本文選題：保護(hù)作品完整權(quán) + 侵權(quán)　； 參考：《華東政法大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：保護(hù)作品完整權(quán)是《伯爾尼公約》規(guī)定的兩項(xiàng)精神權(quán)利之一，也是各國(guó)著作權(quán)法普遍規(guī)定的一項(xiàng)重要權(quán)利。根據(jù)我國(guó)《著作權(quán)法》第10條的規(guī)定，保護(hù)作品完整權(quán)是指保護(hù)作品不受歪曲、篡改的權(quán)利。關(guān)于保護(hù)作品完整權(quán)的侵權(quán)構(gòu)成，《伯爾尼公約》和其他一些國(guó)家要求以“有損作者聲譽(yù)”為前提，而我國(guó)《著作權(quán)法》及實(shí)施條例對(duì)此沒有明確規(guī)定。對(duì)于在我國(guó)是否應(yīng)以“有損作者聲譽(yù)”作為保護(hù)作品完整權(quán)的侵權(quán)構(gòu)成要件，理論界存在分歧，司法實(shí)踐中也存在一些矛盾的判決。因此，本文從保護(hù)作品完整權(quán)的歷史發(fā)展出發(fā)，圍繞保護(hù)作品完整權(quán)的侵權(quán)構(gòu)成進(jìn)行研究，試圖提出一個(gè)相對(duì)正確的侵權(quán)判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，完善我國(guó)關(guān)于保護(hù)作品完整權(quán)的理論。 本文正文主體部分共分為四章。第一章運(yùn)用歷史分析、比較分析的方法，以保護(hù)作品完整權(quán)在法國(guó)的起源為論述起點(diǎn)，并介紹保護(hù)作品完整權(quán)在《伯爾尼公約》及其他國(guó)家的確立，得出結(jié)論：“有損作者聲譽(yù)”的引入是為了弱化對(duì)保護(hù)作品完整權(quán)的保護(hù)，而加強(qiáng)對(duì)其的保護(hù)是保護(hù)作品完整權(quán)未來發(fā)展的方向。第二章是論文的核心部分。該章從“歪曲、篡改”的含義以及我國(guó)司法實(shí)踐中出現(xiàn)的判斷侵權(quán)的矛盾標(biāo)準(zhǔn)出發(fā)，，以歷史分析和學(xué)理分析的角度對(duì)“有損作者聲譽(yù)”的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)進(jìn)行否定；然后借助法國(guó)Huston案的啟示，提出“有損作品思想”的侵權(quán)判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，并從正反兩個(gè)方面對(duì)該標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的合理性進(jìn)行論證；最后分析我國(guó)立法上確認(rèn)“有損作品思想”標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的可行性。第三章研究對(duì)保護(hù)作品完整權(quán)的限制。首先介紹保護(hù)作品完整權(quán)限制的理論基礎(chǔ)——“利益平衡”理論，以及各國(guó)立法對(duì)該理論的具體應(yīng)用；其次論述我國(guó)應(yīng)借鑒各國(guó)立法經(jīng)驗(yàn)，完善對(duì)保護(hù)作品完整權(quán)的限制；最后對(duì)“模仿諷刺”和演繹這兩種特殊行為進(jìn)行具體分析。第四章結(jié)合我國(guó)保護(hù)作品完整權(quán)的相關(guān)規(guī)定，對(duì)本文提出的立法建議進(jìn)行匯總。除了第二章和第三章已經(jīng)詳細(xì)論述的侵權(quán)判斷和權(quán)利限制這兩個(gè)方面，該章還提出兩個(gè)建議。其一是根據(jù)“有損作品思想”的理論劃清修改權(quán)和保護(hù)作品完整權(quán)的界限；其二是補(bǔ)充規(guī)定不當(dāng)使用作品侵犯保護(hù)作品完整權(quán)的形態(tài)。
[Abstract]:The right to protect the integrity of works is one of the two spiritual rights stipulated in the Berne Convention, and is also an important right generally stipulated in the copyright laws of various countries. According to Article 10 of the copyright Law of China, the right to protect the integrity of a work is the right to protect the work from distortion and tampering. As to the constitution of infringement of the right to protect the integrity of works, the Berne Convention and some other countries require the premise of "damaging the author's reputation", but the copyright Law and the implementing regulations of our country have not clearly stipulated this. There are differences in the theoretical circle and some contradictory judgments in judicial practice as to whether "damage to the author's reputation" should be taken as the constitutive element of tort to protect the complete right of the work in our country. Therefore, starting from the historical development of the right to protect the integrity of the work, this paper studies the constitution of the infringement of the right to protect the integrity of the work, and tries to put forward a relatively correct criterion for judging the infringement and perfect the theory of protecting the right to the integrity of the work in our country. The main body of this paper is divided into four chapters. The first chapter uses the method of historical analysis and comparative analysis to discuss the origin of the right to the integrity of works in France, and introduces the establishment of the right to the integrity of works in the Berne Convention and other countries. It is concluded that the introduction of "damage to the author's reputation" is aimed at weakening the protection of the right to the integrity of the work, and strengthening the protection of the right to the integrity of the work is the direction of the future development of the right to protect the integrity of the work. The second chapter is the core of the thesis. This chapter starts from the meaning of "distortion, tampering" and the contradictory standards of judging infringement in judicial practice in our country, and negates the criterion of "damaging the author's reputation" from the angle of historical analysis and theoretical analysis. Then, with the enlightenment of Huston case in France, the author puts forward the criterion of tort judgment of "thought of damaging works", and proves the rationality of the standard from two aspects: positive and negative; finally, it analyzes the feasibility of confirming the criterion of "thought of damaging works" in legislation of our country. The third chapter studies the limitation of the right to protect the integrity of works. This paper first introduces the theoretical basis of the restriction of the right to protect the integrity of works-the theory of "balance of interests", and the specific application of the legislation of various countries to the theory, and then discusses that our country should draw lessons from the legislative experience of other countries to perfect the restriction on the right to protect the integrity of works. At last, it analyzes the two special behaviors of imitation satire and deduction. The fourth chapter combines with the relevant provisions of protecting the right to integrity of works in China, and summarizes the legislative proposals put forward in this paper. In addition to the two aspects of tort judgment and rights limitation, which have been discussed in detail in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3, this chapter also puts forward two suggestions. One is to draw a clear line between the right to modify and the right to protect the integrity of the work according to the theory of "damaging the thought of the work"; the other is to supplement the provisions that the improper use of the work infringes upon the form of the right to protect the integrity of the work.
【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10條

1 李雨峰;;版權(quán)制度的困境[J];比較法研究;2006年03期

2 王遷;;我國(guó)著作權(quán)法中修改權(quán)的重構(gòu)[J];法學(xué);2007年11期

3 王國(guó)紅;;論修改權(quán)和保護(hù)作品完整權(quán)[J];湖北師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2006年06期

4 王遷;;論認(rèn)定“模仿諷刺作品”構(gòu)成“合理使用”的法律規(guī)則——兼評(píng)《一個(gè)饅頭引發(fā)的血案》涉及的著作權(quán)問題[J];科技與法律;2006年01期

5 李yN恒;;淺析保護(hù)作品完整權(quán)[J];江蘇科技信息;2009年01期

6 李雨峰,王玫黎;保護(hù)作品完整權(quán)的重構(gòu)——對(duì)我國(guó)著作權(quán)法相關(guān)條款的質(zhì)疑[J];法學(xué)論壇;2003年02期

7 孫新強(qiáng);論著作權(quán)的起源、演變與發(fā)展[J];學(xué)術(shù)界;2000年03期

8 劉有東;;論作品修改權(quán)[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2010年03期

9 劉有東;;論侵犯保護(hù)作品完整權(quán)之行為[J];西南民族大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(人文社科版);2010年04期

10 蘇力;;戲仿的法律保護(hù)和限制——從《一個(gè)饅頭引發(fā)的血案》切入[J];中國(guó)法學(xué);2006年03期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 黃國(guó)東;論兩大法系版權(quán)制度對(duì)作者精神權(quán)利的限制[D];大連海事大學(xué);2005年

2 夏明;保護(hù)作品完整權(quán)研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2009年

本文編號(hào)：1874494