本文選題：復(fù)制權(quán) + 改編權(quán)　； 參考：《西南政法大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：一直以來(lái),司法實(shí)踐中對(duì)復(fù)制權(quán)的侵權(quán)認(rèn)定與改編權(quán)的侵權(quán)認(rèn)定采取相同的判定標(biāo)準(zhǔn),即接觸加實(shí)質(zhì)性相似。并且對(duì)此觀點(diǎn)學(xué)者及相關(guān)法律人士均持承認(rèn)的態(tài)度,但筆者認(rèn)為,無(wú)論是從立法中復(fù)制權(quán)和改編權(quán)的規(guī)定,還是改編權(quán)的發(fā)展形成過(guò)程,都有區(qū)分復(fù)制權(quán)的侵權(quán)判定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和改編權(quán)的侵權(quán)判定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的必要。因此本文試圖通過(guò)對(duì)復(fù)制權(quán)、改編權(quán)的介紹,以及復(fù)制權(quán)與改編權(quán)聯(lián)系的探討,結(jié)合復(fù)制品與改編作品的不同,來(lái)探尋侵犯復(fù)制權(quán)的侵權(quán)判定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)與侵犯改編權(quán)的侵權(quán)判定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的不同,并得出自己的淺見(jiàn)。為此,全文共分為五個(gè)部分。第一部分主要是簡(jiǎn)要介紹什么是復(fù)制權(quán)和改編權(quán),以及兩者的特征。該部分通過(guò)對(duì)復(fù)制權(quán)和改編權(quán)的介紹,理清復(fù)制權(quán)和改編權(quán)的相關(guān)問(wèn)題,為后續(xù)比較奠定基礎(chǔ)。第二部分旨在討論復(fù)制權(quán)與改編權(quán)的聯(lián)系。該部分首先探討了改編權(quán)是復(fù)制權(quán)擴(kuò)張的產(chǎn)物,而后介紹了司法實(shí)踐中復(fù)制權(quán)侵權(quán)與改編權(quán)侵權(quán)混淆交叉,甚至出現(xiàn)復(fù)制權(quán)的范圍覆蓋改編權(quán)范圍的情況。在本部分的最后,為了方便后文的討論,筆者還簡(jiǎn)單梳理現(xiàn)在比較常用的實(shí)質(zhì)性相似的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。第三部分主要討論區(qū)分復(fù)制權(quán)侵權(quán)判定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)與改編權(quán)侵權(quán)判定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的必要性。為闡明區(qū)分兩者的必要性,筆者從司法實(shí)踐與立法的沖突,以及改編權(quán)的發(fā)展形成過(guò)程兩方面進(jìn)行探討。筆者認(rèn)為無(wú)論是從立法的要求的角度,還是從改編權(quán)的發(fā)展形成過(guò)程的角度,區(qū)分兩者的侵權(quán)判定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)均是有必要的。第四部分是本文的主要及重點(diǎn)內(nèi)容,著重探討在司法實(shí)踐中如何區(qū)分復(fù)制權(quán)和改編權(quán)的侵權(quán)判定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。該部分又分為兩點(diǎn),首先筆者主要以美國(guó)及我國(guó)的司法判例為基礎(chǔ),通過(guò)對(duì)相關(guān)案例的分析總結(jié),梳理出復(fù)制品與改編作品的區(qū)別,并以文學(xué)作品和美術(shù)作品為例,具體分析說(shuō)明探討如何判定改編作品,以期為后續(xù)討論做鋪墊。本部分的第二點(diǎn),主要討論了在司法實(shí)踐中如何區(qū)分復(fù)制權(quán)與改編權(quán)的侵權(quán)判定標(biāo)準(zhǔn),并以相關(guān)案例加以說(shuō)明,最后筆者認(rèn)為只要被比較的兩個(gè)作品在最主要的核心的內(nèi)容上存在實(shí)質(zhì)性相似,即原告作品最主要的核心的內(nèi)容正好是被訴侵權(quán)作品最主要的核心的內(nèi)容,即可認(rèn)定被訴侵權(quán)作品侵犯的原告作品的改編權(quán),而無(wú)需考慮被訴侵權(quán)作品在剽竊原作品的核心內(nèi)容之外還有多少與原作品的不同。第五部分是結(jié)語(yǔ)部分,主要是對(duì)全文內(nèi)容的簡(jiǎn)單梳理,以及在此基礎(chǔ)上總結(jié)筆者的觀點(diǎn)。即復(fù)制權(quán)的侵權(quán)認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)應(yīng)與改編權(quán)的侵權(quán)認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)相區(qū)別,且兩者的主要區(qū)別在于侵犯改編權(quán)的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)低于侵犯復(fù)制權(quán)的判定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。
[Abstract]:In judicial practice, the same standard is adopted for the infringement of the right of reproduction and the tort of the right of adaptation, that is, contact and substantial similarity. And the scholars and relevant legal personages all hold the attitude of recognition to this viewpoint, but the author thinks, whether it is the regulation of the right to copy and the right of adaptation from the legislation, or the process of the development and formation of the right of adaptation, It is necessary to distinguish the tort judgment standard of reproduction right from the tort judgment standard of adaptation right. Therefore, this paper attempts to introduce the rights of reproduction and adaptation, as well as the relationship between the right of reproduction and the right of adaptation, and to combine the difference between the right of reproduction and the right of adaptation. To explore the infringement of the infringement of the right to copy and the infringement of the adaptation of the infringement of the different criteria, and draw their own views. Therefore, the full text is divided into five parts. The first part is a brief introduction of the rights of reproduction and adaptation, as well as the characteristics of the two. Through the introduction of the rights of reproduction and adaptation, this part clarifies the related problems of the rights of reproduction and adaptation, and lays the foundation for further comparison. The second part aims to discuss the relationship between the right of reproduction and the right of adaptation. This part first discusses that the adaptation right is the product of the expansion of the right of reproduction, then introduces the confusion and intersection between the infringement of the right of reproduction and the infringement of the right of adaptation in judicial practice, and even the situation that the scope of the right of reproduction covers the scope of the right of adaptation. At the end of this part, in order to facilitate the later discussion, the author also briefly combs the commonly used judgment criteria of substantial similarity. The third part mainly discusses the necessity of distinguishing the judgment standard of copyright infringement from that of adaptation right. In order to clarify the necessity of distinguishing the two, the author discusses the conflict between judicial practice and legislation, and the development and formation process of the right of adaptation. The author thinks that it is necessary to distinguish the tort judgment standard of both from the angle of legislative requirement or from the angle of the development and formation process of the adaptation right. The fourth part is the main content of this paper, focusing on how to distinguish the right of replication from the right of adaptation in judicial practice. This part is divided into two parts. Firstly, based on the judicial precedents of the United States and our country, the author combs out the differences between the reproductions and the adapted works through the analysis and summary of the relevant cases, and takes literary works and fine arts works as examples. The concrete analysis explains how to judge the adaptation works in order to pave the way for the follow-up discussion. The second point of this part mainly discusses how to distinguish the right of reproduction from the right of adaptation in judicial practice, and explain it with relevant cases. Finally, the author thinks that as long as the two works compared have substantial similarities in the most important core contents, that is, the most important core content of the plaintiff's works is exactly the most important core content of the works being sued for infringement. We can determine the adaptation right of the plaintiff's works infringed by the alleged infringing works without considering how many differences between the infringed works and the original works in addition to the core contents of the original works. The fifth part is the conclusion part, mainly summarizes the author's viewpoint on the basis of the brief combing of the full text content. That is to say, the standard of copyright infringement should be different from that of adaptation right, and the main difference between them is that the judgment standard of infringement of adaptation right is lower than that of infringement of reproduction right.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D923.41

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 劉長(zhǎng)城;;論網(wǎng)絡(luò)環(huán)境下的復(fù)制權(quán)問(wèn)題[J];科技信息(科學(xué)教研);2007年25期

2 黃國(guó)彬;;適用于圖書(shū)館的復(fù)制權(quán)例外的基本問(wèn)題研究[J];圖書(shū)館雜志;2011年01期

3 趙靖;;圖書(shū)館業(yè)務(wù)與復(fù)制權(quán)的保護(hù)[J];圖書(shū)館雜志;1994年06期

4 季風(fēng);英刊報(bào)道我加強(qiáng)復(fù)制權(quán)保護(hù)[J];出版參考;1995年19期

5 陳建民;閆偉榮;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)環(huán)境下復(fù)制權(quán)的界定[J];科學(xué)新聞;2001年25期

6 郭凱峰 ,龐秀平;網(wǎng)絡(luò)環(huán)境下著作復(fù)制權(quán)保護(hù)的困境及對(duì)策[J];社會(huì)科學(xué)論壇;2003年07期

7 丁威;網(wǎng)絡(luò)時(shí)代的復(fù)制權(quán)[J];安徽商貿(mào)職業(yè)技術(shù)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2004年02期

8 劉潤(rùn)濤;;數(shù)字與網(wǎng)絡(luò)環(huán)境下的復(fù)制權(quán)制度研究[J];網(wǎng)絡(luò)法律評(píng)論;2005年00期

9 姜世華;;國(guó)外復(fù)制權(quán)問(wèn)題研究[J];農(nóng)業(yè)圖書(shū)情報(bào)學(xué)刊;2009年06期

10 沈麗紅;;圖書(shū)館數(shù)字化建設(shè)與復(fù)制權(quán)[J];安徽警官職業(yè)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2010年03期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前4條

1 記者 楊傲多;維護(hù)著作權(quán)人復(fù)制權(quán)音著協(xié)同時(shí)立案三起[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2009年

2 李東生;書(shū)店無(wú)權(quán)允許讀者“拍攝圖書(shū)”[N];中國(guó)新聞出版報(bào);2007年

3 南方日?qǐng)?bào)記者 周豫;音樂(lè)人單靠版稅難生存[N];南方日?qǐng)?bào);2012年

4 艾遠(yuǎn);字庫(kù)銷(xiāo)售實(shí)行雙重許可“無(wú)字可用”言過(guò)其實(shí)[N];國(guó)際商報(bào);2009年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 葉花;網(wǎng)絡(luò)環(huán)境下復(fù)制權(quán)法律問(wèn)題研究[D];蘭州大學(xué);2007年

2 李倩;復(fù)制權(quán)與改編權(quán)侵權(quán)判定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的區(qū)分[D];西南政法大學(xué);2015年

3 虞正春;論復(fù)制權(quán)[D];華東政法學(xué)院;2005年

4 王曉;論網(wǎng)絡(luò)環(huán)境下的復(fù)制權(quán)[D];中南大學(xué);2010年

5 沈秋源;論云計(jì)算背景下的軟件復(fù)制權(quán)[D];華東政法大學(xué);2013年

6 何迅羽;云計(jì)算環(huán)境下的復(fù)制權(quán)問(wèn)題研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2014年

7 朱雯霏;藝術(shù)作品復(fù)制權(quán)保護(hù)法律初探[D];華東政法大學(xué);2011年

8 劉穎;網(wǎng)絡(luò)環(huán)境下的復(fù)制權(quán)及其保護(hù)[D];內(nèi)蒙古大學(xué);2006年

9 張萬(wàn)云;數(shù)字環(huán)境下復(fù)制權(quán)法律問(wèn)題研究[D];武漢理工大學(xué);2010年

10 馬麗萍;云計(jì)算環(huán)境中的復(fù)制權(quán)問(wèn)題與對(duì)策研究[D];湘潭大學(xué);2013年

，

本文編號(hào)：1854687