【摘要】：保護(hù)作品完整權(quán)是我國(guó)《著作權(quán)法》明文規(guī)定的著作人身權(quán)之一,是作者最重要的精神權(quán)利之一。明確保護(hù)作品完整權(quán)的侵權(quán)判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn),對(duì)于正確處理作品利用與作者人身權(quán)保護(hù)之間的關(guān)系意義重大。目前,我國(guó)法律對(duì)于保護(hù)作品完整權(quán)的規(guī)定過于簡(jiǎn)單,對(duì)于侵犯保護(hù)作品完整權(quán)的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)沒有規(guī)定,導(dǎo)致司法實(shí)踐中并存著兩種截然不同的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn),即“違背作者思想標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”和“損害作者聲譽(yù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”,致使在該問題的法律適用上呈現(xiàn)很大的不確定性。厘清這一問題,是統(tǒng)一司法實(shí)踐、實(shí)現(xiàn)作者和作品利用者利益平衡的必須前提。鑒于上述考量,本文擬從四個(gè)部分展開論述。第一部分是保護(hù)作品完整權(quán)的基礎(chǔ)理論分析。首先,從保護(hù)作品完整權(quán)的起源出發(fā),闡明了保護(hù)作品完整權(quán)的發(fā)展歷程。然后,介紹了保護(hù)作品完整權(quán)的理論基礎(chǔ),主要有人格權(quán)理論、激勵(lì)理論和公平、正義理念。最后,從保護(hù)思想的同一性,保護(hù)作者的言論自由和促進(jìn)文化繁榮的角度闡述了保護(hù)作品完整權(quán)的功能。第二部分在比較法的視域下對(duì)兩種侵權(quán)判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)進(jìn)行考察。在作者權(quán)利主義和版權(quán)主義兩種立法理念的支配下,大陸法系和英美法系國(guó)家采用了不同的侵權(quán)判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。大陸法系國(guó)家基本采用了違背作者思想標(biāo)準(zhǔn),而英美法系國(guó)家明確適用損害作者聲譽(yù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。第三部分分析了我國(guó)兩種標(biāo)準(zhǔn)并存下的立法、司法實(shí)踐現(xiàn)狀。立法主要存在歪曲、篡改含義不明,規(guī)制的范圍過窄,未明確侵權(quán)判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的問題。司法實(shí)踐中不同法院對(duì)歪曲、篡改的理解和認(rèn)定不同,有些法院已經(jīng)對(duì)歪曲、篡改做了擴(kuò)大化解釋�？傮w來看,法院在判斷保護(hù)作品完整權(quán)侵權(quán)時(shí),兩種侵權(quán)判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)均有適用。第四部分提出了完善我國(guó)保護(hù)作品完整權(quán)侵權(quán)判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的思路。即以違背作者思想標(biāo)準(zhǔn)為基本原則,并適度限制作者的權(quán)利,從而達(dá)到保護(hù)作者權(quán)利和促進(jìn)作品傳播二者之間的平衡。首先,從符合保護(hù)作品完整權(quán)的首要功能與我國(guó)的實(shí)際情況出發(fā),論證了違背作者思想標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的正當(dāng)性。其次,闡述了我國(guó)不適用損害作者聲譽(yù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的理由。最后,提出了在違背作者思想標(biāo)準(zhǔn)下重構(gòu)我國(guó)保護(hù)作品完整權(quán)制度的設(shè)想,在厘清保護(hù)作品完整權(quán)與修改權(quán)關(guān)系的前提下,重新表述保護(hù)作品完整權(quán)的立法定義,并從例外規(guī)定和明確戲仿作品合理性兩方面對(duì)保護(hù)作品完整權(quán)進(jìn)行適度限制,以平衡作者和作品利用者以及社會(huì)公眾的利益。
[Abstract]:The right to protect the integrity of a work is one of the personal rights of the author and one of the most important spiritual rights of the author. It is of great significance to define the standard of tort judgment for the protection of the integrity of the work, which is of great significance to correctly handle the relationship between the utilization of the work and the protection of the personal rights of the author. At present, the law of our country is too simple to protect the right to integrity of the work, and there is no provision for the judgment standard of infringement of the right to protect the integrity of the work, which leads to the coexistence of two different standards of judgment in judicial practice. That is, "violating the standard of author's thought" and "harming the standard of author's reputation", which makes the application of the law of this problem very uncertain. To clarify this issue is the prerequisite for unifying judicial practice and balancing the interests of the author and the user of the work. In view of the above considerations, this paper intends to discuss from four parts. The first part is the basic theoretical analysis of the protection of the right to integrity of works. First of all, starting from the origin of the right to protect the integrity of the work, the development of the right to protect the integrity of the work is expounded. Then, it introduces the theoretical basis of the protection of the right to integrity of works, including the theory of personality right, the theory of motivation and the idea of fairness and justice. Finally, from the angle of protecting the identity of thought, protecting the author's freedom of speech and promoting cultural prosperity, this paper expounds the function of protecting the right to integrity of works. The second part investigates the two kinds of tort judgment standards from the perspective of comparative law. Under the control of two legislative concepts of authoritarianism and copyright doctrine, the countries of civil law system and common law system adopt different standards of tort judgment. Civil law countries basically adopt the standard of violating the author's ideology, while the common law countries apply the criterion of damaging the author's reputation explicitly. The third part analyzes the current situation of legislation and judicial practice under the coexistence of two standards in China. There are some problems in legislation, such as distortion, ambiguous tampering, too narrow scope of regulation and lack of clear judgment standard of infringement. In judicial practice, different courts have different understanding and recognition of distortion and tampering. Some courts have expanded their interpretation of distortion and tampering. Generally speaking, the court can judge the infringement of the integrity of works. The fourth part puts forward the idea of perfecting the judgment standard of protecting the integrity right of works in our country. That is to say, the author's rights should be restricted according to the basic principle of violating the author's ideological standards, so as to achieve the balance between protecting the author's rights and promoting the dissemination of his works. First of all, according to the primary function of protecting the right to integrity of works and the actual situation of our country, this paper demonstrates the legitimacy of violating the author's ideological standards. Secondly, the author expounds the reasons why our country does not apply the criterion of harming the author's reputation. Finally, the author puts forward the idea of reconstructing the system of protecting the integrity of works in our country under the violation of the author's ideological standards, and restates the legislative definition of the right to protect the integrity of works on the premise of clarifying the relationship between the right to protect the integrity of the works and the right to modify. In order to balance the interests of the author, the users and the public, the right to protect the integrity of works should be restricted from two aspects: the exception and the rationality of parody works.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華中師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D923.41

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 徐曉穎;;試論我國(guó)保護(hù)作品完整權(quán)的侵權(quán)判定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)——從《九層妖塔》案說開去[J];廣西政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2016年03期

2 梁利波;;作品完整權(quán)的保護(hù)限度[J];人民論壇;2015年14期

3 李揚(yáng);許清;;侵害保護(hù)作品完整權(quán)的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)——兼評(píng)我國(guó)《著作權(quán)法修訂草案(送審稿)》第13條第2款第3項(xiàng)[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2015年01期

4 吳雨輝;徐tD;;著作人格權(quán)的歷史與命運(yùn)[J];北京大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2013年04期

5 程財(cái);;保護(hù)作品完整權(quán)與言論自由的邊界及沖突——以“戲仿”為主線[J];太原大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2013年02期

6 曹博;;著作人格權(quán)的興起與衰落[J];西南政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2013年02期

7 梁志文;;著作人格權(quán)保護(hù)的比較分析與中國(guó)經(jīng)驗(yàn)[J];法治研究;2013年03期

8 劉宇瓊;;著作人格權(quán)的性質(zhì):歷史和體系之思[J];知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2011年09期

9 王坤;;著作人格權(quán)制度的反思與重構(gòu)[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2010年06期

10 劉有東;;論作品修改權(quán)[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2010年03期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 陳一痕;保護(hù)作品完整權(quán)研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2012年

2 夏明;保護(hù)作品完整權(quán)研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2009年

，

本文編號(hào)：2355268