本文選題：著作權(quán)人　切入點(diǎn)：認(rèn)定　出處：《中國政法大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：在知識產(chǎn)權(quán)糾紛中，著作權(quán)侵權(quán)糾紛是重要的一類。對于著作權(quán)人來說，尋求法律救濟(jì)的第一步便是證明自己對作品享有著作權(quán)，具有原告的主體資格。我國著作權(quán)法專設(shè)一章對各類作品著作權(quán)的歸屬做了明確的規(guī)定，但是隨著計(jì)算機(jī)技術(shù)的發(fā)展，作品的形式、種類越來越多，權(quán)利利用方式越來越多樣化，作品的許可轉(zhuǎn)讓等情形越來越復(fù)雜，作品著作權(quán)主體涉及的范圍也越來越大，這導(dǎo)致司法實(shí)踐過程中對于著作權(quán)人的認(rèn)定存在許多爭議。 本文第一章介紹了華蓋公司一系列的著作權(quán)維權(quán)案件，通過各個(gè)法院對這個(gè)案件的不同判決結(jié)果，來引出司法實(shí)踐中在著作權(quán)人的認(rèn)定過程中出現(xiàn)的幾個(gè)問題：一是著作權(quán)被許可人是否有權(quán)提起著作權(quán)侵權(quán)之訴；二是在訴訟證明過程中，著作權(quán)人該如何證明自己的身份，應(yīng)該承擔(dān)何種程度的舉證責(zé)任；三是數(shù)字水印可否視為署名。 接下來的三章圍繞著作權(quán)人的認(rèn)定，對這三個(gè)問題進(jìn)行了詳細(xì)的分析論述。 第二章講的是誰可以成為著作權(quán)人，首先分析了著作權(quán)人的概念，說明成為著作權(quán)人是基于兩方面的原因：一是基于作品創(chuàng)作行為，二是基于法律或者合同的約定，并以此分類列舉了各類著作權(quán)人。然后在此基礎(chǔ)上分析得出，著作權(quán)被許可人不是著作權(quán)人，華蓋公司作為著作權(quán)普通被許可人，只是通過許可合同得以合法使用作品，沒有提起侵權(quán)之訴的資格，更不是涉案圖片的著作權(quán)人。 第三章主要介紹了在訴訟證明過程中，著作權(quán)人該如何提供證據(jù)證明自己的著作權(quán)人身份，相對方要否定著作權(quán)人身份又該如何舉證，最后通過民事訴訟證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，結(jié)合著作權(quán)法的特點(diǎn)，得出在認(rèn)定著作權(quán)人時(shí)，只要著作權(quán)提供了初步的證據(jù)證明其身份，在沒有相反證據(jù)的情況下，應(yīng)該確認(rèn)原告著作權(quán)人的身份。 第四章介紹了在司法實(shí)踐中，法官認(rèn)定著作權(quán)人的考量因素，并重點(diǎn)分析了對作者署名的認(rèn)定，再通過數(shù)字水印與傳統(tǒng)署名的比較，鑒于只有作者才有資格在作品上署名，所以本文認(rèn)為數(shù)字水印不能一律都視為署名，應(yīng)根據(jù)水印的內(nèi)容來區(qū)分：如果是作品上的水印是自然人姓名的，，可以視為署名；如果水印是法人名稱、商標(biāo)的，則不宜視為署名，否則有剝奪創(chuàng)作者署名權(quán)的嫌疑。此外，對于作者以外的著作權(quán)人，認(rèn)定可能更加復(fù)雜，證明步驟更多，這時(shí)候就需要法官結(jié)合案件具體情況做具體判斷。 第五章是通過對前面三章內(nèi)容的思考得到的啟示，并從立法、司法、維權(quán)三個(gè)層面，對著作權(quán)人認(rèn)定過程中的問題解決提出建議。 結(jié)論部分是對全文的一個(gè)總結(jié)，首先對文章開頭案件提出的爭議焦點(diǎn)闡述了自己的看法，其次提煉出了本文中的幾個(gè)重要觀點(diǎn)。
[Abstract]:In intellectual property disputes, copyright infringement disputes are an important category. For copyright owners, the first step in seeking legal remedies is to prove that they enjoy copyright in their works. Having the subject qualification of the plaintiff. The copyright Law of our country has set up a special chapter on the ownership of the copyright of all kinds of works, but with the development of computer technology, there are more and more forms and types of works. The use of rights is becoming more and more diversified, the licensing and transfer of works is becoming more and more complex, and the scope of copyright subject is also increasing, which leads to a lot of disputes about the identification of copyright owners in the process of judicial practice. The first chapter of this paper introduces a series of copyright rights cases of Huagai Company. In order to lead to the judicial practice in the identification of copyright owners of several issues: first, whether the copyright licensee has the right to file a copyright infringement action; second, in the process of proof, how should the copyright owner prove his identity, The third is whether digital watermark can be regarded as signature. The next three chapters focus on the identification of copyright owners, the three issues are discussed in detail. The second chapter is about who can become copyright owner. First, it analyzes the concept of copyright owner, and explains that the reason for becoming copyright owner is based on two reasons: one is based on the creation of works, the other is based on the agreement of law or contract. On the basis of the analysis, the author concludes that the copyright licensee is not the copyright owner. As the general licensee of copyright, Huagai Company, as the general licensee of copyright, only uses the work legally through the license contract. Did not bring the qualification of tort action, not the copyright owner of the picture involved. The third chapter mainly introduces how to provide evidence to prove the identity of copyright owner, how to deny the identity of copyright owner, and how to prove it through civil litigation. Combined with the characteristics of copyright law, it is concluded that, as long as the copyright provides preliminary evidence to prove the identity of the copyright owner, the identity of the plaintiff copyright owner should be confirmed in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Chapter 4th introduces the factors that judge considers the copyright owner in judicial practice, and analyzes the recognition of the author's signature, and then compares the digital watermark with the traditional signature. In view of the fact that only the author is qualified to sign on the work, Therefore, this paper argues that digital watermarking can not all be regarded as signature, and should be distinguished according to the content of watermark: if the watermark on the work is the name of a natural person, it can be regarded as a signature; if the watermark is the name of a legal person, it is a trademark. In addition, for the copyright owner other than the author, the identification may be more complicated, and the steps of proof are more. At this time, it is necessary for the judge to make a specific judgment in combination with the specific circumstances of the case. Chapter 5th is through the thinking of the content of the previous three chapters, and from the legislative, judicial, rights protection three levels, to solve the problems in the process of copyright owners. The conclusion part is a summary of the full text. Firstly, the author expounds his own views on the controversial focus of the case at the beginning of the article, and then extracts several important points of view in this paper.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D923.41

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 上海市第一中級人民法院課題組;;知識產(chǎn)權(quán)被許可人的訴權(quán)研究[J];東方法學(xué);2011年06期

2 張春艷;;論我國電影作品著作權(quán)的歸屬[J];法學(xué)雜志;2012年09期

3 李明德;;著作權(quán)主體略論[J];法商研究;2012年04期

4 陳錦川;;著作權(quán)侵權(quán)訴訟舉證責(zé)任的分配[J];人民司法;2007年05期

5 王遷;;論“法人作品”規(guī)定的重構(gòu)[J];法學(xué)論壇;2007年06期

6 駱電;胡夢云;;著作權(quán)主體的司法判斷[J];人民司法;2011年21期

7 張耕;論版權(quán)管理電子信息的立法保護(hù)[J];西南民族大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(人文社科版);2004年03期

8 馮曉青;試論著作權(quán)法中的作者[J];湘潭大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);1995年03期

9 李振武;;淺談網(wǎng)絡(luò)作品作者身份的認(rèn)定途徑[J];中國版權(quán);2012年03期

10 董美根;;英美法系與大陸法系中版權(quán)被許可人訴權(quán)問題比較研究——以《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》為出發(fā)點(diǎn)[J];知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2011年08期

本文編號：1621892