期刊文献+

论邻接权保护古籍点校成果的可行性和必要性——比较典型侵权纠纷案例之思考

On the Feasibility and Necessity of the Protection of Ancient Book’s Proofreading Results by Neighboring Rights-Reflections on Typical Infringement Dispute Cases
原文传递
导出
摘要 由于相关法律法规缺位,目前在司法实践中对于如何保护古籍点校成果有较大争议。现有的古籍点校成果侵权纠纷典型案例中法院主要提出的两大保护路径——以著作权保护和以普通民事权益保护,或在法理上不正确,或在执行上可行性低。与现有的两大保护路径比较,以邻接权保护古籍点校成果,不仅符合邻接权保护客体要求、符合邻接权制度初衷,具有法理上的可行性;而且既能建立起有效的激励机制,又能充分保障古籍出版产业公正的竞争秩序,具有权益平衡上的必要性。建议通过立法,增加《著作权法》中邻接权的种类,设置“古籍点校者权”,以疏通邻接权保护路径在立法上的障碍。 Due to the lack of relevant laws and regulations,there is a great controversy in judicial practice on how to protect ancient book’s proofreading.In the existing typical cases of infringement disputes over the results of ancient book’s proofreading,the courts mainly put forward two main protection paths,namely copyright protection and ordinary civil rights and interests,which are either incorrect in legal theory or have low feasibility in enforcement.Compared with the existing two major protection paths,the protection of ancient book’s proofreading by neighboring rights not only meets the requirements of the object of protection of neighboring rights,but also conforms to the original intention of the neighboring rights system,and has legal feasibility.Moreover,it can not only establish an effective incentive mechanism,but also fully guarantee the fair competition order of the ancient book publishing industry,which is necessary to balance rights and interests.It is suggested that legislation should be passed to increase the types of neighboring rights in the Copyright Law,and to set up the“right of proofreaders of ancient books”to clear the legislative obstacles to the protection of neighboring rights.
作者 顾乐融 Lerong Gu(Law School,Yangzhou University,Yangzhou Jiangsu)
机构地区 扬州大学法学院
出处 《法学(汉斯)》 2024年第7期4684-4690,共7页 Open Journal of Legal Science
关键词 邻接权 古籍点校 著作权 Neighboring Rights Ancient Books Proofreading Copyright
  • 相关文献

二级参考文献61

  • 1唐超华.谈古籍标点的著作权[J].知识产权,2001,11(5):45-46. 被引量:7
  • 2邵建东.论我国反不正当竞争法保护“经营性成果”的条件——对若干起典型案例的分析[J].南京大学学报(哲学.人文科学.社会科学),2006,43(1):46-52. 被引量:16
  • 3A. A. Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, 618 F. 2d 972, at 974 (2nd Cir, 1980).
  • 4A. A. Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, 618 F. 2d 972, at 978 -979 (2nd Cir, 1980).
  • 5署名为“天南地北之子”的博文《破解契丹文——赞裴元博先生》,来源:http://blog.sina.corn.cn/lu‘junl30031,2013年1月5日访问.
  • 6郑福臣与大众文艺出版社、北京时代文瑞文化传播有限公司侵犯著作权纠纷,北京市朝阳区人民法院(2010)朝民初字第57629号.
  • 7韩方.国学时代博弈中华书局[N].人民法院报,2012年12月50日(第5版).
  • 8王继明诉王强华等侵犯著作权案,北京市第一中级人民法院(1995)中民初字第2782号.
  • 9胡康生主鳊.《中华人民共和国著作权法释义》[M].北京:法律出版社,2002年:148.
  • 10外语教学与研究出版社诉外文出版社侵犯版式设计及不正当竞争纠纷案北京市第一中级人民法院(2006)-中民初字第6648号.

共引文献93

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部