进步,出现了不满足既定条件的其他情形。此时,由于立法没有设置兜底条款,且无对应的司法解释,导致在对“合理使用”的判定过程中,出现了把符合著作权立法宗旨的行为认定为不构成“合理使用”的情形。而“转化性使用”规则可以不受法定情形的限制,对使用行为的目的与性质的进行判定,如果构成“转化性使用”,则将更易于认定构成“合理使用”。因此,“转化性使用”规则可以有效避免既有判断规则的僵化,有助于司法实践中对“合理使用”成立与否的分析判断。本文拟对“转化性使用”规则的适用条件进行探讨。当下正值我国《著作权法》修改之际,笔者建议将“合理使用四要素”明确纳入司法解释,且在积累了一定的本国案例之后,再将“转化性使用”规则纳入其中,作为法院在司法适用中的指导标准。本文主要划分为三个章节:第一章主要论述“转化性使用”规则引入我国的可行性。从以下三个方面展开:首先从司法实践中合理使用判定的困境切入,之后再论证当前我国已经具备引入“转化性使用”规则的移植土壤,最后对“转化性使用”规则引入后将有助于合理使用的判定的优势进行论述。其中,实践困境主要表现在判断规则的僵化与司法解释的缺位两方面。而事实上,我国学者已经就这一问题开始研究“转化性使用”规则,司法领域也开始适用“合理使用四要素”,甚至有法院判决书已经明确提出了“转化性使用”规则这一说法。这一规则对于判断某一使用原作的行为是否构成“合理使用”的判定作用,主要在于其有助于判定合理使用第一要素是否成立,而第一要素的成立的与否对于合理使用的成立与否至关重要。第二章主要探讨“转化性使用”规则的构成要件和常见情形。探讨构成要件时,重点着眼于“使用目的”以及“使用结果”两方面,前者指以不同于原作的使用目的,后者指具有一定程度的转化性。其中,在探讨“使用目的”时,要明确原作的使用目的为传达作品的科学、艺术、文学之美,而此外的目的无法一一列举,需要个案分析,并总结出常见的不同于原作意图的使用目的。同时,在探讨“使用结果”的过程中,也要注意对作品类型进行分类,因为不同类型的作品的用途功能有所差异,需区别对待。明确了“转化性使用”的构成要件后,可结合实践中的情形,总结目前已出现的常见的符合该规则的情形,这有助于司法实践的判定。目前,常见的情形有信息检索和讽刺模仿这两类。第三章主要探讨适用“转化性使用”规则常见的误区。美国司法虽通过长期实践总结出了“转化性使用”这一套规则,但是即便如此,各级法院在适用时仍会出现诸多分歧,最典型分歧表现在:一是误解“转化性使用”规则与“合理使用”的关系,二是误解“转化性使用”行为和作品演绎行为的关系。首先,“转化性使用”对于合理使用的判定非常重要,这是因为“转化性使用”规则有助于判定合理使用第一要素;但是,第一要素成立并不意味着合理使用成立,其他三个要素也需要综合考量。因而,构成“转化性使用”更不意味着能直接构成合理使用成立。其次,“转化性使用”与演绎行为并没有直接的关系,因此,构成“转化性使用”则构成演绎作品的观点是错误的。如果这种假设成立,那《版权法》对赋予原作者的“演绎权”将被架空,原作者将无法阻止任何一个人在自己作品的基础之上创作新的作品这一行为。“转化性使用”与演绎行为的关注点及其结果是不同的:1、前者要求使用者的使用行为必须以新的、富有成效的方式使用原作或者以完全不同于原作的使用目的使用原作,其关注点在于作品的使用目的上;后者则关注与原作品相比较的独创性程度,而不关注为什么要使用原作品。2、前者要求具有一定的“转化性”,至于是否产生独立于原作的作品则不关心;后者需要满足最低限度的独创性要求,创造出一个独立的作品。结语部分笔者建议将“合理使用四要素”纳入司法解释。但是,对于“转化性使用”规则的立法可待积累了一定的本国案例之后,再进行修改。目前我国正在修订《著作权法》,一方面,准确理解“转化性使用”的内涵、在判断是否构成合理使用时的作用、其背后蕴含的版权法价值取向,对我国立法或指定司法解释具有一定的启发;另一方面,“转换性使用”在美国法院适用过程中所暴露出的问题,也应予以清晰的认识,避免走上美国走过的歧路。
[Abstract]:In the process of rational use of judgment, if the user's use behavior is to use the original in a new, productive way, or to use the original in a completely different way, and the user adds new value to the original work, the new meaning or the new aesthetic sense, the use of the original work can be identified as "transformative use". This concept was originally proposed by judge Pierre N.Leval in its < Toward a Fair Use Standard > ("Toward a Fair Use Standard"). The article was published in the 1990 Harvard Law Review of judge >.Leval to propose "transformational use", mainly for the "rational use of the four elements" in the American copyright system. An element (the purpose and nature of the use) is judged. In general, the use of a person's behavior, once identified as a "transformative", is very beneficial to the establishment of "rational use" and may be exempt from the liability for copyright infringement. Under the system of "limitation and exception" of copyright in our country, the situation of rational use is clear. It is true that it is limited in the form of specific enumeration, which makes the legislation predictable and to a certain extent the high operability of the judiciary; however, with the progress of the technology, there are other situations that do not meet the established conditions. In the process of judging "rational use", there is a case that the behavior that conforms to the purpose of the copyright legislation is considered not to constitute "reasonable use". The rules of "conversion use" can be determined without the limitation of the legal situation, and the purpose and nature of the use of the act will be judged, and it will be more easily recognized if it constitutes "conversion use". Therefore, "rational use" is formed. Therefore, the rules of "conversion use" can effectively avoid the rigidity of the rules of judgment and the analysis and judgment of the establishment of "rational use" in judicial practice. This paper intends to discuss the applicable conditions of the rules of "conversion use". It is suggested that the "rational use of the four elements" should be explicitly included in the judicial interpretation, and after the accumulation of certain domestic cases, the "transformational use" rule is included as the guiding standard of the court in judicial application. This article is divided into three chapters: the first chapter mainly discusses the feasibility of introducing the rules of "transformational use" to our country. Starting from the following three aspects: first, it starts from the plight of rational use of judgment in judicial practice, and then demonstrates that the current China has already possessed the transplanted soil introducing the "transformational use" rule, and finally discusses the advantages of the decision that will help the rational use of the "transtransformative use" rule. It is mainly manifested in the two aspects of the rigid judgment rules and the absence of judicial interpretation. In fact, Chinese scholars have begun to study the "transformational use" rules on this issue, and the judicial field has also begun to apply the "four elements of rational use", and even the court verdict has clearly put forward the "transformational use" rule. A rule determines whether or not the behavior of an original work constitutes "rational use", mainly because it helps to determine whether the first element is established rationally, and whether the establishment of the first element is essential to the establishment of rational use. The second chapter mainly discusses the composition of the rules of "conversion use". When discussing the elements, we focus on two aspects of "use purpose" and "use result". The former refers to the use of the original, the latter refers to a certain degree of transformation. In the discussion of the purpose of use, the purpose of the original work is to be defined to convey the science, art, and writing of the works. The beauty of learning can not be enumerated one by one. It needs case analysis and summarizes the common purposes different from the original intention. At the same time, in the process of exploring the "use result", we should also pay attention to the classification of the types of works, because the functions of different types of works are different and need to be treated differently. After the constitutive requirements of "chemical use", it can be combined with the situation in practice to sum up the common situations that have appeared in the current situation, which can help to judge the judicial practice. At present, the common cases are information retrieval and satire imitation of these two categories. The third chapter mainly discusses the common misunderstandings of the application of the rules of "conversion use". Although the rules of "conversion use" are summed up through long term practice, there are still many differences in the application of the courts at all levels. The most typical differences are as follows: one is to misunderstand the relationship between the "conversion" rule and the "rational use", and the two is to misunderstand the behavior of "transformational use" and the behavior of the works. First, "transformational use" is very important for rational use, because the "transformational use" rules help determine the rational use of the first element; however, the establishment of the first element does not mean rational use and the other three elements need comprehensive consideration. Thus, the formation of "transformative use" does not mean more. Secondly, there is no direct relationship between "transformational use" and deductive behavior. Therefore, the view that "transformational use" constitutes a deductive work is wrong. If such a hypothesis is established, the copyright law will be abandoned to the original author, and the author will not be able to prevent anything from the original author. The act of creating a new work on the basis of his own work. The focus and the results of "transformational use" and deductive behavior are different: 1, the former requires the user's use behavior to use the original in a new, productive way, or to use the original in a completely different way from the original use. The point lies in the purpose of the use of the work; the latter pays attention to the originality of the original work, and does not pay attention to the use of the original work.2, the former requires a certain "transformation", and is not concerned about the creation of a work independent of the original; the latter needs to be full of the minimum requirements of originality and create a independence. The author suggests that the "rational use of the four elements" be incorporated into the judicial interpretation. However, the legislation of the "transformational use" rule should be amended after a certain national case has been accumulated. At present, China is revising the copyright law. On the one hand, it is accurate to understand the connotation of "conversion use" and whether it is judged or not. The value orientation of the copyright law behind it is enlightening to our country's legislation or the appointment of judicial interpretation; on the other hand, the problems exposed in the process of applying the "transformational use" should also be clearly understood to avoid the wrong path in the United States.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：D923.41

【相似文献】