【摘要】：影視業(yè)蓬勃發(fā)展使得各種改編行為日益增加,也為原作者權(quán)利保護(hù)帶來了新的挑戰(zhàn)。畢某、A出版社訴陳某、B出版社侵害著作權(quán)及不正當(dāng)競爭糾紛一案便是如此。各方當(dāng)事人圍繞改編權(quán)侵害的認(rèn)定、不正當(dāng)競爭的判斷以及賠償數(shù)額的合理性進(jìn)行激烈的爭論。結(jié)合著作權(quán)法和侵權(quán)責(zé)任法等規(guī)定和相關(guān)理論,對爭議焦點可以作如下分析:首先,原告對被告是否構(gòu)成改編權(quán)侵害問題。陳某僅具有把小說改編成電視劇劇本以及出版電視劇劇本的授權(quán),不具有出版電視劇劇本小說的授權(quán),原告侵害了被告著作權(quán)中的改編權(quán)。其次,原告是否構(gòu)成對被告的不正當(dāng)競爭問題。原告和被告同在一個文化市場中活動,各主體均通過各自的行為來分享文化市場中產(chǎn)生的經(jīng)濟(jì)利益,各方之間存在著競爭關(guān)系,被告圖書在未得到原告授權(quán)的情況下使用與原告知名小說相同的名稱,造成圖書市場中消費者的混淆,且對原告圖書市場造成擠壓,使原告遭受重大損失,構(gòu)成對原告的不正當(dāng)競爭。最后,被告賠償數(shù)額的合理性問題。結(jié)合著作權(quán)損害賠償以及不正當(dāng)競爭相關(guān)原理,原告在明知未經(jīng)原著作權(quán)人授權(quán)的情況下,出版和銷售侵權(quán)小說,銷售范圍廣、時間長、數(shù)量大。所以,在綜合考慮社會危害性的大小、加害人的過錯程度的輕重、侵權(quán)的持續(xù)時間、侵權(quán)范圍等要素的情況下,原審法院判決的5萬元賠償額過低,二審法院予以糾正,判決賠償權(quán)利人14萬元的經(jīng)濟(jì)損失是合理的。
[Abstract]:The vigorous development of film and television industry makes various adaptation actions increase day by day, and also brings new challenges to the protection of the rights of original authors. Bimou, A Publishing House v. Chen, B Publishing House infringement of copyright and unfair competition dispute case is like this. The parties dispute over the determination of the infringement of adaptation right, the judgment of unfair competition and the rationality of the compensation amount. Combined with copyright Law and Tort liability Law and other relevant theories, the focus of the dispute can be analyzed as follows: first, whether the plaintiff constitutes an infringement of the defendant's adaptation right. Chen only has the authority to adapt the novel to the TV drama script and to publish the TV play script, but not to publish the drama script novel. The plaintiff infringes on the adaptation right of the defendant's copyright. Second, whether the plaintiff constitutes unfair competition against the defendant. The plaintiff and the defendant operate in the same cultural market, each subject shares the economic benefits arising from the cultural market through their own actions, and there is a competitive relationship between the parties. The defendant book used the same name as the plaintiff's well-known novel without the authorization of the plaintiff, resulting in confusion among consumers in the book market, and squeezing the plaintiff's book market, causing the plaintiff to suffer heavy losses. Constitute unfair competition against the plaintiff. Finally, the question of the reasonableness of the defendant's compensation. Combined with the principles of copyright damages and unfair competition, the plaintiff published and sold the infringing novel without the authorization of the original copyright owner, the scope of sale is wide, the time is long and the quantity is large. Therefore, considering the magnitude of social harmfulness, the degree of fault of the perpetrators, the duration of the infringement, the scope of the infringement and other factors, the compensation of 50,000 yuan decided by the original trial court is too low, and the court of second instance will correct it. It is reasonable to compensate the obligee for the economic loss of 140000 yuan.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湖南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D920.5;D923.41

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前6條

1 儲存環(huán);;論反不正當(dāng)競爭法對知名商品的認(rèn)定與法律保護(hù)[J];法制與社會;2013年25期

2 吳漢東;;論反不正當(dāng)競爭中的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)問題[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2013年01期

3 項翔;;著作權(quán)法的侵權(quán)責(zé)任歸責(zé)原則[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(jì)(下半月);2008年06期

4 馮曉青;;演繹權(quán)之沿革及其理論思考[J];山西師大學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2007年03期

5 劉蓉;;試論我國《反不正當(dāng)競爭法》對知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的保護(hù)與完善[J];政治與法律;2006年06期

6 張玉敏;侵害知識產(chǎn)權(quán)民事責(zé)任歸責(zé)原則研究[J];法學(xué)論壇;2003年03期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前7條

1 張倩陽;反不正當(dāng)競爭視角下的商標(biāo)權(quán)保護(hù)[D];蘭州商學(xué)院;2014年

2 劉施汝;著作權(quán)侵權(quán)損害賠償研究[D];湖南大學(xué);2014年

3 章燕;論知名商品的法律保護(hù)[D];南昌大學(xué);2013年

4 韋丹萍;著作權(quán)侵權(quán)損害賠償問題研究[D];重慶大學(xué);2013年

5 陽蕩;許某與某保險公司勞動糾紛案評析[D];湖南大學(xué);2013年

6 雷陽;湖南王躍文訴河北王躍文侵犯著作權(quán)案分析[D];湖南大學(xué);2011年

7 任雪;論著作權(quán)的損害賠償[D];華南師范大學(xué);2004年

，

本文編號：2400801