评“死海卷宗案” 被引量：2

The Dead Sea Scrolls Case

下载PDF

导出

摘要 "死海卷宗案"涉及的是一个含有推测因素的事实作品的可版权性问题。事实并非由作者所创作,不应受版权保护,而应该属于公有领域。虽然作者对事实的推测花费了劳动和技巧,但法院一般认为有关客观事实的理论不具有可版权性。从版权法的立法目的、利益衡量、版权法的基本原理等角度出发,该案中以利沙.齐蒙所重建的历史文本不应当受版权保护。由该案进一步合理延伸,我们认为,不论是客观事实还是有关客观事实的理论都不应当受版权保护。 Whether the Dead Sea Scrolls are copyrightable or not involves an issue of speculation. The factual works are not created by the author, therefore the author do not own the copyrigh the public domain. Though the author shed sweat in speculating the works, the court t and the works belong to generally doesn＇ t regard factual works copyrightable. Taking the purpose and the fundamental theories of the Copyright Law into consideration.

作者卢海君

机构地区中南财经政法大学

出处《西南政法大学学报》 2008年第5期57-61,共5页 Journal of Southwest University of Political Science and Law

基金吴汉东教授主持的中南财经政法大学知识产权研究中心2004年度基地重大项目"知识产权基础理论研究"(04JJD820005)的成果

关键词事实作品推测公有领域可版权性 factual works speculation public domain

分类号 D923.41 [政治法律—民商法学]

引文网络
相关文献

参考文献10

1.Jewelers’Circular Publishing Co.v.Keystone Publishing Co[].F(SDNY)aff’dF(d Cir)certdeniedUS.
2.Harper&Row,Publishers,Inc.v.Nation Enters[].US.1985
3.Hoehling v.Universal City Studios,Inc[].Fd.1980
4.Hoehling v.Universal City Studios,Inc[].Fd.1980
5.Nash v.CBS,Inc[].Fd.1990
6Michelle R.Silver-tein.The Copyright Ability Of Factual Compilations:An Interpretation f Feist Through Cases Of Maps And Numbers[].AnnSurvAm.1996
7Jessica Litman.THE PUBLIC DOMAIN[].Emory LJ.1990
8.Twentieth Century Music Corp.v.Aiken[].US.1975
9David Nimmer.The Fifth Annual Frankel Lecture:Address Copyright In The Dead Sea SCcrolls:Authorship And Originality[].HousLRev.2001
10.Hoehling v.Universal City Studios[].Fd.1980

同被引文献48

1刘仁.《<我是歌手>就字体侵权致歉》.中国知识产权报资讯网http://www.cipnews.com.cn/showArticle.asp?Articleid=34771,2015年2月14日.
2Russ VerSteeg, Intent, Originality, Creativity and Joint Authorship, 68 Brooklyn L. Rev. 125.
3David Nimmer, Copyright in the Dead Sea Scrolls:authorship and originality 110-159 HOUS. L. REV. 1 (2001).
41 Nimmer §6.03,at 6-7.
5Weissmann v. Freeman, 868 F.2d 1313,1315 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1989),.
6Shapiro, Bemstein & C Jerry Vogel Music Co., 223 F.2d 252 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1955).
7Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F.2d 119,121 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1930).
8Alfred C. Yen, A First Amendment Perspective on The Idea/Expression Dichotomy and Copyright in a Work's "Total Concept and Feel", 38 Emory L.J. 393,405(1989).
9Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co., 429 F.2d 1106, 1110 (9th Cir. 1970).
10Reyher v. Children's Television Workshop, 533 F.2d 87, 91 (2d Cir. 1976).