作品改造性使用研究

发布时间：2018-05-30 02:10

本文选题：合理使用 + 改造性使用　；参考：《西南政法大学》2011年硕士论文

【摘要】：合理使用制度的构建是著作权法的重要内容,然而如何对合理使用进行判断一直是法律上不确定的概念,学界对这个问题也有诸多讨论。改造性使用是美国在1976年将合理使用判断四要素写进著作权法第107条后,勒威尔法官经过十多年的实务研究总结而来的理论。本文主要是从改造性使用理论的历史、解读和完善说开去,接着分析我国当前立法存在的不足之处以及是否存在借鉴这一理论的土壤,试图寻找相通的地方,希望可以为我国完善合理使用制度提出一些有益建议。本文主要内容如下：第一部分是介绍改造性使用的发展历史。改造性使用理论来源于著名的索尼案和哈珀案,两案提出的关于“时间转移”、使用的方式以及对未发表作品等观点对勒威尔法官关于改造性使用理论的形成有重要启示。勒威尔法官在1990年发表的文章中提出改造性使用,并被首次适用于坎贝尔案关于滑稽模仿的合理使用判定中,打破了以往的判例法中拘泥于商业或非商业使用的状况,自此改造性使用成为美国合理使用判断中的重要理论。第二部分是对改造性使用的理论解读。这部分主要介绍改造性使用的理论构架和具体使用。公共利益目的是著作权的立法目的,也是合理使用制度存在的正当性基础。在肯定改造性使用对促进公共利益有积极意义的前提下,结合第107条中的四要素进行分析——以改造性使用为目的的作品使用行为才具有正当性与合理性;未公开发表的作品是否适用合理使用时美国著作权法历史上的重要议题,其结果最终是肯定的；而使用的质与量和对市场的影响只是作为前两个要素的辅助判断。勒威尔法官还着重指出在合理使用判断中应该排除无关的其他标准的干扰。第三部分是对改造性使用的评析。改造性使用理论在审判实务上有其积极的贡献,但不可否认由于其中一些概念的阐述不清,导致以后下级法院在适用该理论时都直接将使用行为是否具有生产性作为改造性使用审查中的全部内涵,由此带来了公共利益范围变得十分狭窄的问题,从而妨碍了社会的发展。诸多学者从多个方面提出对改造性使用的完善建议,比如说对何谓新创作重新诠释,对公共利益进行扩充性解读等等,务求使改造性使用理论能够在新科技时代下继续焕发生命力。第四部分是讨论改造性使用对我国合理使用的审判的启发。我国现存合理使用制度存在着不少可以改善的地方。传统的“规则主义”立法导致法条固定僵化,而法官在实务审判中也缺乏自由裁量的空间,虽然这也是我国一贯的立法传统,但在知识产权领域,尤其是科技发展如此迅猛的今天,作品各种各样使用方式层出不穷,引入“因素主义”的立法理念可以让我们面对新出现的问题时更具包容性和灵活性。另一方面,虽然我国是大陆法国家,但并不代表完全没有适用判例法的余地。首先建立案例指导思想已经成为我国司法界的重要工作,其次,亚洲众多国家和地区在立法中都借鉴了四要素标准的内容,尤其是近年来,与国内同属大陆法系且社情颇为相似的台湾地区对改造性使用的研究与借鉴也颇为深入。与其同时,改造性使用的公共利益和宪法基础也与我国著作权法的立法宗旨十分切合,而实际上我国在实务审判中也已然存在着改造性使用的影子。
[Abstract]:The construction of the rational use system is an important content of the copyright law. However, how to judge the rational use of the system has always been an uncertain concept in the law. The academic circle also has a lot of discussions on this issue. The reconstructive use is the 107th article of the copyright law that the United States wrote four elements of rational use of judgment in 1976 after more than 10 years. From the history, interpretation and perfection of the theory of reconstructive use, this paper analyzes the shortcomings of the current legislation in our country and whether there is a soil for reference to this theory, trying to find the interconnected place, and hope to put forward some benefits for our country to perfect the rational use system. The main contents of this article are as follows:
The first part introduces the history of the development of the reconstructive use. The theory of reconstructive use comes from the famous SONY case and the Harper case. The two cases of "time transfer", the way of use and the unpublished works have an important inspiration for the formation of the reconstructive use theory. The reformable use of the table, which is first applied to the rational use of Campbell's case of parody, breaks the state of commercial or non commercial use in the previous case law, and the reconstructive use has become an important theory in the judgment of rational use in the United States.
The second part is the theoretical interpretation of the reconstructive use. This part mainly introduces the theoretical framework and specific use of the reconstructive use. The purpose of the public interest is the legislative purpose of the copyright and the legitimate basis for the existence of the rational use system. In the affirmation of the positive significance of the reconstructive use of the public benefits, 107th articles are combined. The analysis of the four elements in the work is justified and reasonableness in the use of reconstructive use; the results of the United States' copyright law in the history of the unpublished works are affirmative; the quality and quantity of the use and the impact on the market are only the first two. Judge Le Wei also emphasized that interference in other criteria should be excluded from fair use judgment.
The third part is the assessment of the reconstructive use. The theory of reconstructive use has its positive contribution to the trial practice, but it is undeniable that the lower court, when it is not clear, leads the lower court to direct the use of the action to the full connotation of the reconstructive use of the theory. This has brought about a very narrow issue of the scope of public interest, which has hindered the development of society. Many scholars have proposed perfect suggestions for reconstructive use from many aspects, such as the reinterpretation of what is the new creation, the expandable interpretation of the public interest and so on, so as to make the reconstructive use of the theory of the new technology in the new technology era. Xu Huanfa's vitality.
The fourth part is to discuss the Enlightenment of the reconstructive use of the reasonable trial in our country. There are many places to improve the existing rational use system in our country. The traditional "regularity" legislation leads to the rigid and rigid law, and the judge also lacks the space of discretion in the practice trial, although this is the consistent legislative transmission of our country. But in the field of intellectual property, especially the rapid development of science and technology, the various ways of use of the works are emerging in endlessly. The introduction of the "factor doctrine" legislative idea can make us more inclusive and flexible in the face of new problems. On the other hand, although China is a continental law country, it does not represent completely unsuitable. With the leeway of case law. First, the establishment of case guidance has become an important work of our judicial circle. Secondly, many countries and regions in Asia have learned the content of the four elements in the legislation, especially in recent years, the research and reference to the reconstructive use of the Taiwan region, which is similar to the civil law system in China in recent years, is also similar. At the same time, the public interest and the constitutional basis of the reconstructive use are closely related to the legislative purpose of the copyright law of our country. In fact, there is also a shadow of reconstructive use in our practical trial.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D923.41

【参考文献】