委托作品归属约定不明问题疏证

An Analysis of the Uncertainty Abont the Ownership Agreement of the Commissioned Work

关于委托作品的归属问题,我国《著作权法》第17条规定“合同未作明确约定”时,著作权属于受托人。当下各种学说集中于探讨委托作品制度的制度渊源和制度正当性,缺乏对上述法条的规范解释,亦未对“合同未作明确约定”的法律性质作出正确的认识。该法条存在逻辑上的构造缺陷,在二值逻辑语境下,“合同未明确约定著作权归属”只是当事人诉诸法律的诉因,并非独立的经过法律论证后的法律事实。因此,委托作品归属未作明确约定,其实质是意思表示的解释问题,即通过《民法总则》第142条和《合同法》第125条关于意思表示解释规则“使之明确”——有约定或未约定,以明确后的法律事实,确定权利归属。法院径直以“合同未作明确约定”为由,判决“著作权属于受托人”,既违背了据实裁判的基本原则,也不符合法律推理的基本要求。所以,现行法律的规定给司法裁判带来不合理的结果,委托作品制度中的“合同未作明确约定”情形不必在《著作权法》中规定。

With regard to the ownership of commissioned works,Article 17 of the Copyright Law stipulates that when the contract is not explicitly agreed upon,the copyright belongs to the trustee.Nowadays,various theories focus on discussing the institutional origin and legitimacy of the commissioned works system,lacking the normative interpretation of the above-mentioned articles,and failing to make a correct understanding of the legal nature of “the contract is not explicitly agreed upon”.In the context of binary logic,the contract without explicitly stipulating the ownership of copyright is only the reason for the parties to resort to law,rather than an independent legal fact after legal argumentation.Therefore,the attribution of commissioned work without clearly stipulating ownership is the interpretation of the expression of intention.Through the interpretation rules of the expression of intention in Article 142 of the General Principles of Civil Law and Article 125 of the Contract Law,we can make it clear,then clarify the legal facts and determine the ownership of rights.The court ruled that copyright belongs to the trustee on the basis of the contract without clearly stipulating ownership,which violated the basic principle of factual judgment and the basic requirement of legal reasoning.Therefore,the provisions of the current law bring unreasonable results to the judicial adjudication.It is not necessary to stipulate in the Copyright Law.