【摘要】：隨著社會的向前發(fā)展，知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法律也得到逐步的完善，越來越多的作品形式都被納入了著作權(quán)法保護的范圍。建筑作品作為一種特殊的作品，其和其他形式的作品一樣，蘊含了設(shè)計師大量的智力勞動，是設(shè)計師創(chuàng)造性活動的結(jié)果，也不可避免的會被其他作品復(fù)制或者抄襲，因此，對建筑作品的法律保護也是相當(dāng)必要的。在我國，建筑作品在2001年開始被單列一類作品受到保護，但是，立法僅僅是把建筑作品單列出來，對建筑作品的相關(guān)理論研究還不夠，更缺乏相對具體的保護措施。對于建筑作品受法律保護的關(guān)鍵因素——獨創(chuàng)性，更是缺乏明確的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和實用的判斷方法，導(dǎo)致在司法實踐中，司法人員很難正確判斷某一建筑作品是否具備獨創(chuàng)性這一建筑作品受法律保護的必要條件。 本文從一個在當(dāng)時產(chǎn)生重大影響的案例——保時捷公司訴泰赫雅特公司建筑作品著作權(quán)糾紛一案出發(fā)，對比國內(nèi)外關(guān)于一般作品的獨創(chuàng)性理論，對建筑作品中獨創(chuàng)性的內(nèi)涵、判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、判斷方法及其運用等進行了初步的探討，力求提出切實可行的建筑作品獨創(chuàng)性的判定方案，以期能對司法實踐有所幫助和啟發(fā)。 本文主要分四個部分對建筑作品的獨創(chuàng)性進行探討。第一部分為問題的提出，對本文援引的案例進行了簡要的介紹，并對法院的審判進行了深入的研究，對其審判中采納的觀點和理由做出了簡單的價值判斷，引出了目前我國司法實踐中在判定建筑作品獨創(chuàng)性時遇到的普遍困難。第二部分簡要介紹了一般作品的獨創(chuàng)性理論，分析了獨創(chuàng)性理論的來源、內(nèi)涵等內(nèi)容，并從英美法系和大陸法系中具代表性的國家出發(fā)，探討了有關(guān)作品獨創(chuàng)性的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和方法等方面的問題。第三部分是本文的核心部分，重點從建筑作品自身的特性出發(fā)，探討了建筑作品獨創(chuàng)性的內(nèi)涵、判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、判斷方法及其運用等內(nèi)容。第四部分具體分析了目前我國在對建筑作品獨創(chuàng)性在立法上的不足，并針對這些不足，提出了相應(yīng)的完善方案，以期能幫助我國從制度方面對建筑作品的獨創(chuàng)性判定進行完善和改革，為我國的司法實踐提供現(xiàn)實依據(jù)。 本文認(rèn)為，，雖然獨創(chuàng)性是任何作品都必須具備的基本要素，但是這一基本要素應(yīng)該依據(jù)作品形式的不同，采取不同的要求程度和標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。建筑作品由于其自身包含三維的建筑物或者構(gòu)筑物、建筑設(shè)計方案圖和建筑模型等不同的表現(xiàn)形式，對其獨創(chuàng)性的判斷也應(yīng)該針對不同的表現(xiàn)形式采取不同的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，而不能一概而論。筆者期望通過本文對建筑作品獨創(chuàng)性的探討和認(rèn)識，能夠?qū)ν晟莆覈ㄖ髌藩殑?chuàng)性的相關(guān)立法起到啟發(fā)作用。
[Abstract]:With the development of society, intellectual property law has been gradually improved, more and more forms of works have been brought into the scope of copyright law protection. As a special kind of work, architectural works, like other forms of works, contain a lot of intellectual labor of designers, are the result of designers' creative activities, and will inevitably be copied or copied by other works. The legal protection of architectural works is also quite necessary. In our country, architectural works have been protected in 2001. However, the legislation is only to list the architectural works separately, and the related theoretical research on architectural works is not enough, let alone the relative specific protection measures. For the key factor of the protection of architectural works by law-originality, but also the lack of clear criteria and practical judgment methods, resulting in judicial practice, It is difficult for judicial personnel to correctly judge whether an architectural work possesses the necessary conditions for the legal protection of an architectural work. Starting from the case of Porsche Corporation v. the copyright dispute of Tyheyat's architectural works, this paper compares the originality theory of general works at home and abroad and the connotation of originality in architectural works. This paper makes a preliminary discussion on the judgment standard, judgment method and its application, and tries to put forward a feasible judgment scheme for the originality of the architectural works in order to be helpful and enlightening to the judicial practice. This paper mainly discusses the originality of architectural works in four parts. In the first part, the author makes a brief introduction to the cases cited in this paper, makes a deep study on the trial of the court, and makes a simple value judgment on the viewpoints and reasons adopted in the trial. This paper introduces the common difficulties in judging the originality of architectural works in the judicial practice of our country. The second part briefly introduces the originality theory of the general works, analyzes the origin and connotation of the originality theory, and sets out from the representative countries in the Anglo-American law system and the continental law system. This paper discusses the criteria and methods of judging the originality of the works. The third part is the core part of this paper, focusing on the characteristics of the architectural works, discusses the connotation of the originality of the architectural works, judgment criteria, judgment methods and their application. The fourth part concretely analyzes our country in the construction work originality in the legislation insufficiency, and in view of these insufficiency, proposed the corresponding consummation plan, It can help our country to perfect and reform the originality judgment of architectural works from the aspect of system, and provide the realistic basis for the judicial practice of our country. This paper holds that although originality is the essential element that any work must possess, this basic element should adopt different requirements and standards according to the different forms of the works. Because the architectural works contain three dimensional buildings or structures, architectural design plans and architectural models and other different forms of expression, the judgment of its originality should also take different standards for different forms of expression. You can't generalize. The author hopes that through the discussion and understanding of the originality of architectural works in this paper, it will be helpful to perfect the relevant legislation on the originality of architectural works in China.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D923.4

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 曹世華;論作品獨創(chuàng)性之合理規(guī)定[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報);1996年06期

2 李偉文;論著作權(quán)客體之獨創(chuàng)性[J];法學(xué)評論;2000年01期

3 覃應(yīng)南,秦鶯鶯;淺論建筑作品著作權(quán)保護[J];建筑學(xué)報;2004年03期

4 金渝林;論作品的獨創(chuàng)性[J];法學(xué)研究;1995年04期

5 鄭成思;臨摹、獨創(chuàng)性與版權(quán)保護[J];法學(xué)研究;1996年02期

6 趙林青;;淺議作品的獨創(chuàng)性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)[J];理論導(dǎo)刊;2006年09期

7 姜世華;;國外復(fù)制權(quán)問題研究[J];農(nóng)業(yè)圖書情報學(xué)刊;2009年06期

8 張波;建筑作品的著作權(quán)制度評介[J];新建筑;2004年05期

9 黃藝;汪霄;;建筑作品獨創(chuàng)性條件的判定[J];新建筑;2007年01期

10 周長玲;我國修改后的著作權(quán)法中若干問題淺析[J];知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2002年05期

本文編號：2151476