论文部分内容阅读
《最高人民法院关于审理著作权民事纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释》第18条规定了对室外公共场所的艺术作品的临摹、绘画、摄影、录像成果以合理的方式和范围再行使用不构成侵权。本文认为,最高人民法院对再行使用包括营利性使用的答复意见乃是错误的比较法研究结论,并与我国合理使用制度的立法宗旨与内在机理严重冲突。在适用该规定过程中,相关司法判决存在着诸多论理错误。本文建议,“以合理的方式和范围再行使用”不应包括营利性再行使用。
Article 18 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases of Civil Disputes over Copyright Stipulations Article 19 of the Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Cases of Civil Disputes over Copyright Stipulates the copying, painting and photography of works of art in outdoor public places without any infringement . This article argues that Supreme People’s Court’s replies to the re-use of profit-oriented applications are wrong conclusions of comparative law and seriously conflict with the legislative purpose and internal mechanism of China’s fair use system. In the process of applying this regulation, there are many arguments in judicial proceedings. This article suggests that “re-use in a reasonable manner and range ” should not include for-profit re-use.