發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-05-21 06:49

  本文選題：臨摹 + 作品��； 參考：《廣東外語(yǔ)外貿(mào)大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：臨摹作品最初是因?yàn)閷W(xué)習(xí)模仿別人藝術(shù)作品所產(chǎn)生的新成果,然而在當(dāng)今社會(huì)的藝術(shù)品市場(chǎng)中,臨摹作品的使用已經(jīng)遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超出了先前所認(rèn)為的學(xué)習(xí)模仿藝術(shù)作品的范圍,更多的被用于商業(yè)領(lǐng)域,其使用的范圍和占據(jù)的市場(chǎng)比例逐年增加,致使關(guān)于臨摹作品的著作權(quán)問題產(chǎn)生的法律糾紛也呈現(xiàn)出上升的勢(shì)頭。針對(duì)臨摹作品是否應(yīng)該作為著作權(quán)法的客體對(duì)待的問題,在國(guó)家立法層面和司法實(shí)踐層面一直都存在較大爭(zhēng)議。在國(guó)家立法方面,我國(guó)于1991年《著作權(quán)法》第22條就規(guī)定臨摹屬于作品合理使用的范疇,屬于復(fù)制的一種形式,形同復(fù)印、印刷等;隨后2001年新修訂的《著作權(quán)法》將臨摹從復(fù)制的列舉形式中排除,但是卻在最高人民法院《關(guān)于審理著作權(quán)民事糾紛案件適用法律若干問題的解釋》中卻做出了相關(guān)的規(guī)定。在司法實(shí)踐方面,由于關(guān)于臨摹作品的立法不夠完善,法官裁量的尺度也不盡相同,因而判決的結(jié)果也存在差異。關(guān)于臨摹作品能否受著作權(quán)法保護(hù)等一系列問題一直都是學(xué)術(shù)界爭(zhēng)論的焦點(diǎn)問題,健全和完善臨摹作品的著作權(quán)保護(hù)制度將具有現(xiàn)實(shí)意義。針對(duì)“臨摹作品是否應(yīng)受著作權(quán)法保護(hù),如何保護(hù)臨摹作品的著作權(quán)”等問題,本文筆者主要從以下三個(gè)方面進(jìn)行詳細(xì)論述:第一部分,首先對(duì)臨摹作品是否應(yīng)受我國(guó)著作權(quán)法保護(hù)這一首要核心問題展開論證,由于臨摹作品具有藝術(shù)價(jià)值,且符合作品的可著作權(quán)性,認(rèn)定臨摹作品應(yīng)當(dāng)受到著作權(quán)法的保護(hù);第二部分,闡述當(dāng)前我國(guó)關(guān)于臨摹的立法現(xiàn)狀,通過詳細(xì)分析,認(rèn)為其中存在著臨摹作品界定含糊、保護(hù)模式存在爭(zhēng)議、司法實(shí)踐權(quán)責(zé)不清等問題;第三部分,針對(duì)臨摹作品著作權(quán)保護(hù)中存在的問題,提出明確區(qū)分相鄰概念、區(qū)別定性保護(hù)、健全舉證制度等建議。
[Abstract]:Copying works were originally the result of learning to imitate others' works of art. However, in the art market of today's society, the use of copying works has gone far beyond what was previously thought to be the scope of learning to imitate works of art. More and more are used in the commercial field, the scope of its use and the proportion of the market increasing year by year, resulting in the copyright of copying work caused by the legal disputes also show an upward momentum. Whether copying works should be treated as the object of copyright law has always been controversial at the level of national legislation and judicial practice. In the aspect of national legislation, Article 22 of the copyright Law in 1991 stipulates that copying belongs to the category of reasonable use of works, and belongs to a form of reproduction, such as copying, printing, etc. The copyright Law, which was revised in 2001, excluded copying from the list of copying forms, but it made some relevant provisions in the Supreme people's Court on the interpretation of the applicable Law in the trial of copyright Civil disputes. In judicial practice, because the legislation on copying works is not perfect enough and the judge's discretion is different, the result of judgment is different. A series of questions about whether copying works can be protected by copyright law have always been the focus of debate in academic circles. It is of practical significance to perfect and perfect the copyright protection system of copying works. In view of the problems of "whether copying works should be protected by copyright law and how to protect the copyright of copying works", the author mainly discusses in detail the following three aspects: the first part, First of all, the paper discusses whether copying works should be protected by copyright law of our country. Because copying works have artistic value and accord with the copyright nature of works, they should be protected by copyright law. The second part expounds the current legislative situation of copying in our country. Through detailed analysis, the author thinks that there are some problems such as vague definition of copying works, controversial protection mode, unclear judicial practice, and so on. In view of the problems existing in copyright protection of copying works, some suggestions are put forward, such as distinguishing the concept of neighboring, distinguishing qualitative protection and perfecting the system of proof.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：廣東外語(yǔ)外貿(mào)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：D923.41

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前2條

1 馮曉青;;著作權(quán)法的利益平衡理論研究[J];湖南大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2008年06期

2 倪進(jìn);;書畫臨摹作品市場(chǎng)化著作權(quán)研究[J];南京社會(huì)科學(xué);2008年05期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 李青;微博作品著作權(quán)保護(hù)研究[D];南昌大學(xué);2013年

，

本文編號(hào)：1918178