本文關(guān)鍵詞： 中美 著作人身權(quán) 權(quán)利構(gòu)造 比較　出處：《華中師范大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：對(duì)權(quán)利體系的細(xì)致研究是一種法律制度走向成熟的重要標(biāo)志。著作人身權(quán)在著作權(quán)體系中占有重要的地位,對(duì)著作人身權(quán)的迥異立場(chǎng)造就了不同法系國(guó)家著作權(quán)制度的差異性模式。本文以中美兩國(guó)著作人身權(quán)權(quán)利構(gòu)造為研究對(duì)象,試圖通過觀察兩國(guó)著作人身權(quán)規(guī)則的發(fā)展趨勢(shì)和立法思路,啟發(fā)對(duì)我國(guó)的著作人身權(quán)立法的反思：究竟是嚴(yán)格的還是寬松的著作人身權(quán)保護(hù)才是符合國(guó)際趨勢(shì)的立法選擇?我國(guó)目前所采取的立法原則和模式所構(gòu)造的著作人身權(quán)是否符合我國(guó)國(guó)情?中美的著作人身權(quán)權(quán)利構(gòu)造是否需要改造?需要怎樣的改造? 本文以比較法學(xué)的原理和方法為主要工具,對(duì)中美著作人身權(quán)權(quán)利構(gòu)造的歷史淵源、背景、構(gòu)造原則、權(quán)利性質(zhì)和特點(diǎn)、權(quán)利內(nèi)容、權(quán)利期限以及權(quán)利繼讓等諸多方面進(jìn)行了全方位的比較分析和考察。通過比較考察,筆者認(rèn)為中美著作人身權(quán)體系中存在諸多本質(zhì)差異：立法立場(chǎng)和態(tài)度方面,中國(guó)的著作人身權(quán)是一種主動(dòng)選擇,美國(guó)是被動(dòng)接受；構(gòu)造原則方面,中國(guó)是權(quán)利本位和人本主義,美國(guó)是財(cái)產(chǎn)本位和功利主義；性質(zhì)方面,中國(guó)著作人身權(quán)是一種特殊人格權(quán),美國(guó)是一種有著精神權(quán)利外殼的財(cái)產(chǎn)性權(quán)利；內(nèi)容方面,中國(guó)的保護(hù)范圍比美國(guó)廣泛；期限方面,中國(guó)是永久保護(hù),美國(guó)的保護(hù)期限與財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)期限一致；在權(quán)利繼讓方面,中國(guó)嚴(yán)格限制權(quán)利轉(zhuǎn)讓,美國(guó)在這一方面顯得寬松得多。 探究中美著作人身權(quán)權(quán)利構(gòu)造的如此巨大差異的成因,與兩國(guó)的法律傳統(tǒng)、歷史文化積淀以及當(dāng)前文化產(chǎn)品類型及資源的多寡是分不開的。中國(guó)是一個(gè)歷史悠久的國(guó)家,所以更愿意采取嚴(yán)格的著作人身權(quán)保護(hù),以維護(hù)中國(guó)的歷史文化作品；美國(guó)是一個(gè)“沒有歷史”的國(guó)家,所以對(duì)著作人身權(quán)不甚重視。從當(dāng)前文化產(chǎn)品來看,美國(guó)的文化輸出多采用電影、音樂等對(duì)原作進(jìn)行改編的形式,美國(guó)認(rèn)為嚴(yán)格的著作人身權(quán)保護(hù)會(huì)限制其文化創(chuàng)新和創(chuàng)作,所以采取了目前的保護(hù)形式。 綜上,筆者認(rèn)為,比較中美兩國(guó)的著作人身權(quán)權(quán)利構(gòu)造的差異,并不能以某一種構(gòu)造形式的勝出而告終,我們不能輕易斷言哪一國(guó)的更為有效或者優(yōu)秀,每一個(gè)國(guó)家采取不同的構(gòu)造模式,都有其必然的原因和理由。在任何一個(gè)國(guó)家,都難以構(gòu)造出一種盡善盡美的權(quán)利體系滿足所有人的需要,我們只能在結(jié)合本國(guó)實(shí)際的情況下,選擇最能符合本國(guó)國(guó)情,最能保護(hù)本國(guó)利益的方式。我們必須要綜合考察其歷史文化深厚與否、當(dāng)前文化作品創(chuàng)作繁榮與否、文化貿(mào)易狀況等多方面內(nèi)容,才能了解該國(guó)的著作人身權(quán)權(quán)利構(gòu)造是否合適,是否有改造的必要。
[Abstract]:The careful study of the system of rights is an important sign of the maturity of the legal system. The personal right of the author occupies an important position in the copyright system. The different stand on the personal rights of works has created the different modes of copyright system in different legal system countries. This paper takes the construction of personal rights in the works of China and the United States as the object of study. This paper attempts to observe the development trend and legislative thinking of the personal rights rules of the two countries. Enlighten the reflection on the legislation of personal rights in our country: is it strict or lenient protection of personal rights is the legislative choice that accords with the international trend? Is the author's personal right in accordance with the national conditions of our country in accordance with the legislative principles and models adopted by our country at present? Does the construction of personal rights in China and the United States need to be reformed? What kind of transformation is needed? With the principle and method of comparative law as the main tool, this paper analyzes the historical origin, background, construction principle, nature and characteristics of the right, and the content of the right in Chinese and American works. Through comparative investigation, the author thinks that there are many essential differences in the system of personal rights of Chinese and American works: legislative position and attitude. China's personal right of writing is an active choice, the United States is passively accepted; In terms of construction principles, China is rights-oriented and humanism, the United States is property-based and utilitarian; In nature, the personal right of Chinese works is a kind of special personality right, and the United States is a kind of property right with the shell of spiritual right. In terms of content, China's scope of protection is wider than that of the United States; In terms of duration, China is a permanent protection, and the duration of protection in the United States is consistent with the term of protection of property rights. In terms of power transfer, China strictly restricts the transfer of rights, and the United States is much more lenient in this respect. This paper explores the causes of such great differences in the construction of personal rights between China and the United States, and the legal traditions of the two countries. Historical and cultural accumulation and the current types of cultural products and resources are inseparable. China is a country with a long history, so it is more willing to take strict protection of the personal rights of works. To safeguard China's historical and cultural works; The United States is a country with "no history", so it does not attach great importance to the personal rights of the works. From the current cultural products, the cultural export of the United States takes the form of films, music and other forms of adaptation of the original works. The United States believes that strict protection of the personal rights of works will limit its cultural innovation and creation, so it takes the current form of protection. To sum up, the author thinks that comparing the differences between China and the United States in the construction of personal rights can not end in the victory of a certain form of construction, we can not easily assert which country is more effective or excellent. Each country has its own reasons and reasons for adopting a different structural model. In any country, it is difficult to construct a perfect system of rights to meet the needs of all. We can only choose the best way to suit our national conditions and protect our national interests under the circumstances of our own country. We must comprehensively examine whether its history and culture are profound or not. Whether the creation of cultural works is prosperous or not and whether the cultural and trade conditions are prosperous or not can help us understand whether the construction of the right to personal rights of works in this country is appropriate or not and whether it is necessary to reform it.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華中師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D971.2;D923.41

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前8條

1 彭玉勇;;著作權(quán)保護(hù)的現(xiàn)代發(fā)展趨勢(shì)與反壟斷措施[J];電子知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2007年02期

2 薄燕娜;論著作人格權(quán)[J];河北法學(xué);2000年05期

3 葉姍;;著作權(quán)保護(hù)的現(xiàn)代發(fā)展:從侵權(quán)限止到交易勵(lì)進(jìn)[J];河北法學(xué);2009年04期

4 楊汝軒;;論著作人格權(quán)與一般人格權(quán)的關(guān)系[J];黑龍江省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2007年05期

5 李雨峰;精神權(quán)利研究——以署名權(quán)和保護(hù)作品完整權(quán)為主軸[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2003年02期

6 曹春;西方國(guó)家的著作人身權(quán)制度[J];中國(guó)出版;2005年03期

7 鄭成思;;有關(guān)作者精神權(quán)利的幾個(gè)理論問題[J];中國(guó)法學(xué);1990年03期

8 李琛;質(zhì)疑知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)之“人格財(cái)產(chǎn)一體性”[J];中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué);2004年02期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 何煉紅;著作人身權(quán)制度之研究[D];湖南師范大學(xué);2002年

，

本文編號(hào)：1442748