發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-05-02 03:56

  本文選題：實(shí)用藝術(shù)作品 + 著作權(quán)��； 參考：《中國(guó)政法大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：實(shí)用藝術(shù)作品作為較新的作品類型,在現(xiàn)行著作權(quán)法中的規(guī)定并不明確,著作權(quán)法第三次修改草案將實(shí)用藝術(shù)作品列為獨(dú)立的作品類型,但是實(shí)用藝術(shù)作品的著作權(quán)保護(hù)在理論上和實(shí)踐中仍然存在很多爭(zhēng)議問(wèn)題,本文試圖通過(guò)研究相關(guān)問(wèn)題得出結(jié)論,為實(shí)用藝術(shù)作品的司法實(shí)踐提供理論指導(dǎo)和建議。本文運(yùn)用比較分析的方法,比較了美國(guó)、法國(guó)、日本三個(gè)國(guó)家關(guān)于實(shí)用藝術(shù)作品保護(hù)范圍的立法規(guī)定和司法實(shí)踐,三個(gè)國(guó)家代表了實(shí)用藝術(shù)作品著作權(quán)保護(hù)制度發(fā)展的不同階段以及持有的不同態(tài)度,對(duì)我國(guó)相關(guān)法律規(guī)定的完善具有重要意義。同時(shí)運(yùn)用歷史分析的方法,縱觀我國(guó)對(duì)實(shí)用藝術(shù)作品著作權(quán)保護(hù)從無(wú)到有的發(fā)展歷程,不同階段關(guān)注和討論的不同問(wèn)題,從正當(dāng)性論證到具體適用問(wèn)題的研究,實(shí)用藝術(shù)作品著作權(quán)保護(hù)的理論得到不斷的豐富和完善。另外,本文還引用了較多的國(guó)內(nèi)外案例,從司法實(shí)踐的角度尋找和分析問(wèn)題,更貼近實(shí)際,更好地為實(shí)踐提供借鑒。本文主體部分分為六個(gè)章節(jié),第一章主要根據(jù)實(shí)用藝術(shù)作品定義的現(xiàn)有研究成果,分析實(shí)用藝術(shù)作品的基本特征和屬性,從而得出實(shí)用藝術(shù)作品的定義,列舉實(shí)用藝術(shù)作品的表現(xiàn)形式。第二章介紹了思想表達(dá)兩分法原則、實(shí)用藝術(shù)作品和外觀設(shè)計(jì)專利的協(xié)調(diào)和實(shí)用藝術(shù)作品產(chǎn)業(yè)價(jià)值,論證了實(shí)用藝術(shù)作品的可著作權(quán)性。第三章深入介紹美國(guó)、法國(guó)、日本關(guān)于實(shí)用藝術(shù)作品實(shí)用要素和藝術(shù)要素是否可分離的法律規(guī)定和司法實(shí)踐,比較各國(guó)做法的利弊,為探尋適合我國(guó)的做法提供依據(jù)。第四章分析實(shí)用藝術(shù)作品藝術(shù)性判斷的實(shí)質(zhì),論證實(shí)用藝術(shù)作品的藝術(shù)性判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)應(yīng)該等同于美術(shù)作品藝術(shù)性的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。第五章從實(shí)踐的角度出發(fā),提出實(shí)用藝術(shù)作品認(rèn)定的兩個(gè)步驟,即判斷是否屬于實(shí)用藝術(shù)品和判斷是否具有獨(dú)創(chuàng)性、可復(fù)制性,以及侵權(quán)判斷中應(yīng)適當(dāng)排除實(shí)用要素的影響,在與外觀設(shè)計(jì)專利的協(xié)調(diào)上,論證了實(shí)用藝術(shù)作品和外觀設(shè)計(jì)專利相互獨(dú)立,說(shuō)明了實(shí)施已失效的外觀設(shè)計(jì)專利不侵犯著作權(quán)的問(wèn)題等。第六章結(jié)論部分,總結(jié)了本文關(guān)于實(shí)用藝術(shù)作品的主要觀點(diǎn),為更好地保護(hù)實(shí)用藝術(shù)作品權(quán)利人的權(quán)利、鼓勵(lì)實(shí)用藝術(shù)作品的創(chuàng)新以及促進(jìn)實(shí)用藝術(shù)作品行業(yè)的健康發(fā)展,對(duì)實(shí)用藝術(shù)作品著作權(quán)保護(hù)的實(shí)踐提出來(lái)可行的建議。
[Abstract]:As a relatively new type of work, practical art works are not clearly defined in the current copyright Law. The third Amendment draft of the copyright Law lists the works of practical art as an independent type of work. However, there are still many controversial issues in the theory and practice of copyright protection of practical works of art. This paper tries to draw a conclusion by studying the relevant issues, and provides theoretical guidance and suggestions for the judicial practice of practical works of art. This paper, by means of comparative analysis, compares the legislative provisions and judicial practices of the United States, France and Japan on the scope of protection of practical works of art. The three countries represent different stages of the development of the copyright protection system of practical works of art and hold different attitudes, which is of great significance to the perfection of the relevant laws and regulations of our country. At the same time, by using the method of historical analysis, the author makes a general survey of the development of copyright protection of practical works of art in our country, the different problems concerned and discussed in different stages, from the justification argument to the study of concrete application. The theory of copyright protection of practical works of art has been continuously enriched and perfected. In addition, this paper also cited more domestic and foreign cases, from the point of view of judicial practice to find and analyze the problem, closer to the reality, a better reference for practice. The main body of this paper is divided into six chapters. The first chapter mainly analyzes the basic characteristics and attributes of practical works of art according to the existing research results of the definition of practical works of art, so as to obtain the definition of practical works of art. Enumerate the forms of expression of a practical work of art. The second chapter introduces the principle of dichotomy of thought expression, the coordination of practical art works and design patents, and the industrial value of practical works of art, and demonstrates the copyright of practical works of art. The third chapter deeply introduces the legal provisions and judicial practice of the United States, France and Japan on the separation of practical elements and artistic elements of practical works of art, compares the advantages and disadvantages of the practices of various countries, and provides the basis for exploring the practice suitable for our country. The fourth chapter analyzes the essence of the artistic judgment of practical works of art, and proves that the standard of judging the artistry of practical works of art should be equal to that of artistic works of fine arts. The fifth chapter puts forward two steps to identify practical works of art from the point of view of practice, that is, to judge whether the works belong to practical works of art and whether they are original, to be replicable, and to exclude the influence of practical elements in tort judgment. In coordination with the design patent, this paper demonstrates the independence between the practical art work and the design patent, and explains the problem that the invalid design patent does not infringe the copyright, etc. In the last part of chapter six, the author summarizes the main views of this paper on practical works of art, in order to better protect the rights of the right holders of practical works of art, to encourage the innovation of practical works of art and to promote the healthy development of the industry of practical works of art. Some feasible suggestions are put forward for the practice of copyright protection of practical works of art.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國(guó)政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：D923.41

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 徐康平;程樂(lè);;實(shí)用藝術(shù)作品的法律保護(hù)[J];北京工商大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2007年01期

2 周長(zhǎng)玲;淺析實(shí)用藝術(shù)品的法律保護(hù)[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2000年04期

3 劉繼祥;英特萊格公司實(shí)用藝術(shù)著作權(quán)糾紛案[J];電子知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2003年05期

4 郭寶明;淺析實(shí)用藝術(shù)作品的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)[J];電子知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2003年05期

5 梁志文;;云計(jì)算、技術(shù)中立與版權(quán)責(zé)任[J];法學(xué);2011年03期

6 黃錢欣;;論實(shí)用藝術(shù)作品的“胎記” 以中日司法實(shí)踐為視角看實(shí)用藝術(shù)作品的“審美意義”[J];電子知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2013年12期

7 呂炳斌;;實(shí)用藝術(shù)作品可版權(quán)性的理論邏輯[J];比較法研究;2014年03期

8 徐曉雁;張鵬;;外觀設(shè)計(jì)專利權(quán)與實(shí)用藝術(shù)品著作權(quán)競(jìng)合沖突問(wèn)題與對(duì)策研究[J];中國(guó)發(fā)明與專利;2014年08期

9 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

10 吳曉梅;;實(shí)用藝術(shù)作品的界定及保護(hù)[J];人民司法;2005年04期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前1條

1 高嵐;;淺析實(shí)用藝術(shù)作品的保護(hù)模式——關(guān)于著作權(quán)保護(hù)與外觀設(shè)計(jì)專利權(quán)保護(hù)關(guān)系的思考[A];2013年中華全國(guó)專利代理人協(xié)會(huì)年會(huì)暨第四屆知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)論壇論文匯編第四部分[C];2013年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前5條

1 朱靜;論實(shí)用藝術(shù)作品的著作權(quán)保護(hù)[D];浙江工商大學(xué);2011年

2 崔志華;著作權(quán)法中思想與表達(dá)二分法原則研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2008年

3 胡爽;實(shí)用藝術(shù)作品的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)問(wèn)題研究[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2010年

4 毛禾楓;論我國(guó)實(shí)用藝術(shù)品的法律保護(hù)體系構(gòu)建[D];上海交通大學(xué);2012年

5 林丹丹;3D打印技術(shù)的版權(quán)問(wèn)題研究[D];浙江大學(xué);2014年

，

本文編號(hào)：1832273