“立体作品”著作权保护研究

发布时间：2018-06-25 17:01

本文选题：立体作品 + 模型作品　；参考：《华东政法大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：“立体作品”是《著作权法》第三次修改过程中新引入的作品类型,目的是为了修改现行《著作权法》第三条第七款保护的“模型作品”。根据《著作权法》(修改草案送审稿)的规定,“立体作品,是为生产产品、展示地理地形、说明事物原理或者结构而创作的三维作品。”我国从1991年开始,《著作权法》即保护“反映地理地形、说明事物原理或者结构”的图形和模型作品。但是后来的修法中由于对于“模型”一词来源与含义的误解,导致了现行著作权法中的“模型作品”的定义不符合著作权法基本原理,命名容易引起误解,在实践中产生了很多问题。正因如此,我国《著作权法》第三次修改过程中试图引入“立体作品”条款,替代现行《著作权法》中不当的“模型作品”条款。目前学界尚没有针对《著作权法》(修改草案送审稿)中“立体作品”条款的研究,对于这一条款规定来源和含义究竟为何,其规范的命名和体例是否恰当,目前尚没有明确的答案。对此,笔者想从我国立法史、相关国际公约历史、各国立法,以及国内外案例等多方面进行研究,重构“立体作品”之定义及保护范围,从而为第三次《著作权法》修改作参考。本文第一部分,笔者将阐述我国“立体作品”的立法背景及发展,厘清引入“立体作品”条款的原因,论证引入“立体作品”条款是为了修改现行《著作权法》中“模型作品”条款的规定。同时指出“立体作品”条款的定义方式、用语和体例,部分来源于1991年《著作权法实施条例》中的规定,实质上是对于该条例规定的延续。本文第二部分,笔者将结合著作权法基本原理以及我国的司法实践,证明我国现行《著作权法》中“模型作品”条款存在着很大的问题,从而论证引入新的“立体作品”条款的必要性。同时指出现行条款的问题可能来源于立法者对于《伯尔尼公约》第二条第七款的规定的误解,分析《伯尔尼公约》中该条款的真实含义与意义,证明该条款与“立体作品”这一类别的规定并无关联。本文第三部分,笔者将指出修改草案中引入的“立体作品”条款,实际上是为了完成《伯尔尼公约》第二条第一款最后一项“立体作品”条款赋予成员国的义务。分析《伯尔尼公约》中这一“立体作品”条款的历史沿革、含义和效力。同时阐述在公约体系下,这一作品类型与其他作品类型的关系。从而正确理解《伯尔尼公约》赋予我国的义务,并明晰公约中“立体作品”性质和立法体例,供我国《著作权法》修改作参考。本文第四部分,笔者将对修改草案以及《伯尔尼公约》中要求保护的“立体作品”进行分析,论证“为生产产品而创作的三维作品”不应受著作权法保护。同时参考《伯尔尼公约》的立法体例,结合修改草案中“立体作品”与“图形作品”两个条款进行分析,论证重新整合这两个条款,以新的“科学作品”与“技术类图形作品”条款来替代这两个条款的必要性。
[Abstract]:"Stereoscopic works" is a new type of work introduced in the third revision of copyright law. The purpose is to amend the "model works" of the current copyright law, which is protected by the third seventh sections. According to the provisions of the copyright law (Revised Draft), "the three-dimensional works are for the production of the products, the display of geographical terrain, the principle of things or the principle of things." From 1991, "the copyright law" of China, "the copyright law", which protects the graphic and model works of "reflecting the geographical terrain, explaining the principle or structure of things". But in the subsequent revision, the misunderstanding of the source and meaning of the word "model" led to the determination of "model works" in the current copyright law. It does not conform to the basic principles of copyright law, which is easy to cause misunderstanding and causes many problems in practice. Because of this, the "three-dimensional works" clause in the third revision process of copyright law in China is introduced to replace the unsuitable "model works" clause in the current copyright law. The study of the "stereoscopic works" clause in the draft is not a clear answer to the origin and meaning of the provision and its proper name and style. The author wants to study the history of our legislation, the history of the international conventions, the legislation of various countries, and the cases at home and abroad. In the first part of this article, the author will explain the legislative background and development of the "three-dimensional works" in our country and clarify the reasons for the introduction of the "three-dimensional works" clause in the first part of this article, and demonstrate that the introduction of the "three-dimensional works" clause is to modify the current copyright law. The provisions of the "model works" clause. At the same time, it is pointed out that the definition of "stereoscopic works" clause, language and style, partly derived from the provisions of the copyright law enforcement Ordinance in 1991, is essentially a continuation of the regulation. In the second part of this article, the author will combine the basic principles of the right law and the judicial practice in our country. There are a lot of problems in the existing "model works" clause in the copyright law of China, which demonstrates the necessity of introducing the new "three-dimensional works" clause. It also points out that the current clause may come from the misunderstanding of the provisions of the Berne Convention, the second provisions of the Berne Convention, and the analysis of the clause in the Berne Convention. In the third part of this article, the author will point out that the "stereoscopic work" clause introduced in the revised draft is actually designed to complete the obligations of the member states to the last item of the Berne Convention, the last item of the second first paragraph. The historical evolution, meaning and effect of the "three dimensional works" clause in the Berne Convention, and the relationship between the type of this work and the other types of works under the system of the Convention, and the correct understanding of the obligations entrusted to our country by the Berne Convention, and the definition of the nature of the "three-dimensional works" and the legislative style in the Convention for the copyright of our country In the fourth part of this article, the author will analyze the revised draft and the "three-dimensional works" required for protection in the Berne Convention, demonstrating that the "three-dimensional works created for the production of products" should not be protected by copyright law. With the analysis of the two terms of "graphic works", it is demonstrated that the two articles are reintegrated, and the necessity of replacing the two terms with the new "scientific works" and "technical graphic works" clause.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923.41

【相似文献】