【摘要】：作品性質(zhì)的判斷是版權(quán)保護(hù)的基本前提。如何判斷一部視聽節(jié)目在著作權(quán)法下的性質(zhì)一直困擾著法律界,至今仍頗具爭議。現(xiàn)場直播是不同于電影的視聽節(jié)目攝制方法的一種。隨著現(xiàn)場直播技術(shù)的發(fā)展與進(jìn)步,現(xiàn)場直播節(jié)目的創(chuàng)作水平已有了質(zhì)的飛躍,其獨創(chuàng)性已經(jīng)可以達(dá)到一個較高的程度。然則,由于我國現(xiàn)行《著作權(quán)法》下影視作品獨創(chuàng)性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的模糊不明以及“攝制方法”要件的制約等原因,現(xiàn)場直播節(jié)目在著作權(quán)法下性質(zhì)的認(rèn)定在法律界存在不同觀點,甚至導(dǎo)致同一節(jié)目在不同法院形成不同判定結(jié)果的混亂局面出現(xiàn)。值得重視的是,法律上對現(xiàn)場直播節(jié)目版權(quán)保護(hù)嚴(yán)重不足的現(xiàn)狀已經(jīng)越來越成為挫傷節(jié)目投資者和創(chuàng)作者積極性,制約相關(guān)產(chǎn)業(yè)發(fā)展的焦點問題。現(xiàn)場直播節(jié)目的版權(quán)保護(hù)之所以在法律上引發(fā)廣泛爭議,究其原因,主要在于該問題涉及視聽作品的概念定義、獨創(chuàng)性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的界定、權(quán)利歸屬及利益平衡機(jī)制等諸多在法律理論上尚存爭議的問題,相對比較復(fù)雜。同時,法律界對特屬于媒體工作領(lǐng)域的現(xiàn)場直播節(jié)目制作流程、節(jié)目創(chuàng)作及表達(dá)的特征分析、制作節(jié)目所需要的智力勞動和資金投入狀況以及版權(quán)保護(hù)對相關(guān)文化產(chǎn)業(yè)發(fā)展的重要性等事實存在認(rèn)知上的困難和誤區(qū)也是導(dǎo)致相關(guān)問題始終無法得到突破和解決的原因之一。為此,本文結(jié)合版權(quán)理論和媒體知識,對現(xiàn)場直播節(jié)目版權(quán)保護(hù)問題從理論到實際進(jìn)行了相對系統(tǒng)深入地研究,以期達(dá)到完善我國版權(quán)法律制度,切實保護(hù)現(xiàn)場直播節(jié)目創(chuàng)作者和投資者的積極性和版權(quán)權(quán)益,促進(jìn)相關(guān)產(chǎn)業(yè)發(fā)展的目的。基于以上分析和考慮,針對現(xiàn)場直播節(jié)目的版權(quán)保護(hù)這一主題,本文針對性地提出了需要研究的五個主要問題,分別是:(1)視聽作品的定義;(2)視聽作品的獨創(chuàng)性標(biāo)準(zhǔn);(3)現(xiàn)場直播節(jié)目的可版權(quán)性分析;(4)現(xiàn)場直播節(jié)目的權(quán)利歸屬;(5)如何完善現(xiàn)場直播節(jié)目的版權(quán)保護(hù)制度。在這五個問題中,前兩個問題是在我國現(xiàn)行著作權(quán)法下頗具爭議性質(zhì)的版權(quán)基礎(chǔ)理論問題,暴露出我國著作權(quán)法在制度上存在的缺陷以及理論上的不成熟。第三、第四個問題則是當(dāng)前在司法實踐中所面臨且亟待解決的兩個焦點問題。前兩個問題需要理論上的系統(tǒng)研究和突破,而后兩個問題則需要在理論基礎(chǔ)上對實際中所存在的問題結(jié)合實際案例進(jìn)行針對性的分析和解答。第五個問題則是本文研究所希望達(dá)到的目標(biāo),無論是理論上的研究成果還是對實踐問題的解答,最終都需要落實到法律制度的完善上。對這五個問題的分析、研究和解答不僅是本文的主要研究成果,也是本文創(chuàng)造性將作品獨創(chuàng)性理論成果與影視創(chuàng)作知識相結(jié)合的研究方法的實現(xiàn)。對于視聽作品的定義問題,本文認(rèn)為,我國現(xiàn)行《著作權(quán)法》下“電影及類電影作品”的定義以“類似電影的攝制方法”為要件,使得概念和保護(hù)范圍過于狹窄。比較各國立法,國際立法趨勢是以保護(hù)范圍相對較寬的“視聽作品”概念取代“電影或類電影作品”的概念。而且,大多數(shù)國家在立法中都摒棄了“攝制方法”,以視聽作品的表現(xiàn)形式作為視聽作品定義中最基本的構(gòu)成要件,使得那些在攝制方法上雖不同于電影但表現(xiàn)形式相同且獨創(chuàng)性較高的視聽節(jié)目均能納入“視聽作品”的范疇加以保護(hù)。同時,本文認(rèn)為,此次《著作權(quán)法》第三次修法的《送審稿》中以“視聽作品”取代“影視作品”并同時取消“錄像制品”的立法方案存在明顯缺陷,這是因為《送審稿》雖提出了“視聽作品”取代“影視作品”并同時取消“錄像制品”的方案,卻未能就“視聽作品”的獨創(chuàng)性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)有一個清晰的界定,勢必仍然造成“視聽作品”的保護(hù)范圍模糊不清和司法判定上的混亂,可能造成“視聽作品”保護(hù)范圍過于寬泛或者過于狹窄的風(fēng)險。針對視聽作品獨創(chuàng)性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的問題,本文認(rèn)為,首先,作品的獨創(chuàng)性問題雖然十分復(fù)雜,但也不可陷入“不可知論”。根據(jù)各國版權(quán)法的比較和本文更深層次問題思考,作品獨創(chuàng)性的界定有三個不可或缺的基本條件,分別是獨立的創(chuàng)作、智力的創(chuàng)造和最低限度的創(chuàng)新性,而其中最低限度的創(chuàng)新性是界定作品的最關(guān)鍵條件,如何界定視聽作品最低限度的創(chuàng)新性也是本文所需要研究和解決的核心問題之一。同時,在作品獨創(chuàng)性界定的三個基本條件不明或難以斷定的情況下,從司法實踐出發(fā),還應(yīng)該從作者創(chuàng)作意圖、作品個性化的體現(xiàn)以及有無勞動和投資來作為作品獨創(chuàng)性界定的可參考條件。其次,值得注意的是,作品的獨創(chuàng)性界定應(yīng)遵循“區(qū)別對待原則”。由于不同類別作品的表現(xiàn)形式和創(chuàng)作特征不同,在獨創(chuàng)性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的界定上也應(yīng)針對不同類別的作品采取不同的規(guī)則來評判其獨創(chuàng)性。為此,我們需要在版權(quán)基本理論和文藝作品創(chuàng)作兩個不同學(xué)科領(lǐng)域?qū)ふ业揭粭l結(jié)合的方法之路,基于版權(quán)法的基本原理,為不同類別作品分別建立各自的獨創(chuàng)性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)體系。第三,本文中,筆者以學(xué)者王坤關(guān)于作品獨創(chuàng)性的最新理論成果“增量要素分析法”與影視創(chuàng)作知識結(jié)合起來進(jìn)行,將視聽作品獨創(chuàng)性的最本質(zhì)體現(xiàn)歸納為“鏡頭”、“銜接”兩個維度上,并據(jù)此建立起視聽作品的表層、中層和深層獨創(chuàng)性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)體系。其中,視聽作品的中層獨創(chuàng)性是判斷視聽作品可版權(quán)性的根本標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和關(guān)鍵步驟。關(guān)于現(xiàn)場直播節(jié)目的可版權(quán)性問題,本文認(rèn)為,首先,該問題的復(fù)雜性源于對現(xiàn)場直播多維度概念及其相互之間關(guān)系的復(fù)雜性,造成對現(xiàn)場直播節(jié)目版權(quán)保護(hù)客體上的理解誤區(qū)。本文指出,文中所分析的版權(quán)客體是指現(xiàn)場直播節(jié)目而不是現(xiàn)場直播活動。更具體而言,版權(quán)保護(hù)的客體事實上是現(xiàn)場直播節(jié)目影像化的表現(xiàn)形式,其保護(hù)實質(zhì)是對現(xiàn)場直播節(jié)目影像化創(chuàng)作的創(chuàng)造性勞動及其成果的保護(hù),而保護(hù)的最終目的則是通過對節(jié)目表現(xiàn)形式的實然保護(hù)達(dá)到對其“表達(dá)實質(zhì)”的應(yīng)然保護(hù)。其次,本文以體育賽事直播節(jié)目為例對其獨創(chuàng)性結(jié)合實際案例進(jìn)行了具體而深入地分析和闡述。本文認(rèn)為,體育賽事直播節(jié)目是節(jié)目編導(dǎo)個性化、創(chuàng)造性的勞動,在其影像化的創(chuàng)作中融合了創(chuàng)作者高超的戲劇化創(chuàng)作手法,是節(jié)目娛樂化的藝術(shù)表達(dá)以及體育精神與情感表達(dá)的最終體現(xiàn)。而體育賽事直播節(jié)目的獨創(chuàng)性特征可以從機(jī)位設(shè)計、景別選擇等“鏡頭”要素以及鏡頭的切換頻率與節(jié)奏、“蒙太奇”手法的運用、時間型變與空間型變以及故事性敘事的表達(dá)等“銜接”要素所體現(xiàn)的多個方面進(jìn)行分析和判定。為此,本文以梅西任意球前后鏡頭銜接和齊達(dá)內(nèi)“驚天一頭”片段鏡頭拍攝及組接的兩個視頻片段作為案例具體分析了體育賽事直播節(jié)目在鏡頭與銜接上的創(chuàng)作技巧與特征以及在故事性敘事和情感表達(dá)上的獨創(chuàng)性體現(xiàn)。結(jié)合節(jié)目畫面的具體案例進(jìn)行獨創(chuàng)性分析與界定也是目前大多數(shù)法律學(xué)者和法官所缺乏的專業(yè)知識和分析方法。第三,本文對以央視“春晚”為代表的綜藝直播節(jié)目的獨創(chuàng)性問題進(jìn)行了同樣深入地分析和論證。本文認(rèn)為,與體育賽事直播節(jié)目雖然在機(jī)位設(shè)計、景別選擇以及鏡頭切換手法與技巧的運用等方面十分類似,但不同的是,綜藝直播節(jié)目的獨創(chuàng)性更多地還體現(xiàn)在了對綜藝節(jié)目舞臺的美術(shù)設(shè)計、場面調(diào)度等方面。具體而言,本文以2009春晚小品《不差錢》和2015年春晚雜技節(jié)目《青花瓷》中的兩個視頻片段的連續(xù)畫面在“鏡頭”和“銜接”兩個維度的創(chuàng)作及其敘事與情感表達(dá)上的獨創(chuàng)性進(jìn)行了分析和界定,提出了以央視“春晚”為代表的電視綜藝直播節(jié)目具有較高獨創(chuàng)性,應(yīng)被定性為著作權(quán)法下“電影及類電影作品”的觀點和主張。對于現(xiàn)場直播節(jié)目的權(quán)利歸屬問題,首先,根據(jù)各國關(guān)于視聽作品權(quán)利歸屬制度的比較可以看到,作者權(quán)法國家與版權(quán)法國家雖然在視聽作品權(quán)利歸屬制度的理解上存在著較大不同,但已表現(xiàn)出顯著的趨同效應(yīng),其核心是基于視聽產(chǎn)業(yè)對于各國文化經(jīng)濟(jì)的發(fā)展和文化輸出上的戰(zhàn)略意義和價值,無不通過法定或者推定轉(zhuǎn)讓等不同路徑將視聽作品權(quán)利集中到制片者手中,以便于視聽作品使用的效率和產(chǎn)業(yè)的整體發(fā)展。其次,我國雖師從著作權(quán)法國家,但在現(xiàn)行《著作權(quán)法》中“電影及類電影作品”的權(quán)利歸屬卻更多傾向于英美等版權(quán)法國家的規(guī)定。對此,有的學(xué)者(如曲三強(qiáng))認(rèn)為我國現(xiàn)行著作權(quán)法將影視作品的經(jīng)濟(jì)權(quán)利統(tǒng)一由制片者所有的制度原則符合世界各國立法現(xiàn)狀,但也有學(xué)者(如王遷)認(rèn)為我國著作權(quán)法存在“小說、戲劇等原作品與根據(jù)其拍攝而成的電影作品之間的法律關(guān)系不明確”、“沒有規(guī)定電影作品中音樂作品的著作權(quán)人有權(quán)從電影作品的播放中獲得合理報酬”等一系列問題。除了原作品以外,在我國著作權(quán)法下對影視作品產(chǎn)生之前就在先發(fā)表的作品與影視作品的法律關(guān)系也同樣存有疑問和爭議。這樣的爭議也引發(fā)了對于何為“可以單獨使用的作品”及其如何單獨行使“可以單獨使用的作品”版權(quán)的爭議。第三,本文鮮明指出,雖然視聽作品的權(quán)利歸屬以及利益分配問題在國內(nèi)學(xué)術(shù)界以及此次修法過程中都存在較大爭議,但這些爭議問題不應(yīng)該成為現(xiàn)場直播節(jié)目可版權(quán)性的障礙。對于現(xiàn)場直播節(jié)目版權(quán)保護(hù)這一主題而言,本文認(rèn)為,具有較高獨創(chuàng)性的現(xiàn)場直播節(jié)目被定性為“電影及類電影作品”的情況下,其版權(quán)主體與權(quán)利歸屬與影視作品并無實質(zhì)區(qū)別,可以適用法律類推規(guī)則。為此,本文就現(xiàn)場直播節(jié)目作品的版權(quán)主體進(jìn)行詳細(xì)分析和界定,并就其權(quán)利歸屬制度適用于我國《著作權(quán)法》的現(xiàn)行法及第三次修訂送審稿的法律類推規(guī)則分別進(jìn)行了詳細(xì)分析和論證。最后,作為本文研究的目標(biāo),針對現(xiàn)場直播節(jié)目版權(quán)保護(hù)的法制完善這一分量沉重但也最具現(xiàn)實意義的問題,本文首先從現(xiàn)場直播技術(shù)進(jìn)步與產(chǎn)業(yè)發(fā)展對版權(quán)保護(hù)制度完善的必然訴求及迫切需求出發(fā)闡述了通過完善法制實現(xiàn)對現(xiàn)場直播節(jié)目版權(quán)保護(hù)的必要性。其次,本文認(rèn)為,在現(xiàn)行《著作權(quán)法》的基本框架下,完全可以通過法律解釋方法對現(xiàn)行法予以完善。綜合本文理論結(jié)合實際的研究成果,本文首次提出了通過法律解釋完善現(xiàn)行《著作權(quán)法》對現(xiàn)場直播節(jié)目版權(quán)保護(hù)的詳細(xì)的方案與建議,包括完善現(xiàn)行《著作權(quán)法》中相關(guān)規(guī)定的法律解釋方案以及《關(guān)于現(xiàn)場直播節(jié)目著作權(quán)糾紛若干問題的解釋》的建議案。最后,為了抓住正在進(jìn)行中的我國《著作權(quán)法》自立法以來最重要的一次法律修訂的重大契機(jī),本文特別提出了針對此次《著作權(quán)法》第三次修訂的《送審稿》的完善方案與建議,以期供立法者參考和決策。本文的研究意義在于,基于著作權(quán)法的立法宗旨,一方面在于切實保護(hù)現(xiàn)場直播節(jié)目作品作者的著作權(quán)及有關(guān)權(quán)益,鼓勵我國本土化現(xiàn)場直播節(jié)目的創(chuàng)作和傳播;另一方面也在于對我國現(xiàn)場直播節(jié)目及相關(guān)文化產(chǎn)業(yè)發(fā)展與繁榮的有效促進(jìn),具有較大的現(xiàn)實意義和緊迫性。從研究成果及其創(chuàng)新性角度,本文一方面就視聽作品的定義及獨創(chuàng)性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)等基礎(chǔ)理論問題進(jìn)行了系統(tǒng)的理論研究,提出了自己的見解和觀點,對現(xiàn)場直播節(jié)目的可版權(quán)性及權(quán)利歸屬等困擾當(dāng)前司法判斷的法律問題進(jìn)行了針對性的研究和解答,并提出了在現(xiàn)行《著作權(quán)法》制度下以及針對《著作權(quán)法》第三次修訂案的具體的建議性方案;另一方面,從方法論角度,本文創(chuàng)造性地將作品獨創(chuàng)性理論與影視創(chuàng)作領(lǐng)域的相關(guān)專業(yè)知識結(jié)合起來,通過對影視創(chuàng)作方法的法律抽象去探尋視聽作品的創(chuàng)作規(guī)律,總結(jié)出視聽作品獨創(chuàng)性的界定方法和標(biāo)準(zhǔn),尋找到一條分析、界定視聽作品的獨創(chuàng)性及其標(biāo)準(zhǔn)體系建立的方法之路,并將之用于解決現(xiàn)場直播節(jié)目版權(quán)保護(hù)的具體問題當(dāng)中。筆者希望該方法能為作品獨創(chuàng)性問題的研究提供一個借鑒和參考,將之作為作品獨創(chuàng)性研究的基本方法之一,以期通過學(xué)者專家的進(jìn)一步研究逐步完善著作權(quán)法下各類作品的獨創(chuàng)性標(biāo)準(zhǔn),彌補(bǔ)相關(guān)研究的空白。
[Abstract]:The judgment of the nature of a work is the basic premise of copyright protection. How to judge the nature of an audio-visual program under the copyright law has been puzzling the legal circle, but it is still controversial. However, due to the ambiguity of the original standard of film and television works under the current Copyright Law and the restriction of the requirements of the "production method", there are different opinions and even guidance in the legal circles on the identification of the nature of live broadcast programs under the Copyright Law. It is worth noting that the serious inadequacy of copyright protection in law for live programs has increasingly become the focus of damaging the enthusiasm of program investors and creators and restricting the development of related industries. Therefore, it has aroused widespread controversy in law. The main reason lies in the fact that the problem involves the definition of audio-visual works, the definition of original standards, the ownership of rights and the balance of interests mechanism, and many other controversial issues in legal theory, which are relatively complex. At the same time, the legal circles are relatively complex about live broadcasting programs, which belong to the field of media work. The difficulties and misunderstandings in the process of production, the analysis of the characteristics of program creation and expression, the state of intellectual labor and capital investment required for program production, and the importance of copyright protection to the development of related cultural industries are also the reasons why the relevant problems can not be solved. Copyright theory and media knowledge have made a relatively systematic and in-depth study of the copyright protection of live programs from theory to practice, with a view to perfecting China's copyright legal system, effectively protecting the enthusiasm and copyright rights of the producers and investors of live programs, and promoting the development of related industries. Considering the copyright protection of live broadcasting programs, this paper puts forward five major issues that need to be studied, namely: (1) the definition of audio-visual works; (2) the original standards of audio-visual works; (3) the copyright analysis of live broadcasting programs; (4) the ownership of the rights of live broadcasting programs; (5) how to improve live broadcasting programs. Among the five problems, the first two are the controversial basic theoretical problems of copyright under the current copyright law of our country, which expose the defects of the copyright law in the system and the immaturity of the theory. Third, the fourth problem is facing the current judicial practice and needs to be solved urgently. The first two questions need theoretical research and breakthroughs, and the latter two questions need to be analyzed and answered on the basis of theoretical research and practical cases. The analysis of these five questions is not only the main research results of this paper, but also the realization of the research method which combines the creative theoretical results of works with the knowledge of film and television creation. This paper argues that the definition of "film and film-like works" under the current Copyright Law in China is too narrow in concept and scope of protection because of the "film-like production method". Moreover, most countries have abandoned the "shooting method" in their legislation, taking the form of expression of audio-visual works as the most basic component of the definition of audio-visual works, so that those audio-visual programs which are different from movies but with the same form of expression and higher originality can be included in the category of "audio-visual works". At the same time, this paper argues that the legislative scheme of replacing "film and television works" with "audio-visual works" and canceling "video products" in the third amendment of the Copyright Law has obvious defects, because "audio-visual works" has been proposed to replace "film and television works" and "video works" has been cancelled at the same time. The scheme of "products" fails to clearly define the originality standard of "audio-visual works", which will inevitably result in the ambiguity of the scope of protection and the confusion of judicial judgment, and may result in the risk that the scope of protection of "audio-visual works" is too broad or too narrow. According to the comparison of copyright laws in different countries and the deeper problems in this paper, the definition of originality of works has three indispensable basic conditions: independent creation, intellectual creation and minimum innovation. How to define the minimum innovation of audio-visual works is also one of the core issues that need to be studied and solved in this paper. At the same time, when the three basic conditions of the definition of original works are unclear or difficult to determine, we should proceed from judicial practice. The author's creative intention, the individualized expression of the work and whether there is labor and investment are the reference conditions for the definition of the originality of the work. Different rules should be adopted to judge the originality of different types of works. Therefore, we need to find a way to combine the basic theory of copyright and the creation of literary and artistic works in two different disciplines. Based on the basic principles of copyright law, we should establish their own standards for originality of different types of works. In this paper, the author combines the latest theoretical achievement of Wang Kun about the originality of the works with the knowledge of film and television creation. The most essential embodiment of the originality of audio-visual works is summed up in two dimensions of "lens" and "cohesion". Accordingly, the author establishes the superficial, middle and deep originality standards of audio-visual works. Quasi-system, in which the middle-level originality of audio-visual works is the fundamental criteria and key steps to judge the copyright of audio-visual works. On the copyright of live programs, this paper argues that, first of all, the complexity of the problem stems from the complexity of the concept of live multidimensional and the relationship between them, resulting in live programs. This paper points out the misunderstanding of the object of copyright protection. The object of copyright protection analyzed in this paper refers to live programs rather than live broadcasting activities. The ultimate goal of the protection is to achieve the "expressive essence" protection through the actual protection of the program form. Secondly, this paper takes the sports events live program as an example to analyze and elaborate its originality combined with the actual case. The individualized and creative work of the program director is the ultimate embodiment of the artistic expression of the entertainment of the program and the expression of sports spirit and emotion. The original features of the live sports programs can be seen from the camera design, scene selection and other "lens" elements. And the frequency and rhythm of lens switching, the use of "montage" techniques, time-type and space-type changes, as well as the expression of narrative stories and other "convergence" elements reflected in many aspects of analysis and judgment. Two video clips are used as case studies to analyze the creative skills and characteristics of the live sports programs in terms of lens and cohesion as well as the original expression of narrative and emotion. Thirdly, this paper analyzes and demonstrates the originality of the live variety show represented by CCTV "Spring Festival Gala" in the same depth. This paper argues that although it is very similar to the live sports program in terms of position design, scene selection and the use of camera switching techniques and techniques, it is different. The originality of live variety shows is more reflected in the art design of the stage, scene scheduling and so on. Specifically, this paper takes the two video clips of the 2009 Spring Festival Gala sketch < not bad money > and the 2015 Spring Festival Festival Festival Festival Festival Acrobatic < Blue and White Porcelain > to create the two dimensions of "lens" and "connection". This paper analyzes and defines the originality of its narrative and emotional expression, and puts forward the viewpoint that the live TV variety show represented by CCTV "Spring Festival Gala" has higher originality and should be classified as "film and similar film works" under the copyright law. Comparing the ownership system of audio-visual works, we can see that although there are great differences in the understanding of the ownership system between Authorship Law and Copyright Law, they have shown significant convergence effect. The core of the system is the strategic meaning of the audio-visual industry to the development of cultural economy and cultural export of different countries. Meaning and value concentrate the rights of audio-visual works in the hands of producers through different ways, such as statutory or presumptive transfer, in order to facilitate the efficiency of audio-visual works and the overall development of the industry. Secondly, although our country is a copyright law country, the ownership of the rights of "film and film-like works" in the current Copyright Law is more inclined. For this, some scholars (such as Qu San Qiang) think that the current copyright law of our country unifies the economic rights of film and television works by the producer ownership system principle conforms to the legislative status of countries around the world, but some scholars (such as Wang Qian) believe that China's copyright law exists "novel, drama and other original works and according to its." A series of problems such as the unclear legal relationship between the films produced, the lack of stipulation that the copyright owners of the musical works in the films have the right to receive reasonable remuneration from the broadcast of the films, etc. There are also doubts and disputes about the legal relationship of works. Such disputes have also triggered controversies about what works can be used independently and how to exercise the copyright of works that can be used independently. However, these disputes should not be an obstacle to the copyright of live broadcasting programs. As for the copyright protection of live broadcasting programs, this paper argues that the copyright of live broadcasting programs with higher originality is defined as "movies and movies". There is no substantial difference between the subject and the ownership of rights and the film and television works, so the rule of analogy of law can be applied.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D923.41;G222
，

本文編號：2198895