本文選題：言論自由 + 著作權(quán)　； 參考：《中央財經(jīng)大學(xué)學(xué)報》2015年S1期

【摘要】：將電影《秋菊打官司》之肖像權(quán)案定性為言論自由權(quán)與肖像權(quán)的沖突是對案件的誤讀。該電影雖侵犯肖像權(quán)卻并不因此喪失"獨創(chuàng)性"等作品之為作品的本質(zhì)屬性,依法應(yīng)享有著作權(quán),因此該案的本質(zhì)是著作權(quán)與肖像權(quán)的沖突。但"享有"著作權(quán)并不等于可以自由"行使"著作權(quán)。無論依據(jù)"權(quán)利位階"原則還是"在先權(quán)利優(yōu)先保護"原則,本案應(yīng)優(yōu)先保護肖像權(quán),而優(yōu)先保護的方式便是限制著作權(quán)的行使。
[Abstract]:The conflict between the right to freedom of speech and the right to portray is the misreading of the portraiture right of the film Qiuju. Although the film infringes on the portrait right, it does not lose its "originality" as the essential attribute of the work, and should enjoy copyright according to law, so the essence of the case is the conflict between copyright and portrait right. But "enjoy" copyright is not equal to "free" exercise of "copyright." No matter according to the principle of "right rank" or "priority protection of prior right", the right of portrait should be protected first in this case, and the way of priority protection is to restrict the exercise of copyright.
【作者單位】： 中央財經(jīng)大學(xué);
【分類號】：D923

【相似文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 劉海;康海勃;;“氣”與“面子”的兩相糾葛——解讀《秋菊打官司》的文化根由[J];遼寧行政學(xué)院學(xué)報;2011年01期

2 蘇廷海;《秋菊打官司》版權(quán)糾紛的‘說法’[J];w蕓，

本文編號：1844370