作品非同质化代币纠纷中的著作权法适用问题研究

Application of The Copyright Law in Trading Works with NFT

著作权交易是区块链及非同质化代币技术发挥优势的重要领域,绝大部分作品非同质化代币销售平台均以内容创作者为主要服务对象,力求解决创作者在艺术品市场中收益较低的问题。与传统作品交易模式相比,作品非同质化代币交易模式具有唯一性、不可删除性、可溯性与自动执行性等区别性特征。当前司法实践对于作品非同质化代币销售行为的规制同时援引了《民法典》第127条的数据与网络虚拟财产保护条款,以及《著作权法》中的信息网络传播权条款。由于法律层面上的“数据”一词并不包含作品的数字化复制件,故对于作品非同质化代币销售行为的规制不应援引《民法典》第127条。目前来看,作品非同质化代币销售行为不会突破发行权穷竭规则。另外,信息网络传播权的调整范围受领域、行为、结果三个种差的限定。为应对非同质化代币及将来可能出现的其他技术对法律适用带来的挑战,可以将信息网络传播权中的行为限定要素,即“提供”,解释为向公众直接或者间接地提供作品,以使立法文本保持适当的灵活性。

Copyright trading is an important field in which blockchain and NFT technology give full play to their advantages.The majority of NFT platforms mainly serve content creators,and strive to solve the problem of low returns for creators in the art market.Compared with the traditional trading mode of works,the trading mode of workswith NFT is unique,non-erasable,traceable and automatic.The current judicial practice simultaneously cites the data and network virtual property protection clause in Article 127 of the Civil Code and the right to network dissemination of informationclause in the Copyright Law.Since the term"data"in legal terms does not include digital copies of works,the article 127 of the Civil Code should not be invoked for the protection of workswith NFT.For now,the NFT trading does not break the exhaustion rule.The right to network dissemination of information is limited by three kinds of difference:domain,behavior and result.In order to cope with NFT and other technical means that may appear in the future,the behavioral limiting element,namely"provision",can be interpreted as the direct or indirect provision of works to the public,so that the legislative text can maintain appropriate flexibility.