本文選題：電子游戲　切入點(diǎn)：游戲直播　出處：《廣東外語(yǔ)外貿(mào)大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：隨著新技術(shù)和新傳播方式的興起,電子游戲近年來(lái)高速發(fā)展,日趨成為我國(guó)文化產(chǎn)業(yè)的重要支柱。但新事物伴隨著新問(wèn)題,游戲直播著作權(quán)問(wèn)題是電子游戲領(lǐng)域出現(xiàn)的新型著作權(quán)問(wèn)題。由于涉及的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)問(wèn)題眾多,電子游戲網(wǎng)絡(luò)直播已經(jīng)發(fā)生了相應(yīng)的法律訴訟。對(duì)直播侵權(quán)行為進(jìn)行規(guī)制雖然可以適用《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》、《信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)保護(hù)條例》等法律法規(guī),但這些過(guò)于寬泛的籠統(tǒng)規(guī)定,并不足以規(guī)范游戲直播領(lǐng)域相關(guān)主體的行為。例如,電子游戲直播中所涉及的游戲畫(huà)面是否構(gòu)成作品?對(duì)游戲作品的再創(chuàng)作以及對(duì)游戲畫(huà)面作品的傳播是否具有合法性?游戲直播平臺(tái)與游戲主播究竟應(yīng)當(dāng)如何定位?游戲直播所涉著作權(quán)人的權(quán)利界限該如何劃定?游戲直播是否適用合理使用制度?這些問(wèn)題都值得研究。在電子游戲直播中,玩家運(yùn)行游戲時(shí)產(chǎn)生的游戲畫(huà)面,是游戲直播的重要組成部分,其能否構(gòu)成作品,在理論和司法實(shí)踐中都引起較大爭(zhēng)議。本文認(rèn)為,不同的游戲類型,游戲開(kāi)發(fā)者給玩家預(yù)留的創(chuàng)作空間存在差異,其相應(yīng)的作品屬性和著作權(quán)歸屬也不一樣。對(duì)于預(yù)留給玩家創(chuàng)作空間不大的游戲,玩家生成內(nèi)容獨(dú)創(chuàng)性不高,直播中玩家運(yùn)行游戲時(shí)所呈現(xiàn)的游戲畫(huà)面之著作權(quán)應(yīng)屬于游戲本身的著作權(quán)人,主播對(duì)游戲的解說(shuō)構(gòu)成口述作品,如果是電子競(jìng)技類游戲直播,可以構(gòu)成合理使用,非電競(jìng)類游戲直播,未經(jīng)許可進(jìn)行直播會(huì)侵犯游戲畫(huà)面著作權(quán)人“應(yīng)當(dāng)享有的其他權(quán)利”(播放權(quán));而對(duì)于預(yù)留給玩家創(chuàng)作空間較大的游戲,玩家生成內(nèi)容獨(dú)創(chuàng)性較高,直播中玩家運(yùn)行游戲時(shí)所呈現(xiàn)的游戲畫(huà)面構(gòu)成演繹作品,其著作權(quán)屬于該玩家,主播對(duì)游戲的解說(shuō)構(gòu)成口述作品,由于玩家創(chuàng)作空間大的游戲一般不是電競(jìng)游戲,因此未經(jīng)許可進(jìn)行直播還會(huì)侵犯游戲畫(huà)面著作權(quán)人的“應(yīng)當(dāng)享有的其他權(quán)利”(播放權(quán)),而非屬于合理使用。為應(yīng)對(duì)新技術(shù)帶來(lái)的新型著作權(quán)和鄰接權(quán)侵權(quán),我國(guó)應(yīng)把網(wǎng)絡(luò)直播納入著作權(quán)人播放權(quán)的控制范圍,并擴(kuò)張現(xiàn)有的廣播組織的范圍,讓直播平臺(tái)享有相應(yīng)的廣播組織權(quán),并把網(wǎng)絡(luò)轉(zhuǎn)播行為納入轉(zhuǎn)播權(quán)所規(guī)制的范圍。電子游戲直播中,游戲主播與直播平臺(tái)的關(guān)系可分為“有合約”和“無(wú)合約”兩種模式,“有合約模式”又包括存在勞動(dòng)合同關(guān)系的“簽約模式”和不存在勞動(dòng)合同關(guān)系的“合伙分成模式”,每種模式下的侵權(quán)認(rèn)定與責(zé)任承擔(dān)各不相同。
[Abstract]:With the rise of new technologies and new modes of communication, video games have developed rapidly in recent years and become an important pillar of our cultural industry. But new things are accompanied by new problems. The issue of the copyright in direct video games is a new type of copyright problem in the field of video games. The relevant legal proceedings have already taken place in the video game webcast. Although it can be applied to the torts liability Law, the Information Network Communication right Protection regulations, and other laws and regulations, these are too broad and general provisions. Not enough to regulate the behavior of relevant subjects in the field of live video games. For example, is the picture of the game involved in live video games a work? Is the re-creation of the game works and the dissemination of the picture works of the game legitimate? How should the game live broadcast platform and game anchorman be positioned? How to delimit the rights of the copyright owner involved in live game? Is live game applicable to the reasonable use of the system? These problems are worth studying. In the video game live broadcast, the game picture that the player produces when running the game, is the important part of the game direct broadcast, whether it can constitute the work, in the theory and the judicial practice all causes the big dispute. Different game types, game developers have different creative space reserved for players, and their corresponding properties and copyright ownership are also different. For games reserved for players with little space to create, the original content generated by players is not high. The copyright of the game screen presented when the player runs the game on live broadcast should belong to the copyright owner of the game itself. The host's explanation of the game constitutes an oral work. If it is live broadcast of an electronic competitive game, it may constitute a reasonable use. Non-#china_person0# games live broadcast without permission will infringe the game screen copyright owner's "other rights should be enjoyed" (play right); for the player to create a larger space for the game, the player generated content is more original, The game screen presented when the player runs the game on live broadcast constitutes a deductive work, and its copyright belongs to the player. The host's explanation of the game constitutes an oral work. Because the player generally does not create a game with a large space, it is not e-sports 's game. Thus, unauthorized direct broadcasting would also infringe upon the "other rights that the copyright owner should have" (the right to play, rather than the rational use...) to deal with the new copyright and neighboring rights infringement brought about by the new technology, In our country, webcast broadcasting should be brought into the control range of copyright owner's broadcasting right, and the scope of existing broadcasting organization should be expanded, so that the broadcasting platform can enjoy the corresponding broadcasting organization right. And bring the behavior of network broadcasting into the scope of broadcasting rights. The relationship between the game host and the live broadcast platform can be divided into two modes: "with contract" and "without contract". "contract mode" includes "contract mode" with labor contract relationship and "partnership" with no labor contract relationship. In each mode, tort recognition and liability are different.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：廣東外語(yǔ)外貿(mào)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D923.41

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 李揚(yáng);;網(wǎng)絡(luò)游戲直播中的著作權(quán)問(wèn)題[J];知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2017年01期

2 謝琳;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)游戲直播的著作權(quán)合理使用研究[J];知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2017年01期

3 祝建軍;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)游戲直播的著作權(quán)問(wèn)題研究[J];知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2017年01期

4 孫磊;;電子游戲競(jìng)技網(wǎng)絡(luò)直播中的IP保護(hù)[J];電子知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2016年11期

5 何卓耐;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)游戲的著作權(quán)保護(hù)研究——以《奇跡MU》侵權(quán)案為視角[J];中國(guó)高新技術(shù)企業(yè);2016年29期

6 蘇志甫;;從著作權(quán)法適用的角度談對(duì)網(wǎng)絡(luò)實(shí)時(shí)轉(zhuǎn)播行為的規(guī)制[J];知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2016年08期

7 ;2016年1-6月中國(guó)游戲產(chǎn)業(yè)報(bào)告(摘要)[J];中國(guó)戰(zhàn)略新興產(chǎn)業(yè);2016年16期

8 崔智偉;;電子競(jìng)技游戲網(wǎng)絡(luò)直播相關(guān)著作權(quán)問(wèn)題研究[J];公民與法(法學(xué)版);2016年04期

9 王麗娜;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)游戲直播畫(huà)面是否構(gòu)成作品之辨析——兼評(píng)耀宇訴斗魚(yú)案一審判決[J];中國(guó)版權(quán);2016年02期

10 吉雨馨;;從著作權(quán)角度淺談玩家游戲的性質(zhì)[J];法制與社會(huì);2016年08期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前2條

1 ;中國(guó)電子競(jìng)技及游戲直播行業(yè)研究報(bào)告 2016年[A];艾瑞咨詢系列研究報(bào)告（2016年第8期）[C];2016年

2 魯甜;;視頻游戲抄襲的侵權(quán)判定路徑研究——以美國(guó)司法實(shí)踐為視角[A];中國(guó)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法學(xué)研究會(huì)2015年年會(huì)論文集[C];2015年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前7條

1 阮開(kāi)欣;;電子游戲比賽視頻受著作權(quán)保護(hù)嗎？[N];中國(guó)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)報(bào);2015年

2 劉仁;;游戲版權(quán)運(yùn)營(yíng)時(shí)代：莫讓糾紛遮望眼[N];中國(guó)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)報(bào);2015年

3 袁博;;游戲攻略使用游戲畫(huà)面 屬于“合理使用”嗎[N];中國(guó)新聞出版報(bào);2015年

4 毛立國(guó);;游戲企業(yè)增強(qiáng)維權(quán)意識(shí)刻不容緩[N];中國(guó)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)報(bào);2014年

5 夏旭;;使用游戲畫(huà)面出版游戲攻略是否合理使用[N];中國(guó)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)報(bào);2014年

6 周業(yè)安;;電子游戲玩家是殘缺合同的受害者[N];上海證券報(bào);2014年

7 王川;;游戲玩家不服：為何敗訴的總是我？![N];上海法治報(bào);2014年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 丁文佳;我國(guó)電子競(jìng)技直播平臺(tái)的發(fā)展模式探析[D];浙江傳媒學(xué)院;2016年

2 王燕明;電子游戲的著作權(quán)保護(hù)問(wèn)題研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2015年

3 刁慧波;計(jì)算機(jī)游戲作為視聽(tīng)作品的認(rèn)定研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2015年

，

本文編號(hào)：1652493