本文選題：視聽作品 + 權(quán)利歸屬��； 參考：《寧波大學》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：視聽作品既是作品,又是視聽產(chǎn)品。作為視聽作品,各作者和表演者作為藝術(shù)創(chuàng)造者,自然應當對作品享有相應權(quán)利;而作為市場經(jīng)濟中的視聽產(chǎn)品,其制片者也應當對最終的產(chǎn)品享有相應權(quán)利。所以,如何在分配視聽作品利益時實現(xiàn)制片者和作者、表演者之間的利益平衡是本文關(guān)注和解決的核心問題。文章第一部分分析了視聽作品的著作權(quán)歸屬。首先,從修改草案對視聽作品的權(quán)屬規(guī)定入手,指出修改草案導致視聽作品的著作權(quán)人及其作者的歸屬更加混亂。其次,分析了視聽作品的屬性,認為視聽作品從外部關(guān)系上看是演繹作品,從內(nèi)部關(guān)系上看是合作作品。最后,主張視聽作品合作作者范圍確定應采取“半封閉式”模式,并以此認定視聽作品的著作權(quán)應原始歸屬于其合作作者。文章第二部分分析了視聽作品中表演者權(quán)的歸屬。首先,從修改草案權(quán)屬規(guī)定的立法混亂入手,認為表演者權(quán)的主體確定應該是對表演者權(quán)的主體進行限定,而不是對表演者的概念進行限定。其次,從視聽表演者權(quán)的發(fā)展沿革,特別是《北京條約》的相關(guān)規(guī)定來看,認為視聽作品中的視聽表演者權(quán)應原始歸屬于表演者。文章第三部分對二次獲酬權(quán)的可行性進行了分析。首先,闡述了二次獲酬權(quán)的基本問題,指出草案的相關(guān)規(guī)定及其簡要說明和現(xiàn)有理論研究都尚未界定二次獲酬權(quán)的概念和明晰其內(nèi)涵。其次,對二次獲酬權(quán)的可行性進行了判斷,認為即使明確了內(nèi)涵,其在實際操作中也不具有可行性。最后,結(jié)合域外法的考察,明晰了相關(guān)國際條約和國外立法也沒有規(guī)定作者和表演者享有所謂二次獲酬權(quán),只是國內(nèi)學者誤以為可資借鑒的良方。文章第四部分闡述了應在合同視野下實現(xiàn)視聽作品的利益平衡。首先,對權(quán)利歸屬的兩類立法模式作了詳細分析,認為國內(nèi)立法應采取推定轉(zhuǎn)讓模式。其次,為保障作者和表演者在推定轉(zhuǎn)讓模式下的合同權(quán)益,主張法律應對合同的意思自治進行適當干預,可借鑒德國著作權(quán)法規(guī)定的“共同報酬規(guī)則”和顯失公平時的“變更報酬請求權(quán)”。
[Abstract]:Audiovisual works are not only works, but also audiovisual products. As audio-visual works, writers and performers, as artistic creators, should naturally enjoy the corresponding rights to the works, and as audio-visual products in the market economy, their producers should also enjoy the corresponding rights to the final products. Therefore, how to balance the interests of producers, authors and performers in the distribution of the interests of audiovisual works is the core problem that this paper focuses on and solves. The first part of the article analyzes the copyright ownership of audiovisual works. First of all, the author points out that the revised draft leads to the confusion of the ownership of the copyright owner and the author of the audio-visual work. Secondly, the author analyzes the attributes of audio-visual works and thinks that audio-visual works are deductive works from the external relationship and cooperative works from the internal relationship. Finally, it is proposed that the scope of co-authors of audio-visual works should be determined by "semi-closed" mode, and that the copyright of audio-visual works should belong to the co-authors. The second part of the article analyzes the ownership of performers' rights in audio-visual works. First of all, starting from the legislative confusion of amending the right of ownership in the draft, the author thinks that the subject of performer's right should be defined by the subject of performer's right, not the concept of performer's right. Secondly, from the development and evolution of audiovisual performers' rights, especially the relevant provisions of the Beijing Treaty, the author thinks that the audio-visual performers' rights in audio-visual works should belong to the performers. The third part of the article analyzes the feasibility of the right to second pay. First of all, the basic problems of the right to second pay are expounded, and it is pointed out that the relevant provisions of the draft and its brief explanation and existing theoretical studies have not defined the concept of the right to second pay and clarified its connotation. Secondly, the feasibility of the right to second pay is judged, even if the connotation is clear, it is not feasible in practice. Finally, combined with the investigation of the extraterritorial law, it is clear that the relevant international treaties and foreign legislation also do not stipulate that the authors and performers enjoy the so-called right to second pay, which is only a good way for domestic scholars to think that they can be used for reference. The fourth part of the article expounds that the interests of audio-visual works should be balanced in the field of contract. Firstly, the author makes a detailed analysis of the two kinds of legislative models of the attribution of rights, and thinks that the domestic legislation should adopt the mode of presumption transfer. Secondly, in order to protect the contractual rights and interests of the author and performer under the mode of constructive transfer, it is advocated that the law should intervene appropriately in the autonomy of the meaning of the contract. We can draw lessons from the rules of common remuneration stipulated by German copyright law and the right of claim for change of remuneration when it is manifestly unfair.
【學位授予單位】：寧波大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D923.41

【相似文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 湯嘯天;王曉晶;;促進利益平衡 實現(xiàn)社會和諧發(fā)展[J];紅旗文稿;2006年22期

2 田必耀;尋找選民與代表的利益平衡[J];人大研究;2002年03期

3 郭劍寒;林梓;;網(wǎng)絡環(huán)境下的著作權(quán)利益平衡[J];唯實;2006年04期

4 牛犁;王健龍;;從“郵改風波”看立法中的利益平衡[J];人大研究;2006年11期

5 馬丹丹;;從利益平衡角度來看國際知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護的現(xiàn)狀——兼論我國在利益失衡中的出路[J];法制與社會;2007年07期

6 王s，

本文編號：2068282