本文選題：實(shí)用藝術(shù)品 + 獨(dú)創(chuàng)性��； 參考：《華東政法大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文

【摘要】：實(shí)用藝術(shù)品是兼具藝術(shù)性和實(shí)用性，并符合作品構(gòu)成要件的智力成果，受到《伯爾尼公約》的保護(hù)。本文采取案例分析的形式來闡述實(shí)用藝術(shù)品知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)問題。因?yàn)槭澜缟嫌行﹪覍?shí)用藝術(shù)品提供著作權(quán)法律保護(hù)，有的提供外觀設(shè)計(jì)法律保護(hù)，而我國在法律層面上至今未明確對實(shí)用藝術(shù)品是否提供保護(hù)。因此，筆者希望通過分析和比較我國與外國實(shí)用藝術(shù)品在立法內(nèi)容和司法實(shí)踐上的異同，從著作權(quán)和外觀設(shè)計(jì)角度出發(fā)，為實(shí)用藝術(shù)品的法律保護(hù)提出一些有益的建議。 本文包括前言、正文、結(jié)論三部分。 前言是本文寫作的目的，通過分析目前我國實(shí)用藝術(shù)品的保護(hù)現(xiàn)狀及缺陷，結(jié)合國外的經(jīng)驗(yàn)，以及著作權(quán)和外觀設(shè)計(jì)專利的保護(hù)優(yōu)勢，在《著作權(quán)法》修改之際，，給出合理化的建議。 第一章闡述實(shí)用藝術(shù)品的概念和特征，實(shí)用藝術(shù)品是集實(shí)用性和藝術(shù)性于一身，并符合作品要求的智力創(chuàng)作成果。實(shí)用藝術(shù)品與美術(shù)作品是兩個(gè)彼此獨(dú)立的受著作權(quán)保護(hù)的客體，而具有新穎性的非手工實(shí)用藝術(shù)品又可以獲得外觀設(shè)計(jì)專利保護(hù)。所以，實(shí)用藝術(shù)品既可以采用著作權(quán)保護(hù)模式又可以采用外觀設(shè)計(jì)專利保護(hù)模式。 第二章探討實(shí)用藝術(shù)品的著作權(quán)保護(hù)模式。實(shí)用藝術(shù)品受著作權(quán)保護(hù)的條件之一是實(shí)用藝術(shù)品的“藝術(shù)性”和“實(shí)用性”可以分離；條件之二是具有獨(dú)創(chuàng)性。同時(shí)提出不同類型的實(shí)用藝術(shù)品應(yīng)當(dāng)給予不同的獨(dú)創(chuàng)性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。 第三章簡要分析實(shí)用藝術(shù)品的外觀設(shè)計(jì)專利保護(hù)模式。以國際公約和國外立法為背景，說明外觀設(shè)計(jì)專利保護(hù)實(shí)用藝術(shù)品具有可行性，但是外觀設(shè)計(jì)專利在保護(hù)期限和保護(hù)范圍上與著作權(quán)保護(hù)模式相比較而言存在一定的局限性。 第四章提出我國實(shí)用藝術(shù)品的法律保護(hù)理論主要包括著作權(quán)保護(hù)說、著作權(quán)法和專利法雙重保護(hù)說和單行立法保護(hù)說。筆者認(rèn)為著作權(quán)法和專利法雙重保護(hù)相比較而言更具有優(yōu)勢，建議我國可以采取以著作權(quán)為主，外觀設(shè)計(jì)專利為輔的保護(hù)方式。 第五章是結(jié)論部分。根據(jù)前四章所闡述的實(shí)用藝術(shù)品的兩種知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)模式，在平衡作者權(quán)益和社會(huì)利益的基礎(chǔ)上，認(rèn)為實(shí)用藝術(shù)品應(yīng)該在符合藝術(shù)性與實(shí)用性相分離且具有獨(dú)創(chuàng)性的前提下，采取著作權(quán)為主，外觀設(shè)計(jì)專利為輔的保護(hù)方式較為合理。
[Abstract]:Practical works of art, which are both artistic and practical, and accord with the elements of the works, are protected by the Berne Convention. This paper takes the form of case analysis to expound the protection of intellectual property rights of practical works of art. Because some countries in the world provide copyright protection for practical works of art, some provide legal protection for design, but our country has not yet made it clear whether to provide protection for practical works of art at the legal level. Therefore, the author hopes to put forward some useful suggestions for the legal protection of practical works of art by analyzing and comparing the similarities and differences between China and foreign practical works of art in legislation content and judicial practice, and from the angle of copyright and exterior design. This article includes the preface, the text, the conclusion three parts. The foreword is the purpose of this paper. By analyzing the present situation and defects of the protection of practical works of art in our country, combining with the experience of foreign countries and the advantages of protecting copyright and design patent, the author of this paper, when the copyright Law is amended, Give suggestions for rationalization. The first chapter describes the concept and characteristics of practical works of art. Practical works of art is a kind of intellectual creation which integrates practicality and artistry and meets the requirements of the works. Practical works of art and works of fine arts are two independent objects protected by copyright, while non-handicraft and practical works of art with novelty can be protected by design patent. Therefore, practical works of art can adopt both copyright protection mode and design patent protection mode. The second chapter discusses the copyright protection mode of practical works of art. One of the conditions for practical art to be protected by copyright is that the "artistry" and "practicability" of practical works of art can be separated, and the second condition is that it has originality. At the same time, different types of practical works of art should be given different originality standards. The third chapter briefly analyzes the patent protection mode of the design of practical works of art. With the background of international conventions and foreign legislation, it is shown that the patent of design is feasible to protect practical works of art, but the patent of design has some limitations compared with the mode of copyright protection in terms of the duration and scope of protection. The fourth chapter puts forward the theory of legal protection of practical works of art in China, including the theory of copyright protection, the theory of double protection of copyright law and patent law and the theory of one-line legislation protection. The author thinks that the double protection of copyright law and patent law has more advantages, and suggests that our country should adopt the way of protection based on copyright, supplemented by design patent. Chapter five is the conclusion. According to the two intellectual property protection models of practical art described in the first four chapters, on the basis of balancing the author's rights and interests with the social interests, the author thinks that the practical art should be separated from the practical art and have the premise of originality. It is more reasonable to take copyright as the main protection and design patent as the secondary protection.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：D923.41

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前4條

1 張嵐;產(chǎn)品外觀的法律保護(hù)[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2003年11期

2 郭玉軍;陳云;;制售美術(shù)贗品的法律責(zé)任[J];湖北美術(shù)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);1999年03期

3 張馬林;;論中國實(shí)用藝術(shù)作品的法律保護(hù)[J];藝術(shù)百家;2008年S2期

4 姜穎;作品獨(dú)創(chuàng)性判定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的比較研究[J];知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2004年03期

本文編號(hào)：2075206