本文選題：合理使用 + 改造性使用��； 參考：《西南政法大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文

【摘要】：合理使用制度的構(gòu)建是著作權(quán)法的重要內(nèi)容,然而如何對(duì)合理使用進(jìn)行判斷一直是法律上不確定的概念,學(xué)界對(duì)這個(gè)問(wèn)題也有諸多討論。改造性使用是美國(guó)在1976年將合理使用判斷四要素寫(xiě)進(jìn)著作權(quán)法第107條后,勒威爾法官經(jīng)過(guò)十多年的實(shí)務(wù)研究總結(jié)而來(lái)的理論。本文主要是從改造性使用理論的歷史、解讀和完善說(shuō)開(kāi)去,接著分析我國(guó)當(dāng)前立法存在的不足之處以及是否存在借鑒這一理論的土壤,試圖尋找相通的地方,希望可以為我國(guó)完善合理使用制度提出一些有益建議。本文主要內(nèi)容如下： 第一部分是介紹改造性使用的發(fā)展歷史。改造性使用理論來(lái)源于著名的索尼案和哈珀案,兩案提出的關(guān)于“時(shí)間轉(zhuǎn)移”、使用的方式以及對(duì)未發(fā)表作品等觀點(diǎn)對(duì)勒威爾法官關(guān)于改造性使用理論的形成有重要啟示。勒威爾法官在1990年發(fā)表的文章中提出改造性使用,并被首次適用于坎貝爾案關(guān)于滑稽模仿的合理使用判定中,打破了以往的判例法中拘泥于商業(yè)或非商業(yè)使用的狀況,自此改造性使用成為美國(guó)合理使用判斷中的重要理論。 第二部分是對(duì)改造性使用的理論解讀。這部分主要介紹改造性使用的理論構(gòu)架和具體使用。公共利益目的是著作權(quán)的立法目的,也是合理使用制度存在的正當(dāng)性基礎(chǔ)。在肯定改造性使用對(duì)促進(jìn)公共利益有積極意義的前提下,結(jié)合第107條中的四要素進(jìn)行分析——以改造性使用為目的的作品使用行為才具有正當(dāng)性與合理性;未公開(kāi)發(fā)表的作品是否適用合理使用時(shí)美國(guó)著作權(quán)法歷史上的重要議題,其結(jié)果最終是肯定的；而使用的質(zhì)與量和對(duì)市場(chǎng)的影響只是作為前兩個(gè)要素的輔助判斷。勒威爾法官還著重指出在合理使用判斷中應(yīng)該排除無(wú)關(guān)的其他標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的干擾。 第三部分是對(duì)改造性使用的評(píng)析。改造性使用理論在審判實(shí)務(wù)上有其積極的貢獻(xiàn),但不可否認(rèn)由于其中一些概念的闡述不清,導(dǎo)致以后下級(jí)法院在適用該理論時(shí)都直接將使用行為是否具有生產(chǎn)性作為改造性使用審查中的全部?jī)?nèi)涵,由此帶來(lái)了公共利益范圍變得十分狹窄的問(wèn)題,從而妨礙了社會(huì)的發(fā)展。諸多學(xué)者從多個(gè)方面提出對(duì)改造性使用的完善建議,比如說(shuō)對(duì)何謂新創(chuàng)作重新詮釋,對(duì)公共利益進(jìn)行擴(kuò)充性解讀等等,務(wù)求使改造性使用理論能夠在新科技時(shí)代下繼續(xù)煥發(fā)生命力。 第四部分是討論改造性使用對(duì)我國(guó)合理使用的審判的啟發(fā)。我國(guó)現(xiàn)存合理使用制度存在著不少可以改善的地方。傳統(tǒng)的“規(guī)則主義”立法導(dǎo)致法條固定僵化,而法官在實(shí)務(wù)審判中也缺乏自由裁量的空間,雖然這也是我國(guó)一貫的立法傳統(tǒng),但在知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)領(lǐng)域,尤其是科技發(fā)展如此迅猛的今天,作品各種各樣使用方式層出不窮,引入“因素主義”的立法理念可以讓我們面對(duì)新出現(xiàn)的問(wèn)題時(shí)更具包容性和靈活性。另一方面,雖然我國(guó)是大陸法國(guó)家,但并不代表完全沒(méi)有適用判例法的余地。首先建立案例指導(dǎo)思想已經(jīng)成為我國(guó)司法界的重要工作,其次,亞洲眾多國(guó)家和地區(qū)在立法中都借鑒了四要素標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的內(nèi)容,尤其是近年來(lái),與國(guó)內(nèi)同屬大陸法系且社情頗為相似的臺(tái)灣地區(qū)對(duì)改造性使用的研究與借鑒也頗為深入。與其同時(shí),改造性使用的公共利益和憲法基礎(chǔ)也與我國(guó)著作權(quán)法的立法宗旨十分切合,而實(shí)際上我國(guó)在實(shí)務(wù)審判中也已然存在著改造性使用的影子。
[Abstract]:The construction of the rational use system is an important content of the copyright law. However, how to judge the rational use of the system has always been an uncertain concept in the law. The academic circle also has a lot of discussions on this issue. The reconstructive use is the 107th article of the copyright law that the United States wrote four elements of rational use of judgment in 1976 after more than 10 years. From the history, interpretation and perfection of the theory of reconstructive use, this paper analyzes the shortcomings of the current legislation in our country and whether there is a soil for reference to this theory, trying to find the interconnected place, and hope to put forward some benefits for our country to perfect the rational use system. The main contents of this article are as follows:
The first part introduces the history of the development of the reconstructive use. The theory of reconstructive use comes from the famous SONY case and the Harper case. The two cases of "time transfer", the way of use and the unpublished works have an important inspiration for the formation of the reconstructive use theory. The reformable use of the table, which is first applied to the rational use of Campbell's case of parody, breaks the state of commercial or non commercial use in the previous case law, and the reconstructive use has become an important theory in the judgment of rational use in the United States.
The second part is the theoretical interpretation of the reconstructive use. This part mainly introduces the theoretical framework and specific use of the reconstructive use. The purpose of the public interest is the legislative purpose of the copyright and the legitimate basis for the existence of the rational use system. In the affirmation of the positive significance of the reconstructive use of the public benefits, 107th articles are combined. The analysis of the four elements in the work is justified and reasonableness in the use of reconstructive use; the results of the United States' copyright law in the history of the unpublished works are affirmative; the quality and quantity of the use and the impact on the market are only the first two. Judge Le Wei also emphasized that interference in other criteria should be excluded from fair use judgment.
The third part is the assessment of the reconstructive use. The theory of reconstructive use has its positive contribution to the trial practice, but it is undeniable that the lower court, when it is not clear, leads the lower court to direct the use of the action to the full connotation of the reconstructive use of the theory. This has brought about a very narrow issue of the scope of public interest, which has hindered the development of society. Many scholars have proposed perfect suggestions for reconstructive use from many aspects, such as the reinterpretation of what is the new creation, the expandable interpretation of the public interest and so on, so as to make the reconstructive use of the theory of the new technology in the new technology era. Xu Huanfa's vitality.
The fourth part is to discuss the Enlightenment of the reconstructive use of the reasonable trial in our country. There are many places to improve the existing rational use system in our country. The traditional "regularity" legislation leads to the rigid and rigid law, and the judge also lacks the space of discretion in the practice trial, although this is the consistent legislative transmission of our country. But in the field of intellectual property, especially the rapid development of science and technology, the various ways of use of the works are emerging in endlessly. The introduction of the "factor doctrine" legislative idea can make us more inclusive and flexible in the face of new problems. On the other hand, although China is a continental law country, it does not represent completely unsuitable. With the leeway of case law. First, the establishment of case guidance has become an important work of our judicial circle. Secondly, many countries and regions in Asia have learned the content of the four elements in the legislation, especially in recent years, the research and reference to the reconstructive use of the Taiwan region, which is similar to the civil law system in China in recent years, is also similar. At the same time, the public interest and the constitutional basis of the reconstructive use are closely related to the legislative purpose of the copyright law of our country. In fact, there is also a shadow of reconstructive use in our practical trial.
【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】：2011
【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;;論著作權(quán)的憲法基礎(chǔ)[J];法商研究;2006年04期

2 彭學(xué)龍;;論著作權(quán)語(yǔ)境下的獲取權(quán)[J];法商研究;2010年04期

3 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(wèn)題[J];科技與法律;2006年01期

4 魏大海;;案例指導(dǎo)制度建構(gòu)中幾個(gè)需要厘清的問(wèn)題——以知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)審判為說(shuō)明模式[J];科技與法律;2010年02期

5 于玉;紀(jì)曉昕;;我國(guó)著作權(quán)合理使用判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的反思與重構(gòu)[J];法學(xué)論壇;2007年03期

6 楊繼賢;;圖書(shū)館界和教育界在香港版權(quán)修訂條例中的訴求及取得的成果[J];圖書(shū)館建設(shè);2008年07期

7 吳漢東;美國(guó)著作權(quán)法中合理使用的“合理性”判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)[J];外國(guó)法譯評(píng);1997年03期

8 馮曉青;;著作權(quán)合理使用制度之正當(dāng)性研究[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2009年04期

9 ;中華人民共和國(guó)著作權(quán)法實(shí)施條例[J];新法規(guī)月刊;2002年09期

10 丁麗瑛;;“規(guī)則主義”下使用作品的“合理性”判斷[J];廈門(mén)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2008年06期

，

本文編號(hào)：1953440