產(chǎn)品說明書著作權(quán)保護(hù)研究
[Abstract]:Product description is an important "tool" that we often contact and need to use in our daily life. With the expansion of market economy competition, The role of product instructions is no longer limited to simply introducing products and instructing consumers to use them properly. Product manufacturers extend their intellectual tentacles to the seemingly obscure part of the product manual. Manufacturers have a sense of protection of their achievements and rights when they have invested their own human and material resources in the product specification. The different judgments of the typical product specification copyright dispute case and the drug instruction copyright dispute case are thought-provoking. There is a wide range of arguments in the theoretical and practical circles. As a special form of product instructions, the copyright dispute is especially great. The Supreme people's Court and the standing Committee of the National people's Congress also gave judicial protection to the pharmaceutical instructions in the copyright of intellectual products in 2012. Clarify the relevant legal boundaries "to the community to consult the revision of the opinion to conduct research, people from all walks of life actively participate in the discussion, this view is different." With the strengthening of the importance of the product specification, the judicial protection of the product specification needs to be solved. The protection model of the product specification, which is a special written achievement, can be protected by the anti-unfair competition law. As a kind of property right protection, it can also be brought into the scope of copyright protection. By comparing the advantages and disadvantages of adopting various modes of protection, we can know that it is most appropriate to adopt copyright protection. In fact, whether it is to judge whether the product specification should be regarded as the property of the product description as the protection or negation of the product description, it comes from the understanding and grasp of the originality of the work, which is the core and essential element of the work. It is also the focus of controversy in such cases. However, neither the laws nor the judicial interpretations of the Supreme people's Court have a relatively clear explanation of "originality". In judicial practice, the judge is more dependent on the judge's discretion according to the circumstances of the case and his own understanding of originality. This will cause confusion in the judicial order. Based on the subjectivity and abstractness of the concept of "originality", it is impossible to judge the standard of "originality" very accurately after all, but it is necessary to make a relatively clear stipulation that there are rules to follow, and there is evidence to be cited in order to be infinitely close to impartiality and objectivity. The interpretation of originality in the civil law system and the common law system has been continuously developed and perfected in the judicial practice, and also tends to merge in the development, whether it is the author's right system of the civil law system or the copyright system of the common law system. Both of our country's original standards of judgment have absorbable, reference. Summing up the main points of view in academic circles, the criteria for judging originality in our country are mainly three: independent completion, minimum creativity, different or not identical expressions, And from the production process and form of production of product instructions, including drug instructions, it can meet the above standards, although the product specifications are mainly written and are bound by certain normative standards. The creative space is relatively limited, but this space exists even if it is small, so it should be affirmed that it has the possibility of originality, only because of the particularity of the product description itself, it is in the protection and limitation of copyright rights. There are also different from the general works of particularity.
【學(xué)位授予單位】:遼寧大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】:碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】:2016
【分類號(hào)】:D923.41
【參考文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 張春艷;;我國(guó)視聽作品著作權(quán)歸屬模式之剖析與選擇[J];知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2015年07期
2 王遷;;論匯編作品的著作權(quán)保護(hù)[J];法學(xué);2015年02期
3 于曉白;李嶸;;藥品說明書作品屬性問題探究[J];中國(guó)版權(quán);2014年06期
4 趙海燕;;作品獨(dú)創(chuàng)性判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)及主體認(rèn)定[J];陜西行政學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2014年03期
5 李燕;韓赤風(fēng);;實(shí)用藝術(shù)作品的著作權(quán)保護(hù)研究——兼評(píng)我國(guó)《著作權(quán)法》的第三次修改[J];長(zhǎng)春理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2014年08期
6 陳兵;楊云霞;;藥品說明書適用著作權(quán)法保護(hù)問題探析[J];中國(guó)新藥雜志;2014年12期
7 鄒欣芯;;藥品說明書的著作權(quán)問題探析[J];法制與社會(huì);2014年15期
8 王坤;;論作品的獨(dú)創(chuàng)性——以對(duì)作品概念的科學(xué)建構(gòu)為分析起點(diǎn)[J];知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2014年04期
9 陳笑塵;;藥品說明書不是著作權(quán)法意義上的作品[J];人民司法;2013年20期
10 楊帆;;關(guān)于藥品說明書著作權(quán)爭(zhēng)議的探討[J];法制與社會(huì);2013年13期
,本文編號(hào):2225062
本文鏈接:http://www.sikaile.net/falvlunwen/minfalunwen/2225062.html