作品“转换性使用”:比较考察、法律解释与司法适用

Transformative Use of Works:Comparative Investigation, Legal Interpretation and Judicial Application

"转换性使用"是美国判例法产物。Campell案仅为"转换性使用"提供宏观的、抽象的、碎片性的判决指引。美国后续判例对"转换性"的分歧性认知,对"转换性使用"与合理使用关系的模糊性判读,既弱化了"转换性使用"的规范属性,也间接地影响了我国"转换性使用"的移植与借鉴。当前我国《著作权法》第二十二条第一款二、三项可暂作"转换性使用"的解释依据,《著作权法》第一条可成为上述解释的指导性原则。将《著作权法实施条例》第二十一条作为判断是否构成"转换性使用"的方法还需进一步细化。美国版权法第一百零七条确定的四要素--"使用的目的、作品性质、引用的数量和质量、对作品潜在市场影响"可作为以上判定方法解释的补充。司法适用中,"著作权法合理使用法定主义"囿于立法局限性有悖实体正义,应当弃用;"著作权法合理使用非法定主义"给予法官过度的自由裁量空间,应当限制其使用;"著作权合理使用法定缓和主义"是对第一、二种路径的折中,具有可行性,但仍需修正。

Transformative use is the product of American case law.The Campell case only provides macro,abstract and fragmentary decision guidance for "transformative use".The divergent recognition of "transformative use" and the fuzzy interpretation of the relationship between "transformative use" and fair use in the follow-up cases of the United States not only weaken the normative attribute of "transformative use",but also indirectly affect the transplantation and reference of "transformative use" in China.At present,article 22,paragraph 1,item 2 and item 3 of the Copyright Law of our country can be used as the basis for the interpretation of "transformative use" temporarily,and Article 1 of the Copyright Law can be the guiding principle for the above interpretation.Article 21 of the Implementing Regulations of the Copyright Law should be further elaborated as a judging method to determine whether "transformative use" is constituted or not.The four elements defined in article 107 of the U.S.Copyright Law-"purpose of use,nature of the work,quantity and quality of quotations,and potential market impact on the work" can be used as a supplement to the interpretation of the above determination method.In judicial application,the doctrine of "legalism of rational use of copyright law" is limited by legislative limitations,which is contrary to substantive justice and should be abandoned;the doctrine of "fair use of copyright law without legality" gives judges excessive discretion space and should be restricted;the path of "legal mitigation of fair use of copyright" is essentially a compromise between the first and the second paths,which is feasible.But it still needs to be revised.