本文選題：合理使用 + 轉(zhuǎn)化性使用　； 參考：《華東政法大學(xué)》2016年碩士論文

【摘要】：在合理使用判定的過程中,如果使用者的使用行為是以新的、富有成效的方式使用原作或者以完全不同于原作的意圖使用原作,且使用者為原作品添加了新價值、新意義或新美感,即可認(rèn)定這一使用原作品的行為構(gòu)成“轉(zhuǎn)化性地使用”。這一概念最初是由Pierre N.Leval法官在其《論合理使用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)》(“Toward a Fair Use Standard”)一文中提出,該文章發(fā)表于1990年的《哈佛法學(xué)評論》。Leval法官之所以提出“轉(zhuǎn)化性使用”,主要是為了對美國版權(quán)制度中的“合理使用四要素”中的第一個要素(使用的目的與性質(zhì))進(jìn)行判斷。一般而言,使用人行為一旦被認(rèn)定為具有“轉(zhuǎn)化性”,就極有利于“合理使用”的成立,而可能免于承擔(dān)著作權(quán)侵權(quán)責(zé)任。在我國的著作權(quán)“權(quán)利的限制與例外”的制度下,對于合理使用的情形明確以具體列舉的方式加以限定,這雖然使得立法具有可預(yù)見性,且在一定程度上使得司法具有相當(dāng)高的可操作性;但是隨著技術(shù)的進(jìn)步,出現(xiàn)了不滿足既定條件的其他情形。此時,由于立法沒有設(shè)置兜底條款,且無對應(yīng)的司法解釋,導(dǎo)致在對“合理使用”的判定過程中,出現(xiàn)了把符合著作權(quán)立法宗旨的行為認(rèn)定為不構(gòu)成“合理使用”的情形。而“轉(zhuǎn)化性使用”規(guī)則可以不受法定情形的限制,對使用行為的目的與性質(zhì)的進(jìn)行判定,如果構(gòu)成“轉(zhuǎn)化性使用”,則將更易于認(rèn)定構(gòu)成“合理使用”。因此,“轉(zhuǎn)化性使用”規(guī)則可以有效避免既有判斷規(guī)則的僵化,有助于司法實踐中對“合理使用”成立與否的分析判斷。本文擬對“轉(zhuǎn)化性使用”規(guī)則的適用條件進(jìn)行探討。當(dāng)下正值我國《著作權(quán)法》修改之際,筆者建議將“合理使用四要素”明確納入司法解釋,且在積累了一定的本國案例之后,再將“轉(zhuǎn)化性使用”規(guī)則納入其中,作為法院在司法適用中的指導(dǎo)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。本文主要劃分為三個章節(jié):第一章主要論述“轉(zhuǎn)化性使用”規(guī)則引入我國的可行性。從以下三個方面展開:首先從司法實踐中合理使用判定的困境切入,之后再論證當(dāng)前我國已經(jīng)具備引入“轉(zhuǎn)化性使用”規(guī)則的移植土壤,最后對“轉(zhuǎn)化性使用”規(guī)則引入后將有助于合理使用的判定的優(yōu)勢進(jìn)行論述。其中,實踐困境主要表現(xiàn)在判斷規(guī)則的僵化與司法解釋的缺位兩方面。而事實上,我國學(xué)者已經(jīng)就這一問題開始研究“轉(zhuǎn)化性使用”規(guī)則,司法領(lǐng)域也開始適用“合理使用四要素”,甚至有法院判決書已經(jīng)明確提出了“轉(zhuǎn)化性使用”規(guī)則這一說法。這一規(guī)則對于判斷某一使用原作的行為是否構(gòu)成“合理使用”的判定作用,主要在于其有助于判定合理使用第一要素是否成立,而第一要素的成立的與否對于合理使用的成立與否至關(guān)重要。第二章主要探討“轉(zhuǎn)化性使用”規(guī)則的構(gòu)成要件和常見情形。探討構(gòu)成要件時,重點著眼于“使用目的”以及“使用結(jié)果”兩方面,前者指以不同于原作的使用目的,后者指具有一定程度的轉(zhuǎn)化性。其中,在探討“使用目的”時,要明確原作的使用目的為傳達(dá)作品的科學(xué)、藝術(shù)、文學(xué)之美,而此外的目的無法一一列舉,需要個案分析,并總結(jié)出常見的不同于原作意圖的使用目的。同時,在探討“使用結(jié)果”的過程中,也要注意對作品類型進(jìn)行分類,因為不同類型的作品的用途功能有所差異,需區(qū)別對待。明確了“轉(zhuǎn)化性使用”的構(gòu)成要件后,可結(jié)合實踐中的情形,總結(jié)目前已出現(xiàn)的常見的符合該規(guī)則的情形,這有助于司法實踐的判定。目前,常見的情形有信息檢索和諷刺模仿這兩類。第三章主要探討適用“轉(zhuǎn)化性使用”規(guī)則常見的誤區(qū)。美國司法雖通過長期實踐總結(jié)出了“轉(zhuǎn)化性使用”這一套規(guī)則,但是即便如此,各級法院在適用時仍會出現(xiàn)諸多分歧,最典型分歧表現(xiàn)在:一是誤解“轉(zhuǎn)化性使用”規(guī)則與“合理使用”的關(guān)系,二是誤解“轉(zhuǎn)化性使用”行為和作品演繹行為的關(guān)系。首先,“轉(zhuǎn)化性使用”對于合理使用的判定非常重要,這是因為“轉(zhuǎn)化性使用”規(guī)則有助于判定合理使用第一要素;但是,第一要素成立并不意味著合理使用成立,其他三個要素也需要綜合考量。因而,構(gòu)成“轉(zhuǎn)化性使用”更不意味著能直接構(gòu)成合理使用成立。其次,“轉(zhuǎn)化性使用”與演繹行為并沒有直接的關(guān)系,因此,構(gòu)成“轉(zhuǎn)化性使用”則構(gòu)成演繹作品的觀點是錯誤的。如果這種假設(shè)成立,那《版權(quán)法》對賦予原作者的“演繹權(quán)”將被架空,原作者將無法阻止任何一個人在自己作品的基礎(chǔ)之上創(chuàng)作新的作品這一行為�！稗D(zhuǎn)化性使用”與演繹行為的關(guān)注點及其結(jié)果是不同的:1、前者要求使用者的使用行為必須以新的、富有成效的方式使用原作或者以完全不同于原作的使用目的使用原作,其關(guān)注點在于作品的使用目的上;后者則關(guān)注與原作品相比較的獨(dú)創(chuàng)性程度,而不關(guān)注為什么要使用原作品。2、前者要求具有一定的“轉(zhuǎn)化性”,至于是否產(chǎn)生獨(dú)立于原作的作品則不關(guān)心;后者需要滿足最低限度的獨(dú)創(chuàng)性要求,創(chuàng)造出一個獨(dú)立的作品。結(jié)語部分筆者建議將“合理使用四要素”納入司法解釋。但是,對于“轉(zhuǎn)化性使用”規(guī)則的立法可待積累了一定的本國案例之后,再進(jìn)行修改。目前我國正在修訂《著作權(quán)法》,一方面,準(zhǔn)確理解“轉(zhuǎn)化性使用”的內(nèi)涵、在判斷是否構(gòu)成合理使用時的作用、其背后蘊(yùn)含的版權(quán)法價值取向,對我國立法或指定司法解釋具有一定的啟發(fā);另一方面,“轉(zhuǎn)換性使用”在美國法院適用過程中所暴露出的問題,也應(yīng)予以清晰的認(rèn)識,避免走上美國走過的歧路。
[Abstract]:In the process of rational use of judgment, if the user's use behavior is to use the original in a new, productive way, or to use the original in a completely different way, and the user adds new value to the original work, the new meaning or the new aesthetic sense, the use of the original work can be identified as "transformative use". This concept was originally proposed by judge Pierre N.Leval in its < Toward a Fair Use Standard > ("Toward a Fair Use Standard"). The article was published in the 1990 Harvard Law Review of judge >.Leval to propose "transformational use", mainly for the "rational use of the four elements" in the American copyright system. An element (the purpose and nature of the use) is judged. In general, the use of a person's behavior, once identified as a "transformative", is very beneficial to the establishment of "rational use" and may be exempt from the liability for copyright infringement. Under the system of "limitation and exception" of copyright in our country, the situation of rational use is clear. It is true that it is limited in the form of specific enumeration, which makes the legislation predictable and to a certain extent the high operability of the judiciary; however, with the progress of the technology, there are other situations that do not meet the established conditions. In the process of judging "rational use", there is a case that the behavior that conforms to the purpose of the copyright legislation is considered not to constitute "reasonable use". The rules of "conversion use" can be determined without the limitation of the legal situation, and the purpose and nature of the use of the act will be judged, and it will be more easily recognized if it constitutes "conversion use". Therefore, "rational use" is formed. Therefore, the rules of "conversion use" can effectively avoid the rigidity of the rules of judgment and the analysis and judgment of the establishment of "rational use" in judicial practice. This paper intends to discuss the applicable conditions of the rules of "conversion use". It is suggested that the "rational use of the four elements" should be explicitly included in the judicial interpretation, and after the accumulation of certain domestic cases, the "transformational use" rule is included as the guiding standard of the court in judicial application. This article is divided into three chapters: the first chapter mainly discusses the feasibility of introducing the rules of "transformational use" to our country. Starting from the following three aspects: first, it starts from the plight of rational use of judgment in judicial practice, and then demonstrates that the current China has already possessed the transplanted soil introducing the "transformational use" rule, and finally discusses the advantages of the decision that will help the rational use of the "transtransformative use" rule. It is mainly manifested in the two aspects of the rigid judgment rules and the absence of judicial interpretation. In fact, Chinese scholars have begun to study the "transformational use" rules on this issue, and the judicial field has also begun to apply the "four elements of rational use", and even the court verdict has clearly put forward the "transformational use" rule. A rule determines whether or not the behavior of an original work constitutes "rational use", mainly because it helps to determine whether the first element is established rationally, and whether the establishment of the first element is essential to the establishment of rational use. The second chapter mainly discusses the composition of the rules of "conversion use". When discussing the elements, we focus on two aspects of "use purpose" and "use result". The former refers to the use of the original, the latter refers to a certain degree of transformation. In the discussion of the purpose of use, the purpose of the original work is to be defined to convey the science, art, and writing of the works. The beauty of learning can not be enumerated one by one. It needs case analysis and summarizes the common purposes different from the original intention. At the same time, in the process of exploring the "use result", we should also pay attention to the classification of the types of works, because the functions of different types of works are different and need to be treated differently. After the constitutive requirements of "chemical use", it can be combined with the situation in practice to sum up the common situations that have appeared in the current situation, which can help to judge the judicial practice. At present, the common cases are information retrieval and satire imitation of these two categories. The third chapter mainly discusses the common misunderstandings of the application of the rules of "conversion use". Although the rules of "conversion use" are summed up through long term practice, there are still many differences in the application of the courts at all levels. The most typical differences are as follows: one is to misunderstand the relationship between the "conversion" rule and the "rational use", and the two is to misunderstand the behavior of "transformational use" and the behavior of the works. First, "transformational use" is very important for rational use, because the "transformational use" rules help determine the rational use of the first element; however, the establishment of the first element does not mean rational use and the other three elements need comprehensive consideration. Thus, the formation of "transformative use" does not mean more. Secondly, there is no direct relationship between "transformational use" and deductive behavior. Therefore, the view that "transformational use" constitutes a deductive work is wrong. If such a hypothesis is established, the copyright law will be abandoned to the original author, and the author will not be able to prevent anything from the original author. The act of creating a new work on the basis of his own work. The focus and the results of "transformational use" and deductive behavior are different: 1, the former requires the user's use behavior to use the original in a new, productive way, or to use the original in a completely different way from the original use. The point lies in the purpose of the use of the work; the latter pays attention to the originality of the original work, and does not pay attention to the use of the original work.2, the former requires a certain "transformation", and is not concerned about the creation of a work independent of the original; the latter needs to be full of the minimum requirements of originality and create a independence. The author suggests that the "rational use of the four elements" be incorporated into the judicial interpretation. However, the legislation of the "transformational use" rule should be amended after a certain national case has been accumulated. At present, China is revising the copyright law. On the one hand, it is accurate to understand the connotation of "conversion use" and whether it is judged or not. The value orientation of the copyright law behind it is enlightening to our country's legislation or the appointment of judicial interpretation; on the other hand, the problems exposed in the process of applying the "transformational use" should also be clearly understood to avoid the wrong path in the United States.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號】：D923.41

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前1條

1 徐新能（作者為高新區(qū)七星區(qū)綜合發(fā)展計劃局局長）;淺談如何打造核心競爭力[N];桂林日報;2005年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前4條

1 趙琪彥;論合理使用中的轉(zhuǎn)化性使用[D];華東政法大學(xué);2015年

2 吳劍霞;“轉(zhuǎn)化性使用”規(guī)則的適用條件[D];華東政法大學(xué);2016年

3 韓云霞;教師作為轉(zhuǎn)化性知識分子探析[D];山西大學(xué);2012年

4 阮開欣;電子游戲的形象權(quán)問題研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2014年

，

本文編號：1901393