本文選題：剽竊 + 獨創(chuàng)性　； 參考：《安徽大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：依據(jù)我國《著作權(quán)法》的規(guī)定,剽竊他人作品的屬于著作權(quán)侵權(quán)行為。對于剽竊的認定標準,我國尚無立法予以明確。關(guān)于剽竊認定標準的立法籠統(tǒng),學(xué)術(shù)研究也處于多元化的狀態(tài),目前我國司法實踐中仍然未形成統(tǒng)一的剽竊認定標準。在司法實踐中,部分法院已經(jīng)在剽竊行為認定方面表現(xiàn)出了極高的專業(yè)水準,但從總體上看,由于沒有明確的認定標準、認定方法和認定主體,我國法院在剽竊認定出現(xiàn)了認定結(jié)論的不穩(wěn)定、不統(tǒng)一等諸多問題。本文從著作權(quán)法的基本原理出發(fā),并結(jié)合美國與中國的司法實踐,嘗試性的就完善我國剽竊法律認定提出建議。本文第一部分對剽竊的文字學(xué)含義進行了剖析,進而就著作權(quán)法意義上的剽竊展開論述。依據(jù)我國法律規(guī)定,對剽竊行為的特征作出總結(jié)：剽竊的對象特定、剽竊行為具有公開性、剽竊行為具有雙重侵權(quán)性以及行為人具有主觀過錯。對剽竊與其他著作權(quán)侵權(quán)行為進行了區(qū)分。從著作權(quán)法兩大基本原則獨創(chuàng)性原則與思想與表達二分法出發(fā),比較了各國獨創(chuàng)性的判斷標準與思想和表達的區(qū)分標準,探究剽竊認定標準的法理基礎(chǔ)。第二部分介紹并比較了美國司法實踐中適用的剽竊認定標準,通過典型案例展示了“接觸與實質(zhì)性相似法”、“抽象測試法”、“抽象——過濾——比較”法、“普通觀眾測試法”與“針對性觀眾測試法”、“內(nèi)在／外在標準”等美國司法實踐中認定作品之間是否具有實質(zhì)性相似的方法。第三部分通過典型案例介紹我國司法實踐中使用的剽竊認定標準,并對我國在剽竊認定中存在的問題進行了總結(jié)。對于如何認定剽竊,目前國內(nèi)尚無法律法規(guī)做出相應(yīng)規(guī)定,這使得我國法院在面對剽竊爭議案件時沒有統(tǒng)一的法律指引,法官擁有較大的自由裁量權(quán),可以任意選擇適用剽竊認定的標準。且剽竊認定的主體仍未得到明確,認定結(jié)果的權(quán)威性難以得到保障。第四部分就我國剽竊認定標準提出建議。結(jié)合利益平衡原則,要求在對剽竊行為進行認定時,應(yīng)寬嚴有度。明確剽竊認定主體,根據(jù)作品類型適用不同的思想與表達的區(qū)分標準,對著作權(quán)法上的公共領(lǐng)域予以過濾。在具體的認定過程中通過接觸認定、實質(zhì)性相似認定和排除合理引用三個步驟對剽竊行為予以認定。
[Abstract]:According to the provisions of copyright Law, plagiarism is copyright infringement. For plagiarism, there is no legislation to identify the criteria. The legislation on the standard of plagiarism is general, and the academic research is also in a pluralistic state. At present, there is still no uniform standard of plagiarism in judicial practice in our country. In judicial practice, some courts have shown a very high professional standard in the determination of plagiarism, but generally speaking, due to the lack of a clear identification standard, the identification method and subject, There are many problems in plagiarism in Chinese courts, such as unstable and inconsistent conclusion. Based on the basic principles of copyright law and the judicial practice of the United States and China, this paper tries to put forward some suggestions on perfecting the legal recognition of plagiarism in China. The first part of this paper analyzes the philological meaning of plagiarism, and then discusses the plagiarism in the sense of copyright law. According to the law of our country, the characteristics of plagiarism are summarized: the object of plagiarism is specific, the act of plagiarism is open, the act of plagiarism is dual tort and the perpetrator has subjective fault. A distinction is made between plagiarism and other copyright infringements. Based on the two basic principles of copyright law, the originality principle and the dichotomy of thought and expression, this paper compares the criterion of originality with the criterion of distinguishing thought and expression, and probes into the legal basis of the criterion of plagiarism. The second part introduces and compares the standards applicable to plagiarism in judicial practice in the United States. Through typical cases, it shows the "contact and substantial similarity", "Abstract Test", "Abstract-Filtration-comparison", In American judicial practice, "ordinary audience Test Act", "targeted audience Test Act", "Internal / external Standard" and other American judicial practices determine whether there are substantial similarities between works. The third part introduces the standard of plagiarism in judicial practice through typical cases, and summarizes the problems existing in the identification of plagiarism in our country. As to how to determine plagiarism, there are no laws and regulations in our country, which makes our courts have no uniform legal guidance in the face of plagiarism disputes, and the judges have greater discretion. You can choose to apply the criteria for plagiarism. The subject of plagiarism is not clear, and the authority of the result is hard to be guaranteed. The fourth part puts forward suggestions on the standards of plagiarism in China. In combination with the principle of balance of interests, it is required that plagiarism should be determined with leniency and strictness. It is clear that the subject of plagiarism should be applied to different standards of thought and expression according to the type of work, and the public domain in copyright law should be filtered. In the concrete identification process, the plagiarism is identified by three steps: contact identification, substantive similarity identification and exclusion of reasonable quotation.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：安徽大學(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10條

1 ;關(guān)于反對著作權(quán)侵權(quán)的聲明[J];上海市政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;2001年04期

2 戴紹業(yè);;互聯(lián)網(wǎng)著作權(quán)侵權(quán)案件管轄問題淺析[J];福建法學(xué);2001年03期

3 王素娟;對目前網(wǎng)絡(luò)著作權(quán)侵權(quán)案件的法律分析[J];法律適用(國家法官學(xué)院學(xué)報);2002年07期

4 王云麗,黃月明;試論認定著作權(quán)侵權(quán)行為的歸責(zé)原則[J];福建政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;2003年04期

5 高之;對“中國期刊數(shù)據(jù)庫”著作權(quán)侵權(quán)案的法律評析[J];軟件世界;2003年07期

6 段煉;網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播中的著作權(quán)侵權(quán)行為分析[J];傳媒觀察;2003年05期

7 李毅鴻;音樂著作權(quán)侵權(quán)的認定問題研究[J];商場現(xiàn)代化;2005年01期

8 孟U，

本文編號：1955924