剽竊的法律認(rèn)定研究
本文選題:剽竊 + 獨(dú)創(chuàng)性。 參考:《安徽大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文
【摘要】:依據(jù)我國(guó)《著作權(quán)法》的規(guī)定,剽竊他人作品的屬于著作權(quán)侵權(quán)行為。對(duì)于剽竊的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn),我國(guó)尚無立法予以明確。關(guān)于剽竊認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的立法籠統(tǒng),學(xué)術(shù)研究也處于多元化的狀態(tài),目前我國(guó)司法實(shí)踐中仍然未形成統(tǒng)一的剽竊認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。在司法實(shí)踐中,部分法院已經(jīng)在剽竊行為認(rèn)定方面表現(xiàn)出了極高的專業(yè)水準(zhǔn),但從總體上看,由于沒有明確的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、認(rèn)定方法和認(rèn)定主體,我國(guó)法院在剽竊認(rèn)定出現(xiàn)了認(rèn)定結(jié)論的不穩(wěn)定、不統(tǒng)一等諸多問題。本文從著作權(quán)法的基本原理出發(fā),并結(jié)合美國(guó)與中國(guó)的司法實(shí)踐,嘗試性的就完善我國(guó)剽竊法律認(rèn)定提出建議。本文第一部分對(duì)剽竊的文字學(xué)含義進(jìn)行了剖析,進(jìn)而就著作權(quán)法意義上的剽竊展開論述。依據(jù)我國(guó)法律規(guī)定,對(duì)剽竊行為的特征作出總結(jié):剽竊的對(duì)象特定、剽竊行為具有公開性、剽竊行為具有雙重侵權(quán)性以及行為人具有主觀過錯(cuò)。對(duì)剽竊與其他著作權(quán)侵權(quán)行為進(jìn)行了區(qū)分。從著作權(quán)法兩大基本原則獨(dú)創(chuàng)性原則與思想與表達(dá)二分法出發(fā),比較了各國(guó)獨(dú)創(chuàng)性的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)與思想和表達(dá)的區(qū)分標(biāo)準(zhǔn),探究剽竊認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的法理基礎(chǔ)。第二部分介紹并比較了美國(guó)司法實(shí)踐中適用的剽竊認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn),通過典型案例展示了“接觸與實(shí)質(zhì)性相似法”、“抽象測(cè)試法”、“抽象——過濾——比較”法、“普通觀眾測(cè)試法”與“針對(duì)性觀眾測(cè)試法”、“內(nèi)在/外在標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”等美國(guó)司法實(shí)踐中認(rèn)定作品之間是否具有實(shí)質(zhì)性相似的方法。第三部分通過典型案例介紹我國(guó)司法實(shí)踐中使用的剽竊認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn),并對(duì)我國(guó)在剽竊認(rèn)定中存在的問題進(jìn)行了總結(jié)。對(duì)于如何認(rèn)定剽竊,目前國(guó)內(nèi)尚無法律法規(guī)做出相應(yīng)規(guī)定,這使得我國(guó)法院在面對(duì)剽竊爭(zhēng)議案件時(shí)沒有統(tǒng)一的法律指引,法官擁有較大的自由裁量權(quán),可以任意選擇適用剽竊認(rèn)定的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。且剽竊認(rèn)定的主體仍未得到明確,認(rèn)定結(jié)果的權(quán)威性難以得到保障。第四部分就我國(guó)剽竊認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)提出建議。結(jié)合利益平衡原則,要求在對(duì)剽竊行為進(jìn)行認(rèn)定時(shí),應(yīng)寬嚴(yán)有度。明確剽竊認(rèn)定主體,根據(jù)作品類型適用不同的思想與表達(dá)的區(qū)分標(biāo)準(zhǔn),對(duì)著作權(quán)法上的公共領(lǐng)域予以過濾。在具體的認(rèn)定過程中通過接觸認(rèn)定、實(shí)質(zhì)性相似認(rèn)定和排除合理引用三個(gè)步驟對(duì)剽竊行為予以認(rèn)定。
[Abstract]:According to the provisions of copyright Law, plagiarism is copyright infringement. For plagiarism, there is no legislation to identify the criteria. The legislation on the standard of plagiarism is general, and the academic research is also in a pluralistic state. At present, there is still no uniform standard of plagiarism in judicial practice in our country. In judicial practice, some courts have shown a very high professional standard in the determination of plagiarism, but generally speaking, due to the lack of a clear identification standard, the identification method and subject, There are many problems in plagiarism in Chinese courts, such as unstable and inconsistent conclusion. Based on the basic principles of copyright law and the judicial practice of the United States and China, this paper tries to put forward some suggestions on perfecting the legal recognition of plagiarism in China. The first part of this paper analyzes the philological meaning of plagiarism, and then discusses the plagiarism in the sense of copyright law. According to the law of our country, the characteristics of plagiarism are summarized: the object of plagiarism is specific, the act of plagiarism is open, the act of plagiarism is dual tort and the perpetrator has subjective fault. A distinction is made between plagiarism and other copyright infringements. Based on the two basic principles of copyright law, the originality principle and the dichotomy of thought and expression, this paper compares the criterion of originality with the criterion of distinguishing thought and expression, and probes into the legal basis of the criterion of plagiarism. The second part introduces and compares the standards applicable to plagiarism in judicial practice in the United States. Through typical cases, it shows the "contact and substantial similarity", "Abstract Test", "Abstract-Filtration-comparison", In American judicial practice, "ordinary audience Test Act", "targeted audience Test Act", "Internal / external Standard" and other American judicial practices determine whether there are substantial similarities between works. The third part introduces the standard of plagiarism in judicial practice through typical cases, and summarizes the problems existing in the identification of plagiarism in our country. As to how to determine plagiarism, there are no laws and regulations in our country, which makes our courts have no uniform legal guidance in the face of plagiarism disputes, and the judges have greater discretion. You can choose to apply the criteria for plagiarism. The subject of plagiarism is not clear, and the authority of the result is hard to be guaranteed. The fourth part puts forward suggestions on the standards of plagiarism in China. In combination with the principle of balance of interests, it is required that plagiarism should be determined with leniency and strictness. It is clear that the subject of plagiarism should be applied to different standards of thought and expression according to the type of work, and the public domain in copyright law should be filtered. In the concrete identification process, the plagiarism is identified by three steps: contact identification, substantive similarity identification and exclusion of reasonable quotation.
【學(xué)位授予單位】:安徽大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】:碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】:2015
【分類號(hào)】:D923.41
【相似文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 ;關(guān)于反對(duì)著作權(quán)侵權(quán)的聲明[J];上海市政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2001年04期
2 戴紹業(yè);;互聯(lián)網(wǎng)著作權(quán)侵權(quán)案件管轄問題淺析[J];福建法學(xué);2001年03期
3 王素娟;對(duì)目前網(wǎng)絡(luò)著作權(quán)侵權(quán)案件的法律分析[J];法律適用(國(guó)家法官學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));2002年07期
4 王云麗,黃月明;試論認(rèn)定著作權(quán)侵權(quán)行為的歸責(zé)原則[J];福建政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2003年04期
5 高之;對(duì)“中國(guó)期刊數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)”著作權(quán)侵權(quán)案的法律評(píng)析[J];軟件世界;2003年07期
6 段煉;網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播中的著作權(quán)侵權(quán)行為分析[J];傳媒觀察;2003年05期
7 李毅鴻;音樂著作權(quán)侵權(quán)的認(rèn)定問題研究[J];商場(chǎng)現(xiàn)代化;2005年01期
8 孟U,
本文編號(hào):1955924
本文鏈接:http://sikaile.net/shekelunwen/chubanfaxing/1955924.html