本文選題：立體作品 + 模型作品�。� 參考：《華東政法大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：“立體作品”是《著作權(quán)法》第三次修改過程中新引入的作品類型,目的是為了修改現(xiàn)行《著作權(quán)法》第三條第七款保護的“模型作品”。根據(jù)《著作權(quán)法》(修改草案送審稿)的規(guī)定,“立體作品,是為生產(chǎn)產(chǎn)品、展示地理地形、說明事物原理或者結(jié)構(gòu)而創(chuàng)作的三維作品�！蔽覈鴱�1991年開始,《著作權(quán)法》即保護“反映地理地形、說明事物原理或者結(jié)構(gòu)”的圖形和模型作品。但是后來的修法中由于對于“模型”一詞來源與含義的誤解,導(dǎo)致了現(xiàn)行著作權(quán)法中的“模型作品”的定義不符合著作權(quán)法基本原理,命名容易引起誤解,在實踐中產(chǎn)生了很多問題。正因如此,我國《著作權(quán)法》第三次修改過程中試圖引入“立體作品”條款,替代現(xiàn)行《著作權(quán)法》中不當(dāng)?shù)摹澳Ｐ妥髌贰睏l款。目前學(xué)界尚沒有針對《著作權(quán)法》(修改草案送審稿)中“立體作品”條款的研究,對于這一條款規(guī)定來源和含義究竟為何,其規(guī)范的命名和體例是否恰當(dāng),目前尚沒有明確的答案。對此,筆者想從我國立法史、相關(guān)國際公約歷史、各國立法,以及國內(nèi)外案例等多方面進行研究,重構(gòu)“立體作品”之定義及保護范圍,從而為第三次《著作權(quán)法》修改作參考。本文第一部分,筆者將闡述我國“立體作品”的立法背景及發(fā)展,厘清引入“立體作品”條款的原因,論證引入“立體作品”條款是為了修改現(xiàn)行《著作權(quán)法》中“模型作品”條款的規(guī)定。同時指出“立體作品”條款的定義方式、用語和體例,部分來源于1991年《著作權(quán)法實施條例》中的規(guī)定,實質(zhì)上是對于該條例規(guī)定的延續(xù)。本文第二部分,筆者將結(jié)合著作權(quán)法基本原理以及我國的司法實踐,證明我國現(xiàn)行《著作權(quán)法》中“模型作品”條款存在著很大的問題,從而論證引入新的“立體作品”條款的必要性。同時指出現(xiàn)行條款的問題可能來源于立法者對于《伯爾尼公約》第二條第七款的規(guī)定的誤解,分析《伯爾尼公約》中該條款的真實含義與意義,證明該條款與“立體作品”這一類別的規(guī)定并無關(guān)聯(lián)。本文第三部分,筆者將指出修改草案中引入的“立體作品”條款,實際上是為了完成《伯爾尼公約》第二條第一款最后一項“立體作品”條款賦予成員國的義務(wù)。分析《伯爾尼公約》中這一“立體作品”條款的歷史沿革、含義和效力。同時闡述在公約體系下,這一作品類型與其他作品類型的關(guān)系。從而正確理解《伯爾尼公約》賦予我國的義務(wù),并明晰公約中“立體作品”性質(zhì)和立法體例,供我國《著作權(quán)法》修改作參考。本文第四部分,筆者將對修改草案以及《伯爾尼公約》中要求保護的“立體作品”進行分析,論證“為生產(chǎn)產(chǎn)品而創(chuàng)作的三維作品”不應(yīng)受著作權(quán)法保護。同時參考《伯爾尼公約》的立法體例,結(jié)合修改草案中“立體作品”與“圖形作品”兩個條款進行分析,論證重新整合這兩個條款,以新的“科學(xué)作品”與“技術(shù)類圖形作品”條款來替代這兩個條款的必要性。
[Abstract]:"Stereoscopic works" is a new type of work introduced in the third revision of copyright law. The purpose is to amend the "model works" of the current copyright law, which is protected by the third seventh sections. According to the provisions of the copyright law (Revised Draft), "the three-dimensional works are for the production of the products, the display of geographical terrain, the principle of things or the principle of things." From 1991, "the copyright law" of China, "the copyright law", which protects the graphic and model works of "reflecting the geographical terrain, explaining the principle or structure of things". But in the subsequent revision, the misunderstanding of the source and meaning of the word "model" led to the determination of "model works" in the current copyright law. It does not conform to the basic principles of copyright law, which is easy to cause misunderstanding and causes many problems in practice. Because of this, the "three-dimensional works" clause in the third revision process of copyright law in China is introduced to replace the unsuitable "model works" clause in the current copyright law. The study of the "stereoscopic works" clause in the draft is not a clear answer to the origin and meaning of the provision and its proper name and style. The author wants to study the history of our legislation, the history of the international conventions, the legislation of various countries, and the cases at home and abroad. In the first part of this article, the author will explain the legislative background and development of the "three-dimensional works" in our country and clarify the reasons for the introduction of the "three-dimensional works" clause in the first part of this article, and demonstrate that the introduction of the "three-dimensional works" clause is to modify the current copyright law. The provisions of the "model works" clause. At the same time, it is pointed out that the definition of "stereoscopic works" clause, language and style, partly derived from the provisions of the copyright law enforcement Ordinance in 1991, is essentially a continuation of the regulation. In the second part of this article, the author will combine the basic principles of the right law and the judicial practice in our country. There are a lot of problems in the existing "model works" clause in the copyright law of China, which demonstrates the necessity of introducing the new "three-dimensional works" clause. It also points out that the current clause may come from the misunderstanding of the provisions of the Berne Convention, the second provisions of the Berne Convention, and the analysis of the clause in the Berne Convention. In the third part of this article, the author will point out that the "stereoscopic work" clause introduced in the revised draft is actually designed to complete the obligations of the member states to the last item of the Berne Convention, the last item of the second first paragraph. The historical evolution, meaning and effect of the "three dimensional works" clause in the Berne Convention, and the relationship between the type of this work and the other types of works under the system of the Convention, and the correct understanding of the obligations entrusted to our country by the Berne Convention, and the definition of the nature of the "three-dimensional works" and the legislative style in the Convention for the copyright of our country In the fourth part of this article, the author will analyze the revised draft and the "three-dimensional works" required for protection in the Berne Convention, demonstrating that the "three-dimensional works created for the production of products" should not be protected by copyright law. With the analysis of the two terms of "graphic works", it is demonstrated that the two articles are reintegrated, and the necessity of replacing the two terms with the new "scientific works" and "technical graphic works" clause.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D923.41

【相似文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前7條

1 韋之 ,楊紅菊;《伯爾尼公約》中的“國民待遇”原則之例外[J];知識產(chǎn)權(quán);1997年04期

2 鄧紹根;;《伯爾尼公約》在中國的早期傳播[J];出版史料;2006年02期

3 徐學(xué)銀;《伯爾尼公約》與《世界版權(quán)公約》之比較[J];徐州師范學(xué)院學(xué)報;1995年03期

4 金懋初;;我國《著作權(quán)法》與《伯爾尼公約》[J];法學(xué)雜志;1993年05期

5 賀小勇;;WTO框架下中美文化作品市場準(zhǔn)入爭端的法律問題[J];國際商務(wù)研究;2008年06期

6 姚多生;;論《伯爾尼公約》與我國《著作權(quán)法》在適用上的關(guān)系[J];勞動保障世界(理論版);2012年06期

7 ;[J];;年期

相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前6條

1 王海鎮(zhèn);在爭端和代價中學(xué)習(xí)競爭[N];國際商報;2009年

2 知觀;戈蘭案會判決美國違反國際版權(quán)條約嗎?[N];中國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)報;2009年

3 吳凱 金樹勇;標(biāo)題引出的商標(biāo)話題[N];中國工商報;2003年

4 永軍;保護知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的主要國際公約[N];中國化工報;2001年

5 早報首席評論員 沈彬;“獅身像”侵權(quán)了嗎[N];東方早報;2014年

6 浙江工商大學(xué)法學(xué)院副教授 宋杰;中國國際訴訟之路依舊漫長[N];法制日報;2009年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 施云雯;“立體作品”著作權(quán)保護研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2015年

，

本文編號：2066846