有序受限与混乱自由之间的博弈——关于音像著作权纠纷案原告主体资格的认定

Game between Orderly Restriction and Chaotic Freedom——On the Identification of Plaintiff's Subject Qualification in Audio-visual Copyright Dispute

作者除采取与音像著作权集体管理组织签订协议委托其管理自己作品的形式外,也可以自己行使著作权,但现实中有些作者与非集体管理组织的经营性公司以授权使用的方式使其获得所谓的诉权,对此各地法院的认定和判决也不一致。依据《著作权集体管理条例》的规定,非集体管理组织的脱法行为应当予以禁止。著作权集体管理组织依法可获得诉权;对于受许可使用的经营主体,应根据实际情况区别对待。对于集体管理和类似集体管理的诉讼主体问题,严守底线还是完全放开,在博弈之后,应当选择受限的有序而非自由的混乱。

In addition to signing agreements with collective management organizations of audio-visual copyright to entrust them with the management of their own works, authors can also exercise their own copyright. However,in reality, some authors and non-collective management organizations’ operating companies obtain so-called litigation rights by authorizing them to use them, which is inconsistent with the recognition and judgment of courts around the country. Collective management organizations of copyright established according to law shall obtain the right of action in accordance with the law;non-copyright collective management organizations shall not exercise the right of action in their own name;and the business entities actually licensed shall be treated differently according to the actual situation. For the subject of collective management and similar collective management litigation, strictly adhere to the bottom line or completely open, after the game, we should choose limited order rather than free confusion.