本文選題：時(shí)事新聞 + 單純事實(shí)消息��； 參考：《華東政法大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：我國(guó)《著作權(quán)法》規(guī)定“時(shí)事新聞不適用于著作權(quán)法”，并將“時(shí)事新聞”定義為“通過報(bào)紙、期刊、廣播電臺(tái)、電視臺(tái)等媒體報(bào)道的單純事實(shí)消息”。然而，法律界與新聞界對(duì)相關(guān)規(guī)定的存在有著不同理解，導(dǎo)致了法律實(shí)踐中標(biāo)準(zhǔn)不一、新聞實(shí)踐中侵權(quán)頻發(fā)。因此，有必要對(duì)相關(guān)規(guī)定進(jìn)行深入分析。 “導(dǎo)言”第一部分對(duì)選題目的進(jìn)行了介紹。第二部分“文獻(xiàn)綜述”通過對(duì)國(guó)內(nèi)外相關(guān)論文、論著等進(jìn)行分析總結(jié)，可以看出：國(guó)內(nèi)普遍將《著作權(quán)法》中的“時(shí)事新聞”作為表達(dá)看待，并以此為基礎(chǔ)展開論證；其他國(guó)家和地區(qū)的學(xué)者則區(qū)分了新聞及其報(bào)道的不同屬性，并列舉了一些獨(dú)創(chuàng)性的判斷要素。第三部分“研究方法”則介紹了本文四種研究方法：法律分析、案例分析、比較法研究以及跨學(xué)科研究。 第一章“對(duì)‘時(shí)事新聞’相關(guān)規(guī)定的解讀：當(dāng)前我國(guó)法律實(shí)踐”對(duì)我國(guó)當(dāng)前的立法、司法實(shí)踐進(jìn)行介紹，為后文的論證打下基礎(chǔ)。第一節(jié)先對(duì)法律規(guī)定進(jìn)行了總結(jié)，然后通過條文釋義、上下文解釋、中英文對(duì)照等方法對(duì)相關(guān)規(guī)定進(jìn)行了比較分析，得出“時(shí)事新聞”應(yīng)當(dāng)是事實(shí)、事件，而不是表達(dá)。正是由于立法者沒有對(duì)時(shí)事新聞及其報(bào)道進(jìn)行準(zhǔn)確的區(qū)分，致使法條本身的措詞容易產(chǎn)生歧義，并導(dǎo)致司法實(shí)踐中尺度的不一致。第二節(jié)通過三個(gè)案例對(duì)相關(guān)規(guī)定的適用進(jìn)行了分析，指出一方面法院在規(guī)定的適用上缺少明確的統(tǒng)一標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，另一方面，相關(guān)法律規(guī)定的適用可能導(dǎo)致審判邏輯的不暢。因此，有必要重新審視相關(guān)規(guī)定。 第二章“對(duì)“時(shí)事新聞”相關(guān)規(guī)定的再解讀：時(shí)事新聞的本質(zhì)界定”關(guān)注“時(shí)事新聞”的本質(zhì)屬性問題。第一節(jié)從國(guó)際公約層面和域外法層面，通過對(duì)不同國(guó)家和地區(qū)的相關(guān)法律規(guī)定進(jìn)行比較，可以看出，這些國(guó)家和地區(qū)都對(duì)表達(dá)與非表達(dá)作出了嚴(yán)格的區(qū)分。同時(shí)，，英美法系版權(quán)法一般未采用排除性方法確定版權(quán)客體，也無針對(duì)時(shí)事新聞進(jìn)行規(guī)定；大陸法系著作權(quán)法則分為兩類，一類是規(guī)定不保護(hù)時(shí)事新聞報(bào)道中的事實(shí)，另一類是規(guī)定不保護(hù)對(duì)事實(shí)的單純報(bào)道。我國(guó)目前《著作權(quán)法》的規(guī)定指向的應(yīng)是報(bào)道中的事實(shí)�；诖�，第二節(jié)對(duì)相關(guān)規(guī)定的學(xué)理基礎(chǔ)進(jìn)行了總結(jié)，指出事實(shí)無版權(quán)是該規(guī)定的根本原因。 第三章“對(duì)“時(shí)事新聞”相關(guān)規(guī)定的再解讀：時(shí)事新聞報(bào)道的獨(dú)創(chuàng)性分析”則著重對(duì)時(shí)事新聞報(bào)道的獨(dú)創(chuàng)性進(jìn)行分析。獨(dú)創(chuàng)性可以從“獨(dú)”和“創(chuàng)”兩個(gè)方面理解，難點(diǎn)在于“創(chuàng)”的認(rèn)定。本章將結(jié)合時(shí)事新聞報(bào)道的本質(zhì)屬性，圍繞真實(shí)性、創(chuàng)作性展開討論。第一節(jié)從客觀真實(shí)、新聞?wù)鎸?shí)、法律真實(shí)三個(gè)方面展開比較分析，確定“事實(shí)基本真實(shí)”作為一篇時(shí)事新聞報(bào)道真實(shí)性的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。繼而第二節(jié)強(qiáng)調(diào)了任何報(bào)道都具有主觀性，從對(duì)事實(shí)的匯編、語(yǔ)言的運(yùn)用、傳播的方式等幾個(gè)方面加以說明，并對(duì)新聞八股文現(xiàn)象進(jìn)行了著作權(quán)法意義上的分析。 第四章“對(duì)“時(shí)事新聞”相關(guān)規(guī)定的重構(gòu)：以再解讀為基礎(chǔ)”從法學(xué)理論、立法實(shí)踐、司法實(shí)踐三方面提出建議。第一節(jié)“‘時(shí)事新聞’相關(guān)規(guī)定的法學(xué)原理”強(qiáng)調(diào)要區(qū)分事實(shí)與表達(dá)，區(qū)分時(shí)事新聞及其報(bào)道。第二節(jié)提出了立法上的三種完善建議，并認(rèn)為刪除我國(guó)著作權(quán)法“時(shí)事新聞”相關(guān)規(guī)定是最好的選擇。第三節(jié)從“真實(shí)性判斷”、“事實(shí)與評(píng)論”、“事實(shí)的匯編”、“主觀性語(yǔ)言”、“逆向證明”五個(gè)方面進(jìn)行分析，試圖明確時(shí)事新聞報(bào)道獨(dú)創(chuàng)性的判斷要素、統(tǒng)一司法判決標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。
[Abstract]:The copyright law of China stipulates that the news of current affairs does not apply to the copyright law, and defines the "news of current affairs" as the simple fact News reported by the media, such as newspapers, periodicals, radio stations and television stations. However, there are different understandings of the existence of relevant regulations between the law and the press, which leads to a new standard in the practice of law. It is necessary to make an in-depth analysis of the relevant provisions.
The first part of the introduction introduces the purpose of the topic. The second part of the "literature review", through the analysis and summary of relevant papers and treatises at home and abroad, can see that the "current affairs news" in the copyright law is generally regarded as an expression, and based on this, the scholars in other countries and regions It distinguishes the different attributes of news and its reports, and lists some original elements of judgment. The third part of the "research method" introduces the four methods of research in this article: legal analysis, case analysis, comparative law research and interdisciplinary research.
The first chapter is "the interpretation of the relevant provisions of current affairs news": the current legal practice of our country introduces the current legislation and judicial practice in our country and lays the foundation for the argument of the latter. The first section first summarizes the legal provisions, and then carries out the relevant provisions through the provisions of the definition, the context interpretation, the Chinese and English contrast and other methods. A comparative analysis shows that "news of current affairs" should be a fact, an event, not a expression. It is because the legislator does not make an accurate distinction between the current news and its reports, resulting in the ambiguity of the wording of the law itself and the disagreement in the scale of the judicial practice. The second section is applied to the relevant provisions through three cases. On the one hand, it is pointed out that there is no clear unified standard for the application of the court on the one hand, and on the other hand, the application of the relevant laws may lead to the failure of the logic of the trial. Therefore, it is necessary to reexamine the relevant provisions.
The second chapter "reinterprets the relevant provisions of the news of current affairs": the essential definition of current events news "concerns the essential attribute of the news of current affairs". The first section, from the level of international conventions and the extraterritorial level, compares the relevant legal provisions of different countries and regions. There is a strict distinction between non expression and non expression. At the same time, the copyright law in Anglo American legal system generally does not use exclusionary methods to determine the object of copyright, and there is no provision for the news of current affairs; the copyright law of the continental law system is divided into two categories, one is not to protect the facts in the news reports of the current affairs, the other is to stipulate that the simple reports of facts are not protected. At present, the provisions of the copyright law in China should point to the facts in the report. Based on this, the second section summarizes the theoretical basis of the relevant provisions and points out that the fact that the fact is not copyright is the fundamental reason for this provision.
The third chapter "re interpretation of the relevant provisions of the news of current affairs: the originality analysis of news reports of current affairs", which focuses on the analysis of the originality of news reports in current affairs. The originality can be understood from two aspects of "independence" and "creation", and the difficulty lies in the identification of "creation". This chapter will be combined with the essential attributes of news reports of current affairs. The first section makes a comparative analysis of the three aspects of the objective reality, the truth of the news, the truth of the law, and the determination of the "fact basic truth" as a standard for the confirmation of the authenticity of a news report. The second section emphasizes that any report has its main view, from the compilation of facts, the use of language, and the spread of the language. This paper explains the way and other aspects, and analyzes the phenomenon of the Eight Legged essay in the sense of copyright law.
The fourth chapter "reconstructs the relevant provisions of the news of current affairs: on the basis of re interpretation" from three aspects of legal theory, legislative practice and judicial practice. The first section "the law principles of the relevant provisions of current affairs news" emphasizes the distinction between facts and expressions, the distinction between current affairs news and its reports. The second section puts forward the legislative three. The third section, from the five aspects of "authenticity judgment", "fact and comment", "fact compilation", "subjective language", "reverse proof", tries to clarify the judgment elements of the originality of current news reports. A standard of judicial judgment.

【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】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D923.41

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前8條

1 段安平;;對(duì)“時(shí)事新聞”不適用著作權(quán)法的“檢討”[J];今傳媒;2009年07期

2 閻庚;;時(shí)事新聞作品應(yīng)該納入著作權(quán)法調(diào)整范疇[J];電子知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2006年07期

3 楊述興;;作品獨(dú)創(chuàng)性判斷之客觀主義標(biāo)準(zhǔn)[J];電子知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2007年08期

4 龍宗智;;“大證據(jù)學(xué)”的建構(gòu)及其學(xué)理[J];法學(xué)研究;2006年05期

5 馮曉青;;事實(shí)編撰物著作權(quán)保護(hù)之實(shí)證分析[J];時(shí)代法學(xué);2007年02期

6 張福民;淺談?dòng)浾叩闹饔^議論[J];新聞愛好者;2003年03期

7 張春泉;對(duì)時(shí)事新聞條款的理解及再定義[J];新聞?dòng)浾?1999年04期

8 樊崇義;客觀真實(shí)管見——兼論刑事訴訟證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)[J];中國(guó)法學(xué);2000年01期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 徐東沂;時(shí)事新聞著作權(quán)保護(hù)問題研究[D];清華大學(xué);2005年

2 陳婧;新聞作品的著作權(quán)問題研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2008年

3 孫懷君;新聞作品法律保護(hù)問題研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2009年

本文編號(hào)：1778154