本文選題：冒名行為 + 署名權(quán)　； 參考：《西南政法大學(xué)》2010年碩士論文

【摘要】： 在現(xiàn)實(shí)生活中,有一種與盜版侵權(quán)同樣猖獗的行為,那就是冒名行為,即假冒他人署名的行為,這是一種比盜版更加惡劣的行為。從古至今,無(wú)論是國(guó)內(nèi)還是國(guó)外,冒名行為無(wú)時(shí)不在,無(wú)處不在。許多著名的作家、畫(huà)家都曾遭遇過(guò)冒名的困擾。偽書(shū)、假畫(huà)不僅使被冒名者的名譽(yù)和經(jīng)濟(jì)利益受損,而且嚴(yán)重?cái)_亂了正常的市場(chǎng)秩序,損害了消費(fèi)者的利益。從1995年我國(guó)首例“冒名”侵權(quán)案件開(kāi)始,關(guān)于冒名行為是著作權(quán)侵權(quán)問(wèn)題,還是民法上的姓名權(quán)侵權(quán)問(wèn)題,抑或其他法律責(zé)任問(wèn)題,學(xué)術(shù)界一直爭(zhēng)議不斷,難有定論。這一問(wèn)題看似簡(jiǎn)單,實(shí)則復(fù)雜,涉及到一系列理論上沒(méi)有解決、立法上尚不明確的問(wèn)題,我國(guó)《著作權(quán)法》第47條規(guī)定冒名行為是侵權(quán)行為,但并沒(méi)有明確其侵權(quán)的性質(zhì)。在司法實(shí)踐中,有法院認(rèn)定為侵犯了姓名權(quán),有法院認(rèn)定為侵犯著作權(quán)中的署名權(quán),也有法院認(rèn)為這是一種不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)行為。由于立法上不明確,學(xué)理上有爭(zhēng)議,因此有必要對(duì)這一問(wèn)題進(jìn)行系統(tǒng)研究。本文擬從一則案例出發(fā),對(duì)冒名行為侵權(quán)的性質(zhì)及法律責(zé)任問(wèn)題進(jìn)行探討。 本文試圖通過(guò)對(duì)周?chē)?guó)平訴葉舟、李世化侵犯著作權(quán)案這一典型案例的分析,給司法實(shí)踐提供幫助,同時(shí)提出完善規(guī)制冒名行為法律制度的建議。本文除引言和結(jié)語(yǔ)外,共分為五個(gè)部分,計(jì)17000字左右。 第一部分,一則案例引發(fā)的思考。介紹了周?chē)?guó)平訴葉舟、李世化侵犯著作權(quán)案的案情、爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)、爭(zhēng)議意見(jiàn)與分歧。 第二部分,冒名行為的界定。從冒名的主體、冒名的目的、冒名的手段等三個(gè)方面對(duì)冒名行為作了界定,同時(shí)對(duì)理論界和司法實(shí)務(wù)界關(guān)于冒名行為性質(zhì)的不同觀點(diǎn)作了闡述,包括侵害署名權(quán)說(shuō)、侵害姓名權(quán)說(shuō)、不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)說(shuō),最后提出了本文的觀點(diǎn),指出以上幾種學(xué)說(shuō)都有缺陷,對(duì)冒名行為的性質(zhì)應(yīng)具體情況具體分析。 第三部分,比較法上對(duì)冒名行為的規(guī)制�？疾炝舜箨懛ㄏ祰�(guó)家和地區(qū)、英美法系國(guó)家的現(xiàn)行法律和國(guó)際條約關(guān)于規(guī)制冒名行為的規(guī)定。 第四部分,冒名行為的民事責(zé)任。首先分析了冒名行為侵權(quán)的構(gòu)成要件,其次總結(jié)了冒名行為的民事責(zé)任,包括:停止侵害、恢復(fù)名譽(yù)、消除影響、賠禮道歉、賠償損失。 第五部分,我國(guó)規(guī)制冒名行為制度的完善。首先分析了我國(guó)現(xiàn)行法律規(guī)制冒名行為的現(xiàn)狀,并指出了其中的不足,其次借鑒國(guó)外的立法及司法經(jīng)驗(yàn),提出了完善的建議。
[Abstract]:In real life, there is an act as rampant as piracy, that is, impersonation, that is, the act of impersonating another person's signature, which is worse than piracy. From ancient times, whether at home or abroad, impersonation is always around, everywhere. Many famous writers and painters have been beset by impersonation. Fake books and paintings not only damage the reputation and economic interests of the impostors, but also seriously disrupt the normal market order and the interests of consumers. Since 1995, the first case of "false name" infringement in our country, whether the act of impersonation is the infringement of copyright, the infringement of the right of name in civil law, or the question of other legal liability, the academic circles have been in constant dispute, it is difficult to come to a conclusion. This problem seems simple and complex, involving a series of problems which have not been solved theoretically and are not clear in legislation. Article 47 of copyright Law of our country stipulates that the act of impersonation is an act of infringement, but it does not clearly define the nature of its infringement. In judicial practice, some courts have found that the right of name has been infringed, some courts have found that the copyright has been infringed by the right of signature, and some courts have considered it an act of unfair competition. Because the legislation is unclear and the theory is controversial, it is necessary to study this problem systematically. This paper discusses the nature and legal liability of impersonation tort from a case. Through the analysis of the typical case of Zhou Guoping v. Ye Zhou and Li Shihua, this paper tries to provide help to the judicial practice, and at the same time puts forward some suggestions to perfect the legal system of impersonation. In addition to the introduction and conclusion, this article is divided into five parts, about 17000 words. The first part, a case triggered by the thinking. This paper introduces the case of Zhou Guoping v. Ye Zhou, Li Shihua's case of copyright infringement, the focus of dispute, the opinions and differences. The second part, the definition of the act of impersonation. This paper defines the act of impersonation from three aspects: the subject of falsehood, the purpose of impersonation and the means of impersonation. At the same time, it expounds the different views on the nature of the act of impersonation, including the theory of infringement of the right of signature, and the judicial practice. The theory of infringing the right to name and the theory of unfair competition are put forward in the end of this paper. The author points out that the above theories all have defects, and the nature of the act of impersonation should be analyzed concretely. The third part is about the regulation of impersonation in comparative law. The current laws and international treaties in countries and regions of civil law system and common law system have been investigated on the regulation of impersonation. The fourth part, the civil liability of impersonation. First, it analyzes the constitutive elements of the act of impersonation, then summarizes the civil liability of the act of impersonation, including: stopping the infringement, restoring the reputation, eliminating the influence, apologizing and compensating for the loss. The fifth part, our country regulation impersonation behavior system consummation. Firstly, this paper analyzes the current situation of our country's current legal regulation of impersonation, and points out its shortcomings. Secondly, it draws lessons from foreign legislative and judicial experience and puts forward some perfect suggestions.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2010
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D923.41

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 羅田田;孤兒作品著作權(quán)問(wèn)題[D];安徽大學(xué);2013年

，

本文編號(hào)：1941195