本文選題：著作權(quán) + 默示許可��； 參考：《華東政法大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：自從英美法系在版權(quán)判例法中建立起默示許可機(jī)制以來(lái),版權(quán)默示許可隨著時(shí)代的發(fā)展迅速擴(kuò)張,然而國(guó)內(nèi)對(duì)著作權(quán)默示許可卻存在著大量的空白。法的缺失又導(dǎo)致了理論研究和司法實(shí)踐的混亂。民法上的默示許可,本質(zhì)是一種有意思表示的民事法律行為,以授權(quán)他人為基本行為內(nèi)容,其成立與否的判斷難點(diǎn)往往在于對(duì)權(quán)利人真實(shí)意思的探究。然而隨著社會(huì)的發(fā)展,著作權(quán)法領(lǐng)域的授權(quán)許可行為變得更為復(fù)雜。與此同時(shí),對(duì)權(quán)利人真實(shí)意思的過(guò)分探求往往難以促使交易的安全平穩(wěn)。而鑒于著作權(quán)法的特殊性,傳統(tǒng)民事基礎(chǔ)理論中對(duì)權(quán)利人真意的探究已經(jīng)不能滿足社會(huì)發(fā)展的需要,而這也使得著作權(quán)法默示許可具備了其獨(dú)有的操作規(guī)則,也具備了獨(dú)特的存在價(jià)值。本文首先通過(guò)將著作權(quán)法默示許可特殊化,解決了其與民事一般理論中的默示許可之間的差異,也論證了著作權(quán)法默示許可特殊規(guī)則存在的必要性。本文認(rèn)為,著作權(quán)法默示許可是完全不同于民事一般理論中的默示許可的,它不僅突破了合同關(guān)系,而且維護(hù)使用者的信賴?yán)�。隨后,本文在此基礎(chǔ)上對(duì)現(xiàn)存的主要相關(guān)學(xué)說(shuō)進(jìn)行辯駁,得出著作權(quán)法默示許可特征:是一種限制而不是一種權(quán)利內(nèi)容;不同于著作權(quán)法任何一種權(quán)利限制;民法理論上是一種抗辯權(quán),而不是抗辯,未經(jīng)當(dāng)事人提出,法官不得主動(dòng)援引。最后舉例論證、評(píng)議著作權(quán)法默示許可現(xiàn)存一些典型的適用情形,完成從歸納到演繹的邏輯過(guò)程:特殊類型作品的參與創(chuàng)作;借助互聯(lián)網(wǎng)技術(shù)的信息抓取;首次發(fā)表于網(wǎng)絡(luò)的作品轉(zhuǎn)載于其他網(wǎng)絡(luò);涉及合同之外第三人的作品轉(zhuǎn)委托。隨后,本文從三個(gè)方面重構(gòu)我國(guó)著作權(quán)法默示許可:以權(quán)利人對(duì)使用是否存在合理預(yù)期來(lái)判斷其意圖;使用者的期待應(yīng)當(dāng)具有合理性;而許可范圍必須以權(quán)利人的合理預(yù)期范圍為準(zhǔn)。通過(guò)評(píng)析國(guó)內(nèi)相關(guān)立法和實(shí)踐情形,本文介紹了針對(duì)著作權(quán)法默示許可的態(tài)度和現(xiàn)狀;又通過(guò)比照新的規(guī)則體系,從立法和司法兩個(gè)層面提出援引和完善的建議。立法上僅僅承認(rèn)合同關(guān)系下的默示許可,導(dǎo)致了司法上對(duì)默示許可大多采取回避的態(tài)度,并不明確提出但在案情中默認(rèn)作為前提。為構(gòu)建該規(guī)則體系,立法上我國(guó)應(yīng)當(dāng)放寬民法限制,允許著作權(quán)法默示許可的存在,并將其當(dāng)做法律漏洞填補(bǔ);司法上應(yīng)當(dāng)尊重著作權(quán)中的人格利益,同時(shí)判斷行業(yè)慣例時(shí)應(yīng)當(dāng)慎之又慎。
[Abstract]:Since the establishment of implied licensing mechanism in the common law system, the implied copyright licensing has expanded rapidly with the development of the times. However, there is a large number of gaps in domestic implied copyright licensing. The lack of law leads to confusion in theoretical research and judicial practice. The essence of implied permission in civil law is a kind of civil legal act which is an interesting expression. The difficulty of judging whether it is established or not lies in the inquiry into the real meaning of the right holder. However, with the development of society, the licensing behavior in copyright law becomes more complicated. At the same time, it is difficult to make the transaction safe and smooth by excessive exploration of the real meaning of the right holder. In view of the particularity of copyright law, the exploration of the true meaning of the right holder in the traditional civil basic theory can no longer meet the needs of social development, and this also makes the implied license of copyright law have its unique operating rules. Also has the unique existence value. This paper firstly resolves the difference between the implied license of copyright law and the implied license in civil general theory, and proves the necessity of the existence of special rules of implied license in copyright law. This paper holds that the implied license of copyright law is completely different from the implied license in the general theory of civil law. It not only breaks through the contractual relationship but also preserves the trust interests of the users. Then, on the basis of this, this paper refutes the existing main related theories, and concludes that the implied licensing characteristics of copyright law are: a kind of restriction, not a kind of right content, different from any kind of copyright law. Civil law is theoretically a right of defense, not a plea. Finally, through examples, some typical applications of implied license in copyright law are reviewed, and the logical process from induction to deduction is completed: participation in the creation of special types of works, information capture with the help of Internet technology; Works published online for the first time are reproduced on other networks; works involving third parties outside the contract are subcontracted. Then, this paper reconstructs the implied license of copyright law from three aspects: judging the intention of the right holder on the basis of whether there is a reasonable expectation of the use, the expectation of the user should be reasonable; And the permitted scope must be subject to the legitimate expectations of the obligee. Through the analysis of relevant domestic legislation and practice, this paper introduces the attitude and present situation of implied licensing in copyright law, and puts forward some suggestions on how to quote and perfect it from the two aspects of legislation and judicature by referring to the new rule system. The legislation only recognizes the implied permission under the contract relationship, which leads to the judicial attitude of evading the implied permission, which is not clearly put forward but tacitly regarded as the premise in the case. In order to construct this rule system, in legislation, our country should relax the restriction of civil law, allow the existence of implied license in copyright law and fill it as a loophole in the law, and should respect the interests of personality in copyright in judicature. At the same time, industry practices should be judged with great care.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(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 王棟;;基于網(wǎng)絡(luò)搜索服務(wù)的默示許可制度研究[J];民辦教育研究;2010年02期

2 王棟;;基于網(wǎng)絡(luò)搜索服務(wù)的默示許可制度研究[J];常熟理工學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2010年01期

3 袁真富;;基于侵權(quán)抗辯之專利默示許可探究[J];法學(xué);2010年12期

4 郭威;;默示許可在版權(quán)法中的演進(jìn)與趨勢(shì)[J];東方法學(xué);2012年03期

5 鹿海燕;;淺析專利默示許可制度[J];社科縱橫(新理論版);2013年02期

6 浩然;王國(guó)柱;;意思表示理論對(duì)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)默示許可制度的支撐[J];國(guó)家檢察官學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2013年05期

7 林貴苗;;專利默示許可探析[J];哈爾濱學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2013年10期

8 葉挺舟;;專利默示許可適用條件探析[J];黑龍江省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2013年05期

9 趙莉;質(zhì)疑網(wǎng)絡(luò)版權(quán)中“默示許可”的法律地位[J];電子知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2003年12期

10 房鵬;;論建立我國(guó)專利訴訟的默示許可制度[J];山東審判;2010年06期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前4條

1 袁真富;;專利默示許可制度研究[A];專利法研究（2010）[C];2011年

2 董美根;;論專利默示許可——以對(duì)專利產(chǎn)品合理期待使用為目標(biāo)[A];專利法研究（2010）[C];2011年

3 黃姝;;沉默是“金”?——論標(biāo)準(zhǔn)中的專利默示許可[A];探索社會(huì)主義司法規(guī)律與完善民商事法律制度研究——全國(guó)法院第23屆學(xué)術(shù)討論會(huì)獲獎(jiǎng)?wù)撐募ㄏ拢C];2011年

4 路聰;;著作權(quán)默示許可制度研究[A];提升知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)服務(wù)能力 促進(jìn)創(chuàng)新驅(qū)動(dòng)發(fā)展戰(zhàn)略——2014年中華全國(guó)專利代理人協(xié)會(huì)年會(huì)第五屆知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)論壇優(yōu)秀論文集[C];2014年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前4條

1 中國(guó)政法大學(xué)民商經(jīng)濟(jì)法學(xué)院 朱海嬌;規(guī)范默示許可能否解海量作品授權(quán)之困?[N];中國(guó)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)報(bào);2012年

2 周宇飛;應(yīng)當(dāng)正確理解“默示許可”制度[N];中國(guó)工商報(bào);2004年

3 本報(bào)記者　王曉雁;律師駁斥其并無(wú)法律依據(jù)[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2006年

4 劉寶恒;市場(chǎng)監(jiān)管機(jī)制的制度安排含義探析[N];中國(guó)工商報(bào);2004年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 郭林昕;我國(guó)著作權(quán)默示許可制度研究[D];武漢理工大學(xué);2014年

2 曾夢(mèng)倩;網(wǎng)絡(luò)環(huán)境下著作權(quán)默示許可制度研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2015年

3 吳小萍;著作權(quán)默示許可制度研究[D];南京財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2015年

4 王卜玄(Carmen Wang);對(duì)我國(guó)著作權(quán)法默示許可的重構(gòu)[D];華東政法大學(xué);2015年

5 閆宏;專利默示許可規(guī)則探析[D];清華大學(xué);2007年

6 王曉蓓;版權(quán)法中默示許可適用案例研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2012年

7 王瑋婧;網(wǎng)絡(luò)著作權(quán)侵權(quán)認(rèn)定中的默示許可研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2012年

8 崔瀛;專利默示許可問(wèn)題研究[D];遼寧大學(xué);2012年

9 鄧麗星;專利默示許可制度研究[D];華中科技大學(xué);2012年

10 王琳瀧;我國(guó)著作權(quán)默示許可適用研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2013年

，

本文編號(hào)：1801513