產(chǎn)品說明書著作權(quán)保護研究
發(fā)布時間：2018-09-05 18:14
【摘要】：產(chǎn)品說明書是我們?nèi)粘Ｉ钪薪?jīng)常接觸和需要用到的重要“工具”,隨著市場經(jīng)濟競爭的擴大,產(chǎn)品說明書的作用已經(jīng)不僅僅局限于簡單介紹產(chǎn)品和指導消費者合理使用產(chǎn)品了,產(chǎn)品制造商將智慧的觸角延伸到了產(chǎn)品說明書這一本看似不起眼的部分上。廠家對于投入了自身人力物力財力的產(chǎn)品說明書,便有了保護其成果和權(quán)利的意識,典型的產(chǎn)品說明書著作權(quán)糾紛案和藥品說明書著作權(quán)糾紛案的不同判決,引人深思,在理論界和實務(wù)界都有著廣泛的爭論。藥品說明書作為產(chǎn)品說明書的一種特殊形式,其著作權(quán)爭議尤其大,最高人民法院和全國人大常委會還曾在2012年就“關(guān)于知識產(chǎn)品著作權(quán)中的藥品說明書是否給予司法保護、明確相關(guān)法律界限”向社會征詢修改意見展開調(diào)研,各界人士積極參與討論,對此看法不一。隨著產(chǎn)品說明書的重要性加強,對其進行司法保護的問題亟待解決,產(chǎn)品說明書這一特殊的文字成果的保護模式,可以通過反不正當競爭法的保護、作為一種財產(chǎn)利益的權(quán)利保護,也可以納入著作權(quán)保護范疇,通過對比采取各模式保護的利弊,可知采取著作權(quán)保護是最為妥當?shù)�。事實�?無論是判定產(chǎn)品說明書應(yīng)當作為作品保護還是否定產(chǎn)品說明書作品的屬性,都來自于對作品獨創(chuàng)性的理解與把握,獨創(chuàng)性是作品認定的核心的、實質(zhì)的要件,也是此類案件的爭議焦點。然而我國無論是法律法規(guī)還是最高人民法院司法解釋都沒有對“獨創(chuàng)性”的判定有相對明確的說明,司法實踐中,多依靠法官根據(jù)案情和自身對獨創(chuàng)性的理解進行自由裁量,這會造成司法秩序的混亂�；凇蔼殑�(chuàng)性”這一概念本身的主觀性和抽象性,對其判定的標準終究不可能無比精確,但是要作出一個相對明確的規(guī)定,有章可循、有據(jù)可引才能無限靠近公正客觀。大陸法系和英美法系對獨創(chuàng)性的解釋在司法實踐中不斷發(fā)展完善,也在發(fā)展中趨向于融合,無論是大陸法系的作者權(quán)體系還是英美法系的版權(quán)體系,都對我國獨創(chuàng)性標準的判斷有著可吸收、借鑒之處�？偨Y(jié)學界各主要觀點,我國獨創(chuàng)性的判斷標準主要有三點：獨立完成、具有最低限度的創(chuàng)造性、表達不同或不完全相同,而從包括藥品說明書在內(nèi)的產(chǎn)品說明書的產(chǎn)生制作過程、表現(xiàn)形式等方面來看,可符合上述標準,雖然產(chǎn)品說明書主要為說明文,且受到一定規(guī)范標準的約束,創(chuàng)作空間比較有限,但是這個空間即使再小也是存在的,就應(yīng)當肯定其具有獨創(chuàng)性的可能,只是由于產(chǎn)品說明書本身的特殊性,其在著作權(quán)的權(quán)利保護和權(quán)利限制上,也有不同于一般作品的特殊性。
[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.
【學位授予單位】：遼寧大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2016
【分類號】：D923.41
本文編號：2225062
[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.
【學位授予單位】：遼寧大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2016
【分類號】：D923.41
【參考文獻】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 張春艷;;我國視聽作品著作權(quán)歸屬模式之剖析與選擇[J];知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2015年07期
2 王遷;;論匯編作品的著作權(quán)保護[J];法學;2015年02期
3 于曉白;李嶸;;藥品說明書作品屬性問題探究[J];中國版權(quán);2014年06期
4 趙海燕;;作品獨創(chuàng)性判斷標準及主體認定[J];陜西行政學院學報;2014年03期
5 李燕;韓赤風;;實用藝術(shù)作品的著作權(quán)保護研究——兼評我國《著作權(quán)法》的第三次修改[J];長春理工大學學報(社會科學版);2014年08期
6 陳兵;楊云霞;;藥品說明書適用著作權(quán)法保護問題探析[J];中國新藥雜志;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;2014年15期
8 王坤;;論作品的獨創(chuàng)性——以對作品概念的科學建構(gòu)為分析起點[J];知識產(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)爭議的探討[J];法制與社會;2013年13期
，本文編號：2225062
本文鏈接：http://www.sikaile.net/falvlunwen/minfalunwen/2225062.html
最近更新
教材專著
