静态手段侵犯舞蹈作品版权认定研究兼评月光舞蹈案

Study on the Recognition of Copyright Infringement of Dance Works by Static Means--Commenting on Moonlight Dance Case

月光舞蹈案作为我国首例“以静态手段侵犯舞蹈作品版权案”,引起了学界和实务界的广泛讨论。再审法院将服装、化妆和道具等舞台元素纳入舞蹈作品的保护范围进行侵权对比,并认定了单个舞蹈动作的可版权性,但解释力仍显不足。本文首先审视舞蹈作品的内涵与著作权法的立法精神,分析服装、化妆和道具等舞台元素,本质上是服务于舞蹈表演的辅助元素,而非舞蹈作品的“动作”范畴,将它们单独视为作品,显然与著作权法保护“最低限度的智力创造”的原则相悖。其次,单个舞蹈动作难以全面体现编舞者的艺术追求,其实质更多是对身体动作的“发现”,而非“创作”,不属于合格的外在表达,若给予过度保护,不仅难以用于侵权判断,还可能抑制舞蹈艺术的创新与发展。最后,在评估静态作品与动态作品之间的相似程度时,应当将同一作品类型进行对比,以避免主观感受的不确定性,从而出现类似案件中判决不一致的结果。

"Moonlight"Dance Case,as the first case of"infringement of copyright of dance works by static means"in China,has aroused extensive discussions in the academic and practical circles.The retrial included the stage elements such as costumes in the scope of protection of dance works for infringement comparison,and recognized the copyrightability of individual dance movements,but the explanatory power is still insuficient.This article first examines the connotation of dance works and the spirit of the copyright law legislation,analyzing costumes,makeup and props and other stage elements,essentially auxiliary elements to serve the dance performance,rather than the dance works of the"action"category,they are considered as a work,obviously contradicts the principle that copyright law protects"minimal intellectual creation".Secondly,it is dificult to fully reflect the artistic pursuit of choreographers in a single dance movement,the essence of which is more a"discovery"of body movement rather than a"creation",and does not belong to the qualified external expression,and if excessive protection is given,it is not only dificult to be used in the judgment of infringement,but also may inhibit the innovation and development of dance art.Finally,when assessing the degree of similarity between static and dynamic works,the same type of work should be compared in order to avoid the uncertainty of subjective feelings,which may lead to inconsistent judgments in similar cases.