本文選題：文化創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè) + 知識產(chǎn)權(quán)��； 參考：《復(fù)旦大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：文化是一種力量,文化競爭力是國家的核心競爭力。文化創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)是文化與經(jīng)濟(jì)日益相互交融的產(chǎn)物,是文化、科技、創(chuàng)意相結(jié)合的產(chǎn)業(yè)形式,它是以創(chuàng)新、創(chuàng)造、創(chuàng)作為根本手段,以文化和創(chuàng)意成果為核心內(nèi)容,以知識產(chǎn)權(quán)為交易特征的新興產(chǎn)業(yè)。文化創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)不是先天就具有的,是經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展到一定程度、國家發(fā)展到一定時期、社會進(jìn)步到一定階段后才形成的新興經(jīng)濟(jì)模式。在目前,文化創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)已經(jīng)成為世界經(jīng)濟(jì)增長的新模式。 早在1926年,德國法蘭克福學(xué)派重要代表人物之一瓦爾特.本雅明首創(chuàng)“文化產(chǎn)業(yè)”概念,英國政府于1998年11月第一次提出了“創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)”概念后,世界各國雖然已經(jīng)陸續(xù)接受了“創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)”的概念,但是由于各國文化傳統(tǒng)和產(chǎn)業(yè)發(fā)展路徑不同,導(dǎo)致對“創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)”的具體稱呼、產(chǎn)業(yè)范圍等均存在一定的差異,比如美國將其定義為“版權(quán)產(chǎn)業(yè)”、德國將其定義為“文化產(chǎn)業(yè)”,而我國則于21世紀(jì)初提出“文化創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)”概念。顯然,“文化創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)”是我國獨(dú)創(chuàng)的概念,雖然它與英國的“創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)”和美國的“版權(quán)產(chǎn)業(yè)”的分類上沒有本質(zhì)上的區(qū)分,但是范圍也明顯存在差異。本文提出文化創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)是文化產(chǎn)業(yè)中的高端產(chǎn)業(yè),是創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)中的核心組成部分,是文化產(chǎn)業(yè)和創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)的交集部分。 文化創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)和知識產(chǎn)權(quán)息息相關(guān),文化創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)的發(fā)展過程中將無法脫離知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的保護(hù)和制約。從世界主要國家對“創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)”知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)現(xiàn)狀看,對文化創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)僅僅通過民法、行政法加以保護(hù)顯然并不足夠,知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的公權(quán)屬性等決定對文化創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)保護(hù)可以適用刑法,另外從刑法功能上看,刑法作為各種社會關(guān)系法律保護(hù)的最后屏障,只有與民事保護(hù)、行政保護(hù)組成法律保護(hù)網(wǎng),才能真正發(fā)揮民事保護(hù)、行政保護(hù)的作用。對文化創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)的刑法保護(hù)有必要性,同時也要注意適度性。 另外,本文提出對文化創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)的刑法保護(hù),要從理念入手,形成由“弱保護(hù)”向“強(qiáng)保護(hù)”逐漸轉(zhuǎn)變的刑法保護(hù)理念、刑法保護(hù)與其他法律保護(hù)相協(xié)調(diào)的刑法保護(hù)理念、保護(hù)權(quán)利人利益與維護(hù)公共利益相平衡的刑法保護(hù)理念等基本的保護(hù)理念；同時,本文針對文化創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)的刑法保護(hù)存在的問題提出相關(guān)的建議,以期保護(hù)更有實(shí)效性。 本文的主要研究成果如下： 1)提出文化創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)是文化產(chǎn)業(yè)和創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)的交集部分。通過闡述分析文化產(chǎn)業(yè)、創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)、文化創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)的概念和發(fā)展過程,厘清文化產(chǎn)業(yè)、創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)、文化創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)的關(guān)系。 2)提出文化創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)發(fā)展與刑法保護(hù)關(guān)系密切。通過論述文化--產(chǎn)業(yè)—創(chuàng)意—知識產(chǎn)權(quán)—刑法關(guān)系,論證文化創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)發(fā)展離不開知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù),進(jìn)而論證文化創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)發(fā)展需要刑法介入保護(hù)。 3)提出文化創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)刑法保護(hù)基本理念。理念先行,對文化創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)的刑法保護(hù),要從理念入手,形成由弱保護(hù)向強(qiáng)保護(hù)逐漸轉(zhuǎn)變的刑法保護(hù)理念、刑法保護(hù)與其他法律保護(hù)相協(xié)調(diào)的刑法保護(hù)理念、保護(hù)權(quán)利人利益與維護(hù)公共利益相平衡的刑法保護(hù)理念等基本的保護(hù)理念； 本文主要研究內(nèi)容如下： 首先,從文化創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)發(fā)展符合中國經(jīng)濟(jì)社會發(fā)展需求入手,闡述文化創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)在現(xiàn)今中國發(fā)展的必要性、時代性； 其次,進(jìn)一步厘清文化產(chǎn)業(yè)、創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)、文化創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)等相關(guān)概念,提出文化創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)是文化產(chǎn)業(yè)中的高端產(chǎn)業(yè),是創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)中的核心組成部分,是文化產(chǎn)業(yè)和創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)的交集部分的觀點(diǎn),其交易核心就是知識產(chǎn)權(quán)。 第三,逐條論證文化創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)的特征決定其離不開知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)以及以動漫產(chǎn)業(yè)為例論證知識產(chǎn)權(quán)貫穿于文化創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)始終,進(jìn)而論證文化創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)發(fā)展與知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)密不可分。 第四,以英國、美國、日本等代表性國家為例,闡述世界主要國家對創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)(或者版權(quán)產(chǎn)業(yè))的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)現(xiàn)狀,繼而闡述中國文化創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)存在“對侵權(quán)者懲罰力度不夠”等現(xiàn)狀。 第五,通過論證知識產(chǎn)權(quán)公權(quán)屬性決定文化創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)可以用刑法保護(hù),進(jìn)而論述文化創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)刑法保護(hù)的必要性和適度性,并從中提出對文化創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)刑法保護(hù)的基本理念及相關(guān)建議。 結(jié)論部分簡要?dú)w納了論文研究的主要成果、結(jié)論、體會,給出了論文的創(chuàng)新點(diǎn)和不足之處,并對論文需要進(jìn)一步研究的若干問題做了的展望。
[Abstract]:Culture is a kind of power, and cultural competitiveness is the core competitiveness of the country. Cultural and creative industries are the product of the integration of culture and economy. It is an industrial form combining culture, science and technology and creativity. It is the basic means of innovation, creation and creation, the core content of culture and creative achievements, and the new trade characteristics of intellectual property. The cultural and creative industry is not innate, it is the economic development to a certain extent, the state has developed to a certain period, the social progress to a certain stage of the emerging economic model. At present, the cultural and creative industry has become a new model of the world economic growth.
As early as 1926, Walter Walter Benjamin, one of the important representatives of the German Frankfurt school, first created the concept of "cultural industry". After the British government first proposed the concept of "creative industry" in November 1998, all countries in the world have accepted the concept of "creative industry", but because of the cultural traditions and industrial development of various countries. Different paths lead to certain differences in the specific name of "creative industry" and industrial scope, such as the definition of "copyright industry" by the United States. Germany defines it as "cultural industry", while China puts forward the concept of "cultural and creative industry" in the early twenty-first Century. Obviously, "cultural and creative industries" is the original concept of our country. Although it has no essential distinction between the "creative industry" in Britain and the classification of "copyright industry" in the United States, there are obvious differences in the scope. This paper suggests that cultural and creative industries are the high-end industries in the cultural industry, the core component of the creative industry, and the intersection of cultural and creative industries.
Cultural and creative industries are closely related to intellectual property rights, and the development process of cultural and creative industries will not be separated from the protection and restriction of intellectual property rights. From the status of intellectual property protection of "creative industries" in the world's major countries, the protection of intellectual property rights in cultural and creative industries only passes through civil law, and it is obviously not enough to protect the intellectual property rights of the cultural and creative industries. The public rights attribute of intellectual property right determines the application of criminal law to the protection of cultural and creative industries. In addition to the function of criminal law, criminal law is the last barrier of legal protection of various social relations. Only with civil protection and administrative protection, can the protection of civil affairs and administrative protection play a real role. It is necessary to protect the criminal law, and at the same time, we should pay attention to moderation.
In addition, this paper puts forward the protection of criminal law in cultural and creative industries. It is necessary to start with the concept, form the concept of criminal protection, which is gradually changed from "weak protection" to "strong protection", the concept of criminal protection which is coordinated by the protection of criminal law and other legal protection, and to protect the interests of the right people and the protection of the public interests in the criminal law protection concept. At the same time, this paper puts forward relevant suggestions for the problems existing in the criminal law protection of cultural and creative industries, with a view to protecting more effective results.
The main research results of this paper are as follows:
1) put forward that cultural and creative industries are the intersection of cultural industry and creative industry. Through the exposition and analysis of the concept and development process of cultural industry, creative industry, cultural and creative industries, the relationship between cultural industry, creative industry and cultural and creative industries is clarified.
2) the development of cultural and creative industries is closely related to the protection of criminal law. By discussing the relationship between culture, industry, creativity, intellectual property and criminal law, it is demonstrated that the development of cultural and creative industries can not be separated from the protection of intellectual property rights, and the development of cultural and creative industries needs to be protected by criminal law.
3) put forward the basic concept of criminal law protection in cultural and creative industries. First, to protect the criminal law of cultural and creative industries, we should start with the concept, form the concept of criminal law protection that gradually change from weak protection to strong protection, protect the criminal law from criminal law protection and other legal protection, protect the interests of the rights holders and balance the public interests. The concept of basic protection, such as the concept of criminal law protection, and so on;
The main contents of this paper are as follows:
First of all, starting from the development of cultural and creative industries in line with China's economic and social development needs, it expounds the necessity and the times of the development of cultural and creative industries in today's China.
Secondly, we should further clarify the concepts of cultural industry, creative industry, cultural and creative industry, and put forward that cultural and creative industries are the high-end industries in the cultural industry, the core component of the creative industry, the point of view of the intersection of cultural industry and creative industry, the core of which is intellectual property.
Third, demonstration of the characteristics of cultural and creative industries by one by one determines that it is inseparable from the protection of intellectual property rights and that the animation industry is taken as an example to demonstrate that intellectual property rights run through the cultural and creative industries, and that the development of cultural and creative industries and intellectual property protection are inseparable.
Fourth, take the representative countries such as Britain, the United States and Japan as examples to illustrate the current situation of intellectual property protection of the world's major countries on Creative Industries (or copyright industries), and then explain the existence of the "insufficient punishment for the infringers" in the intellectual property protection of the Chinese cultural and creative industries.
Fifth, through the demonstration of the property rights of intellectual property rights, the cultural and creative industries can be protected by criminal law, and the necessity and moderation of the criminal law protection in cultural and creative industries are discussed, and the basic concepts and relevant suggestions on the protection of criminal law in cultural and creative industries are put forward.
The conclusion part briefly summarizes the main achievements, conclusions and experiences of the paper, and gives the innovation and shortcomings of the paper, and makes a prospect for some problems that need further study.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：復(fù)旦大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D924.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 張紅漫;韓尊炳;蘇玲;;國外創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)發(fā)展對我國的啟示[J];長春理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2007年03期

2 楊旦修;聶鈺石;;文化創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)的概念整合與升級[J];重慶社會科學(xué);2010年02期

3 胡曉鵬;;文化創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)的地區(qū)發(fā)展模式研究[J];中國地質(zhì)大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2010年01期

4 余長林;王瑞芳;;發(fā)展中國家的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)與技術(shù)創(chuàng)新:只是線性關(guān)系嗎?[J];當(dāng)代經(jīng)濟(jì)科學(xué);2009年03期

5 廖中洪;中美知識產(chǎn)權(quán)刑事保護(hù)的比較研究[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報;1997年03期

6 丁俊杰;;對文化創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)發(fā)展的觀察與思考(一)[J];大市場(廣告導(dǎo)報);2006年09期

7 金元浦;;當(dāng)代世界創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)的概念及其特征[J];電影藝術(shù);2006年03期

8 趙金凌;;上海創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)發(fā)展策略研究[J];地域研究與開發(fā);2010年03期

9 趙競;;對我國動漫產(chǎn)業(yè)發(fā)展的若干思考[J];湖北社會科學(xué);2010年06期

10 王琪;;“創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)”的本質(zhì)與特征[J];甘肅理論學(xué)刊;2009年04期

，

本文編號：1834019