论视听表演者权利的保护
发布时间：2019-03-24 15:22
【摘要】：2012年世界知识产权组织外交会议通过《视听表演北京条约》。在此之前，三大国际条约均赋予了表演者以权利，控制其被固定在“录音制品”中的表演，却未对其固定在“视听录制品”（audiovisual fixation）中的表演予以相同程度的保护。 而《北京条约》中规定，缔约国应当为表演者针对“视听录制品”中的表演设立表明身份权、禁止歪曲权、复制权、发行权和向公众提供权。缔约国还可视情况设立权利，使表演者得以就他人对其“视听录制品”中的表演实施的出租、广播和以其他方式进行传播的行为加以控制。从而宣告表演者权利无法得到全面保护这一历史的终结。 近乎与此同时，我国对《著作权法》的第三次修改正引起社会各界的广泛关注和参与。修订形成的《修改草案》中对视听表演者提供了保护，并对视听表演者的权利归属规定了权利转让推定和“二次获酬权”，引发了学界和产业界的激烈讨论。 本文试图回答三个问题：一、视听表演者权利的基础是什么；二、视听表演者权利的归属应当采取什么模式；三、是否应当设立额外的“二次获酬权”来保障视听表演者的经济权利。 第一章首先分析以邻接权保护表演者经济权利的正当性。然后通过历史研究的方法，总结20世纪缔结的三大邻接权条约不保护视听表演的背景原因，并评价该原因的合理性。最后通过梳理《北京条约》对国民待遇的讨论，进一步明确条约背景下，对视听表演者权利的保护范围。 第二章首先总结外交谈判期间对视听表演者权利归属的几种模式，尤其重点分析权利转让推定的意义。然后对我国两分法的保护模式进行梳理和评价。最后提出修改草案引发的问题。 第三章接着分析对推定转让的专有权利，，是否需要设立额外的“二次获酬权”以保障表演者的经济权利。首先分析草案的模式和条约义务，然后对国外立法例加以整理，最后提出对增设该权利的合理性分析。
[Abstract]:The 2012 WIPO diplomatic Conference adopted the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual performances. Prior to this, all three international treaties gave performers the right to control their performances fixed in "sound recordings", but failed to provide the same level of protection for performances fixed in "audio-visual recordings" (audiovisual fixation). The Beijing Treaty stipulates that States parties shall establish for performers the right of identification, prohibition of distortions, reproduction, distribution and provision of rights to the public with respect to the performance in the Audio-visual Recorder. States parties may also establish the right, as appropriate, to enable performers to exercise control over the letting, broadcasting and other dissemination of performances in their "audio-visual recordings". Thus proclaiming the performer's rights cannot be fully protected the end of this history. Almost at the same time, the third revision of copyright Law in China is attracting extensive attention and participation from all walks of life. The revised draft provides protection for audiovisual performers, and defines the presumption of transfer of rights and the right to "secondary remuneration" for audio-visual performers, thus arousing intense discussion in the academic and industrial circles. This paper attempts to answer three questions: first, what is the basis of the right of audiovisual performer, second, what mode should be adopted to attribute the right of audiovisual performer; Third, should an additional right of secondary remuneration be set up to protect the economic rights of audiovisual performers. The first chapter analyzes the legitimacy of protecting performer's economic rights by adjacent rights. Then, through the method of historical research, this paper summarizes the background reasons why the three neighboring rights treaties concluded in the 20th century do not protect audiovisual performances, and evaluates the rationality of this reason. Finally, by combing the discussion on the national treatment of the Beijing Treaty, the scope of protection of the rights of audiovisual performers in the context of the treaty is further clarified. The second chapter summarizes several modes of rights attribution of audiovisual performers during diplomatic negotiations, especially analyzes the significance of the presumption of transfer of rights. Then the protection mode of dichotomy in our country is combed and evaluated. Finally, the problems caused by the revised draft are put forward. The third chapter analyzes the exclusive right of presumption transfer, whether it is necessary to set up additional right of secondary remuneration to protect the performer's economic rights. First, the model and treaty obligations of the draft are analyzed, then the foreign legislative cases are sorted out, and the rationality of adding this right is put forward at the end of the paper.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D923.41
本文编号：2446443
[Abstract]:The 2012 WIPO diplomatic Conference adopted the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual performances. Prior to this, all three international treaties gave performers the right to control their performances fixed in "sound recordings", but failed to provide the same level of protection for performances fixed in "audio-visual recordings" (audiovisual fixation). The Beijing Treaty stipulates that States parties shall establish for performers the right of identification, prohibition of distortions, reproduction, distribution and provision of rights to the public with respect to the performance in the Audio-visual Recorder. States parties may also establish the right, as appropriate, to enable performers to exercise control over the letting, broadcasting and other dissemination of performances in their "audio-visual recordings". Thus proclaiming the performer's rights cannot be fully protected the end of this history. Almost at the same time, the third revision of copyright Law in China is attracting extensive attention and participation from all walks of life. The revised draft provides protection for audiovisual performers, and defines the presumption of transfer of rights and the right to "secondary remuneration" for audio-visual performers, thus arousing intense discussion in the academic and industrial circles. This paper attempts to answer three questions: first, what is the basis of the right of audiovisual performer, second, what mode should be adopted to attribute the right of audiovisual performer; Third, should an additional right of secondary remuneration be set up to protect the economic rights of audiovisual performers. The first chapter analyzes the legitimacy of protecting performer's economic rights by adjacent rights. Then, through the method of historical research, this paper summarizes the background reasons why the three neighboring rights treaties concluded in the 20th century do not protect audiovisual performances, and evaluates the rationality of this reason. Finally, by combing the discussion on the national treatment of the Beijing Treaty, the scope of protection of the rights of audiovisual performers in the context of the treaty is further clarified. The second chapter summarizes several modes of rights attribution of audiovisual performers during diplomatic negotiations, especially analyzes the significance of the presumption of transfer of rights. Then the protection mode of dichotomy in our country is combed and evaluated. Finally, the problems caused by the revised draft are put forward. The third chapter analyzes the exclusive right of presumption transfer, whether it is necessary to set up additional right of secondary remuneration to protect the performer's economic rights. First, the model and treaty obligations of the draft are analyzed, then the foreign legislative cases are sorted out, and the rationality of adding this right is put forward at the end of the paper.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D923.41
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前5条
1 王迁;;《视听表演北京条约》争议问题及对我国国际义务的影响[J];法学;2012年10期
2 王迁;;《视听表演北京条约》视野下著作权法的修订[J];法商研究;2012年06期
3 周洪涛;;著作权法修改草案第二稿第三十六条的缺陷及修改建议[J];电子知识产权;2012年12期
4 左玉茹;;《视听表演北京条约》:表演者权保护体系的进一步完善[J];电子知识产权;2012年07期
5 戴哲;;视听作品“二次获酬权”研究 以《著作权法》修改为契机[J];电子知识产权;2013年12期
本文编号：2446443
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/zhishichanquanfa/2446443.html
