本文選題：戲仿 + 合理使用��； 參考：《中國(guó)政法大學(xué)》2010年碩士論文

【摘要】： 戲仿作品在我國(guó)自古有之,但是由于中國(guó)傳統(tǒng)的權(quán)利觀念普遍缺乏人格獨(dú)立意識(shí),權(quán)利觀念也極端淡化,近代根本就沒(méi)有著作權(quán)制度,自然也就不存在對(duì)戲仿作品的規(guī)制。從清朝末年我國(guó)歷史上第一部著作權(quán)法《大清著作權(quán)律》的頒布,到2010年再次修改現(xiàn)行《著作權(quán)法》,我國(guó)的法律發(fā)展史中從未對(duì)戲仿這類(lèi)作品作出過(guò)相關(guān)的規(guī)定,甚至學(xué)界的研究也是近20年才開(kāi)始。直到網(wǎng)絡(luò)視頻作品《一個(gè)饅頭引發(fā)的血案》(以下簡(jiǎn)稱《饅頭》)的出現(xiàn),戲仿這一現(xiàn)象才開(kāi)始引起大量學(xué)者的關(guān)注。也是在這一時(shí)期,學(xué)界才開(kāi)始注意到,由于網(wǎng)絡(luò)創(chuàng)作的便捷、成本的低廉、以及網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播的迅速性,類(lèi)似這樣的戲仿作品在網(wǎng)絡(luò)上數(shù)量龐大,而戲仿作品在我國(guó)現(xiàn)行的法律下,一般情況下都會(huì)被認(rèn)定為侵權(quán)。但是這類(lèi)作品有其存在的正當(dāng)性和需求,而且只要對(duì)其施加 一定的限制,使其符合著作權(quán)法的精神,實(shí)際上不會(huì)對(duì)現(xiàn)有的法律秩序造成負(fù)面的影響。相反,若是嚴(yán)格執(zhí)行我國(guó)現(xiàn)行的法律制度,將會(huì)限制戲仿作品的創(chuàng)作,阻礙知識(shí)的傳播和文化的交流,也在某種程度上影響到了公民的言論自由。因此,鑒于戲仿作品和我國(guó)相關(guān)法律制度的現(xiàn)狀,本文試圖在現(xiàn)有的法律大框架下,為戲仿作品尋找生存空間,對(duì)合法的戲仿作品進(jìn)行保護(hù),而對(duì)以戲仿為外衣的侵權(quán)作品進(jìn)行限制。 本文以《饅頭》案為引,第一章通過(guò)對(duì)戲仿定義,界定什么樣的作品才是戲仿作品。通過(guò)區(qū)分文藝領(lǐng)域和法律領(lǐng)域?qū)蚍碌牟煌?對(duì)現(xiàn)有的作品進(jìn)行分類(lèi),歸納戲仿作品呈現(xiàn)出來(lái)的區(qū)別與其他類(lèi)型作品的特點(diǎn),將戲仿作品與諷刺作品區(qū)分開(kāi)來(lái),也為下文論證為什么戲仿作品在引用原作時(shí)與其它類(lèi)型的作品要適用不同的標(biāo)準(zhǔn),做出了鋪墊。最后依照《饅頭》的具體情況,得出結(jié)論：《饅頭》屬于法律下的戲仿作品。 第二章仍以《饅頭》入手,結(jié)合我國(guó)《著作權(quán)法》的相關(guān)規(guī)定,分析戲仿作品作者與在先作品著作權(quán)人的權(quán)利沖突。本章從人身權(quán)和財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)兩個(gè)方面,對(duì)《饅頭》作品進(jìn)行具體的分析,最后由個(gè)別歸納到一般,總結(jié)戲仿作品在我國(guó)現(xiàn)行的法律框架下究竟會(huì)存在那些問(wèn)題,為什么會(huì)涉及到侵權(quán),尤其是網(wǎng)絡(luò)環(huán)境下的戲仿作品還存在哪些新的特征,會(huì)遇到哪些新的問(wèn)題。 第三章針對(duì)戲仿作品本身有存在的合理性和現(xiàn)行法律中存在的沖突,從法理、憲法、經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)三個(gè)角度為戲仿作品存在的必要性提供理論上的支持的依據(jù)。 第四章鑒于美國(guó)對(duì)于戲仿制度的研究,除了成文法的規(guī)定,還提供了大量生動(dòng)、豐富的案例,因此本文主要借鑒美國(guó)法中關(guān)于戲仿作品的相關(guān)判決,從合理使用的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)角度進(jìn)行分析,進(jìn)一步細(xì)化戲仿合法化需要具備的條件。 第五章通過(guò)對(duì)以上對(duì)戲仿存在的必要性、現(xiàn)行法律對(duì)其權(quán)利界定不明,以及其他國(guó)家較為豐富的相關(guān)經(jīng)驗(yàn)的分析,從立法、司法裁判角度對(duì)完善我國(guó)相關(guān)制度提供了幾點(diǎn)建議。最終得出結(jié)論：戲仿在我國(guó)有存在的必要性,也可以通過(guò)修改相關(guān)立法,借鑒其它國(guó)家的制度,達(dá)到對(duì)戲仿作品進(jìn)行保護(hù)和限制的目的。
[Abstract]:The parody works in our country since ancient times, but because of the traditional concept of Chinese traditional rights, there is a lack of personality and independence consciousness, the concept of rights is also extremely desalinization. In modern times, there is no copyright system in modern times, and there is no regulation of parody. In 2010, the current copyright law was amended again. In the history of the development of the law of China, there has never been a relevant regulation on parody. Even the study of the academic circles has not begun for nearly 20 years. It is also in this period that the academic circles have begun to notice that as a result of the convenience of the creation of the network, the low cost and the rapid propagation of the network, the number of parody works on the network is large, and the parody works under the current law of our country are generally considered to be torts. But such works have its existence. Legitimacy and demand, as long as it is applied to it
Certain restrictions, in conformity with the spirit of copyright law, will not actually have a negative impact on the existing legal order. On the contrary, if the current legal system of our country is strictly enforced, the creation of parody works will be restricted, the dissemination of knowledge and cultural exchange will be hindered, and the freedom of speech of citizens will be affected to some extent. In view of the present situation of the parody works and the relevant legal system of our country, this article tries to find the living space for the parody works under the existing legal framework, to protect the legitimate parody works, and to restrict the infringing works with parody as a coat.
In the first chapter, the first chapter defines what kind of work is parody through the definition of parody. By distinguishing the different requirements of Parody in the field of literature and art and the legal field, it classifies the existing works, sums up the differences between the parody works and the characteristics of other types of works, and makes parody and satirical works. In addition, it also demonstrates why the parody works apply different standards to other types of works in reference to the original works and make a paving. Finally, according to the specific circumstances of "steamed bread >", "steamed bread > belongs to the parody under the law."
The second chapter still starts with the "steamed bread" and analyzes the rights conflict between the author of the parody works and the copyright owner of the first works, combining with the relevant provisions of the copyright law of China. This chapter makes a concrete analysis of the works of "steamed bread >" from two aspects of personal right and property right, and finally sums up to the general, and summarizes the current legal frame of the parody works in our country. What are the problems that exist under the frame, and why it involves infringement, especially the new features of the parody in the network environment, and what new problems will be encountered.
The third chapter, in view of the rationality of the parody itself and the conflict in the current law, provides the basis of theoretical support for the necessity of the existence of parody works from the three angles of jurisprudence, constitution and economics.
In the fourth chapter, in view of the study of the parody system in the United States, in addition to the provisions of the written law, a large number of vivid and rich cases are provided. Therefore, this article mainly draws on the relevant judgments of the parody works in the American law and analyzes the standard from the standard of rational use, further refining the conditions required for the legalization of parody.
The fifth chapter, through the necessity of the existence of parody, the definition of the rights of the current law, and the analysis of the more abundant related experiences in other countries, provides some suggestions on improving our country's relevant system from the angle of legislation and judicial refereeing. We should change relevant legislation and draw lessons from other countries' systems to achieve the purpose of protecting and restricting parody works.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國(guó)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

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 左偉清;劉尚明;;“惡搞”文化流行的原因及影響[J];當(dāng)代傳播;2008年02期

2 羅慧林;;從戲仿到惡搞:娛樂(lè)泛濫時(shí)代文學(xué)的價(jià)值危機(jī)[J];當(dāng)代文壇;2007年04期

3 何靜;王春平;;戲仿·拼貼·反諷——影片《大電影之?dāng)?shù)百億》后現(xiàn)代敘事策略探析[J];電影評(píng)介;2007年18期

4 趙林青;;滑稽模仿作品的合法性分析[J];法學(xué)雜志;2008年05期

5 吳漢東;論著作權(quán)作品的“適當(dāng)引用”[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;1996年03期

6 羅莉;;諧仿的著作權(quán)法邊界——從《一個(gè)饅頭引發(fā)的血案》說(shuō)起[J];法學(xué);2006年03期

7 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

8 馮曉青;謝蓉;;著作權(quán)法中“合理使用”與公共利益研究[J];河北法學(xué);2009年03期

9 吳林博;;論《夜宴》對(duì)《哈姆雷特》的戲仿[J];戲劇文學(xué);2007年01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

，

本文編號(hào)：2035422