剽窃的法律认定研究

发布时间：2018-05-30 16:15

本文选题：剽窃 + 独创性　；参考：《安徽大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：依据我国《著作权法》的规定,剽窃他人作品的属于著作权侵权行为。对于剽窃的认定标准,我国尚无立法予以明确。关于剽窃认定标准的立法笼统,学术研究也处于多元化的状态,目前我国司法实践中仍然未形成统一的剽窃认定标准。在司法实践中,部分法院已经在剽窃行为认定方面表现出了极高的专业水准,但从总体上看,由于没有明确的认定标准、认定方法和认定主体,我国法院在剽窃认定出现了认定结论的不稳定、不统一等诸多问题。本文从著作权法的基本原理出发,并结合美国与中国的司法实践,尝试性的就完善我国剽窃法律认定提出建议。本文第一部分对剽窃的文字学含义进行了剖析,进而就著作权法意义上的剽窃展开论述。依据我国法律规定,对剽窃行为的特征作出总结：剽窃的对象特定、剽窃行为具有公开性、剽窃行为具有双重侵权性以及行为人具有主观过错。对剽窃与其他著作权侵权行为进行了区分。从著作权法两大基本原则独创性原则与思想与表达二分法出发,比较了各国独创性的判断标准与思想和表达的区分标准,探究剽窃认定标准的法理基础。第二部分介绍并比较了美国司法实践中适用的剽窃认定标准,通过典型案例展示了“接触与实质性相似法”、“抽象测试法”、“抽象——过滤——比较”法、“普通观众测试法”与“针对性观众测试法”、“内在／外在标准”等美国司法实践中认定作品之间是否具有实质性相似的方法。第三部分通过典型案例介绍我国司法实践中使用的剽窃认定标准,并对我国在剽窃认定中存在的问题进行了总结。对于如何认定剽窃,目前国内尚无法律法规做出相应规定,这使得我国法院在面对剽窃争议案件时没有统一的法律指引,法官拥有较大的自由裁量权,可以任意选择适用剽窃认定的标准。且剽窃认定的主体仍未得到明确,认定结果的权威性难以得到保障。第四部分就我国剽窃认定标准提出建议。结合利益平衡原则,要求在对剽窃行为进行认定时,应宽严有度。明确剽窃认定主体,根据作品类型适用不同的思想与表达的区分标准,对著作权法上的公共领域予以过滤。在具体的认定过程中通过接触认定、实质性相似认定和排除合理引用三个步骤对剽窃行为予以认定。
[Abstract]:According to the provisions of copyright Law, plagiarism is copyright infringement. For plagiarism, there is no legislation to identify the criteria. The legislation on the standard of plagiarism is general, and the academic research is also in a pluralistic state. At present, there is still no uniform standard of plagiarism in judicial practice in our country. In judicial practice, some courts have shown a very high professional standard in the determination of plagiarism, but generally speaking, due to the lack of a clear identification standard, the identification method and subject, There are many problems in plagiarism in Chinese courts, such as unstable and inconsistent conclusion. Based on the basic principles of copyright law and the judicial practice of the United States and China, this paper tries to put forward some suggestions on perfecting the legal recognition of plagiarism in China. The first part of this paper analyzes the philological meaning of plagiarism, and then discusses the plagiarism in the sense of copyright law. According to the law of our country, the characteristics of plagiarism are summarized: the object of plagiarism is specific, the act of plagiarism is open, the act of plagiarism is dual tort and the perpetrator has subjective fault. A distinction is made between plagiarism and other copyright infringements. Based on the two basic principles of copyright law, the originality principle and the dichotomy of thought and expression, this paper compares the criterion of originality with the criterion of distinguishing thought and expression, and probes into the legal basis of the criterion of plagiarism. The second part introduces and compares the standards applicable to plagiarism in judicial practice in the United States. Through typical cases, it shows the "contact and substantial similarity", "Abstract Test", "Abstract-Filtration-comparison", In American judicial practice, "ordinary audience Test Act", "targeted audience Test Act", "Internal / external Standard" and other American judicial practices determine whether there are substantial similarities between works. The third part introduces the standard of plagiarism in judicial practice through typical cases, and summarizes the problems existing in the identification of plagiarism in our country. As to how to determine plagiarism, there are no laws and regulations in our country, which makes our courts have no uniform legal guidance in the face of plagiarism disputes, and the judges have greater discretion. You can choose to apply the criteria for plagiarism. The subject of plagiarism is not clear, and the authority of the result is hard to be guaranteed. The fourth part puts forward suggestions on the standards of plagiarism in China. In combination with the principle of balance of interests, it is required that plagiarism should be determined with leniency and strictness. It is clear that the subject of plagiarism should be applied to different standards of thought and expression according to the type of work, and the public domain in copyright law should be filtered. In the concrete identification process, the plagiarism is identified by three steps: contact identification, substantive similarity identification and exclusion of reasonable quotation.
【学位授予单位】：安徽大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923.41

【相似文献】