德国《著作权法》中报酬请求权制度及其启示

为适应新技术发展和国际著作权法发展的要求，德国《著作权法》对包括报酬请求权在内的许多内容进行了修订。报酬请求权是德国《著作权法》中一项重要而又颇具特色的内容，对当前我国著作权法的完善具有重要的借鉴意义。比较其与我国著作权法上获得报酬权的不同，可以总结其对我国著作权法改革的借鉴意义。即增加关于基于提供复制机会的法定报酬请求权的规定，并辅之以版权补偿金制度和完善的著作权集体管理组织制度。     

夹缝中的法律移植与传统创造——《大清著作权律》述评

作为中国第一部著作权法,《大清著作权律》更多是外力催化而非自然生长的结果,因而深深烙上了那个动荡时代的印迹,其作为政治工具的诸多缺陷也非常明显。尽管如此,它还是打开了一扇窗口,使中国人开始慢慢了解和接受著作权观念,并成为中国著作权法发展的规范源流。《大清著作权律》的制定和实施过程既是移植法律的过程,也是创造传统的过程。     

数字音乐版权区块链技术保护的相关法律问题研究

在当今数字版权时代,区块链技术因具有去中心化、防篡改、数据可靠等特点,在很大程度上能够解决数字音乐版权的确权难、收益难、维权难的问题。但是,它面临诸如无法鉴别数字音乐作品独创性、版权证明效力有限、有关监管体制不健全等法律适用难题。本文通过深入分析探讨这些现存问题,对比借鉴国外的相关先进做法,从技术工具和法律政策两方面提出了数字音乐版权区块链保护的具体措施,以期望促进我国数字音乐版权保护的发展,加快建设法治中国的新征程。     

辛亥革命时期中国著作权法的发展

内忧外患情况下颁布的《大清著作权律》被辛亥革命后成立的民国政府长期"暂时适用",后依其制定了《北洋政府著作权法》。这说明民族存亡催生了中国的著作权立法,受西方思想影响,国家已从倾力于文化控制转而开始注意"民生",保护"民权"。著作权法的发展为新民主主义思想的传播创造了条件,但也暴露了辛亥革命的不彻底性。     

从信息法角度评《欧洲版权准则》

《欧洲版权准则》是由欧洲数名顶尖版权专家耗费8年时间于2010年完成的。制订这个准则的目的是增强欧洲版权法的透明度和一致性。起草者希望这部准则作为欧洲各国版权立法的参考和示范，能够协调和统一欧洲未来版权立法的标准。但是，这个准则在学术界并没有得到应有的重视。当前从信息法角度，结合信息技术的发展及我国版权立法和司法实践，对这部法律文件的特点、优点和不足进行分析，着重对网络环境下版权制度的变革和发展，做出评价和展望十分必要。     

Introducing the Open Clause to improve copyright flexibility in cyberspace? Analysis and commentary on the proposed “two-step test” in the Third Amendment to the Copyright Law of the PRC,in comparison with the EU and the US

The so called “three-step test”, that the limitations and exceptions of copyright shall be allowed in certain special cases, provided that they do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author, grants copyright flexibilities to balance the interests of all stakeholders, especially within the European system of circumscribed limitations and exceptions. This is essential for the domain of computer law, confronted by rapid and unpredictable global technological developments, and is, thus, enshrined in the most important international intellectual property (IP) treaties. Through the proposed third amendment to the Copyright Law of the PRC, the legislature intends to adopt this test while also introducing an open-ended list of limitations and exceptions that constitutes a China-specific “two-step test.” This contravenes prima facie the thesis endorsed by the WTO Panel in the case concerning Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act in 2000. In contrast, court decisions in China frequently apply the fair use doctrine of US copyright law, neglecting to consider its peculiar context of the US common law tradition and, thus, unduly expanding the Chinese courts' discretionary power.This paper summarizes the case law in China and takes a comparative approach to address the divergence between the judicial application of cyber copyright law and the existing legislation. It suggests revising the proposed Article 43 of the Copyright Law of the PRC to capture the due interpretation of the three-step test, thereby finessing the delineation between rights protection and free use with the compensation of remuneration under the principle of proportionality. It argues that transplanting the US fair use doctrine into Chinese copyright law is feasible, but with the preconditions of endeavouring to strengthen judicial reform to integrate the IP adjudication systems, enhancing the coherence and efficiency of copyright enforcement, and facilitating consistent dialogues between scholars, practitioners, and lawmakers.     

The people v. the principle of legality in the People's Republic of China

The history of the People's Republic of China (PRC) since 1949 makes it apparent that the principle of legality is ideological anathema to the Party leadership there. In Western jurisprudence, in anthropology of law and in the nascent field of sociology of law, the development of the principle of legality has consistently been seen as a necessary foundation for the positive evolution of any legal system. The use of law in China in the recent past raises fundamental questions about this premise. The Chinese experience suggests a new hypothesis as to legal development for laboratory and field testing. This article will review the Chinese experience and formulate that hypothesis.     

慕课背景下日本教学性权利限制制度的改革及启示

为适应慕课这一新型信息化教育生态与学习模式,《日本著作权法》在最新修法中对教学性权利限制制度进行大幅度改革。在保留现有教学性使用情形继续免费前提下,将慕课类教学性公共传输纳入权利限制范畴,引入一站式补偿金支付机制,且允许教育机构采取先用后补的补偿金支付方式使用著作权人身份不明的作品。日本教学性权利限制制度的改革举措对我国具有借鉴意义。为营造中国慕课发展良好法制环境,我国《著作权法》第三次修改应主动回应慕课等信息化教育对作品使用的新需求,调整教学性权利限制规定,包括在教科书法定许可之外增加慕课等教学性公共传输法定许可、设立一站式补偿金支付机制简化备案付酬流程、允许教育机构等公共团体对著作权人身份不明的作品采取先用后补的补偿金支付方式,在促进作品利用便利化的同时,兼顾保障著作权人合理利益的分配。     

论我国技术措施规避行为之刑法规制

我国已通过附属刑法规范为技术措施规避行为设定了刑事责任,但因没有具体罪刑规定而尚存刑法适用上的漏洞。规避行为的类型有规避实施行为和规避准备行为两种。我国应运用刑法理论,将规避实施行为视其性质和目的而纳入刑法已有的侵犯著作权罪刑法规范中规制,又应增修法律将规避准备行为纳入不同于侵犯著作权罪的新的刑法规范中进行规制。     

To share is fair: The changing face of China's fair use doctrine in the sharing economy and beyond

Copyrighted works are greatly entwined with the concept of the sharing economy because of their status as informational public goods. Unlike commercial sharing models that address tangible goods such as bikes and houses, the sharing of which is limited by their physical nature, sharing models for intangible copyrighted works such as Google Books and live game webcasting must account for the comparatively unfettered ability for these to be shared. Accordingly, these models are more focused on exploiting such works to their full commercial potential. However, these sharing models are to a large extent based on the unauthorised exploitation of copyrighted works and will be unworkable if the related copyright issues cannot be solved. The interest that copyright owners have in exclusivity must thus be balanced with the public's interest in further exploitation of copyrighted works. Article 22 of the Copyright Law of China outlines an exhaustive list of copyright exceptions; such a restrictive list is incompatible with the sharing economy. The Chinese courts have realised this problem and have gone beyond the law in their judgments, taking a cue from their US counterparts. However, many of these decisions appear to be inconsistent with one another.To address the aforementioned problems, this paper examines the latest proposed amendment to the Copyright Law of China and proposes several legislative and judicial actions that could help promote the sharing economy. At the legislative level, enacting legislation based on a refined open-ended fair use model is necessary to promote the development of the sharing economy. At the judicial level, Chinese courts should employ the concept of transformative use to correctly interpret legislation based on the proposed open-ended model. With transformative use as the cornerstone of copyright policy, the public gains the freedom to share others’ works, participate in the innovation process, and create works with new value. Moreover, authors would retain an incentive to create works under such a legal regime because market substitution will not occur if a work is used for a different expressive purpose than that for which the work was originally created. Thus, a balance can be achieved between promoting the sharing economy and protecting the exclusivity of copyright in China.     

论人工智能作品的著作权法地位

著作权法的基本目标是促进社会文化发展,赋予作者著作权是一种制度工具,其条件是被激励创作的作品需有助于实现著作权法的基本目标。作品是著作权法的基石,其前提是由自然人作者创作,其特征包括多样性、价值性和稀缺性;它们与作品的可版权性密切相关,决定了著作权制度的必要性与合理性。无论是从著作权法基本目标出发,还是藉由作品的前提与特征考察,人工智能作品都不能满足著作权法对于作品的要求,从而难以成为著作权客体。对人工智能作品可通过网络登记加开放许可等措施予以管理,其对于著作权制度的挑战可以得到化解。     

孤儿作品法理问题研究——中国视野下的西方经验

随着数字技术和网络技术的发展,传统作品的阅读、发表、传播方式产生巨大变革.与此同时,尚未进入公有领域,而作者信息无法取得的作品大量存在.上述问题引起国际图书馆协会和机构联合会、国际语音协会等NGO的关注,同时欧美国家也针对上述问题进行立法尝试.鉴于我国数字图书馆、文献电子化的蓬勃发展,有必要审视我国著作权法问题,借鉴西方经验,完善著作权法,解决孤儿作品的可及性问题,实现文化繁荣.     

中美实用艺术品著作权保护比较研究——兼论我国实用艺术品著作权保护的路径

实用艺术品的著作权保护问题实质上是如何确立著作权保护范围及标准的问题。我国现行《著作权法》并未将实用艺术品作为受保护客体,但也并未将其排除在著作权保护范围之外。而美国在实用艺术品的著作权保护上于立法层面是非常清晰的,在《1976年版权法》中已明确将其列为受保护客体,美国法院的诸多判例也影响了实用艺术品著作权保护研究的方向。本文梳理了中美两国实用艺术品的著作权保护问题的历史沿革及现状,总结归纳了两国具有代表性的判例,以求通过对比提炼出两国著作权法及司法实践中存在的问题。美国的相关立法及其司法裁判经验对于我国实用艺术品的著作权保护具备重要借鉴价值。     

关于“中国古代因何无版权”研究的几点反思

中国古代因何无版权是一个伪问题,版权属于近代范畴。这个伪问题的提出,是因为把版权制度的功能误解为鼓励创造。理论上,鼓励创造可以属于任何历史范畴。事实上,版权制度的真正功能是维系作品与资本的结合,后者属于近代的产业结构。古代无版权不是中国问题,版权不属于古代的范畴。许多研究成果在解答这个伪问题时夸大了文化解释的作用,而且在文化解释的过程中以经典引述代替社会现实分析的现象比较突出,对中国传统文化的解读亦存在诸多误区。中国古代因何无版权之问与答均值得反思。     

我国基本法律的标准及范围扩张

我国基本法律的标准和范围,宪法和《立法法》规定的模糊不清,学术界的解释也难以统一,严重影响了我国的立法实践。在造成"高法低定"和"低法高定"的同时,还使基本法律的分布极不平衡,个别重要领域甚至基本法律完全空白。在中国特色社会主义法律体系已经形成的前提下,亟需厘清基本法律的标准,实现范围扩张,使法律体系结构更加严谨、内部更加协调、体例更加科学、调整更加有效。     

THE CHALLENGES FOR THE ENFORCEMENT AGAINST COPYRIGHT VIOLATIONS IN CHINA UNDER THE TRIPS AGREEMENT

While piracy is a serious problem in China, it is also a global concern. Within the domestic and the TRIPS context, this article discusses various forms of copyright violations in China, their impact on the enforcement of the Chinese Copyright Law, and their causes. In particular, this article discusses the unique aspects in China which make the enforcement of Copyright Law extremely difficult; it also analyzes how the Criminal Law should be used in the combat against piracy, and how China interprets the TRIPS Agreement as it is applicable to China. In addition, this article explores several means that are likely to become the future solutions of the problem of copyright violations in China.     

An analysis of the fundamental tensions between copyright and social media: the legal implications of sharing images on Instagram

ABSTRACT

Copyright is inherently intertwined with the development of technology and none more so than the advent of the Internet and sharing technologies. More recently, social media platforms have become the latest challenge for copyright law and policy. This article builds on the literature that recognises the underlying conflict between copyright and social networking sites (SNSs); namely that the basic implication of copyright is the restriction of copying, whereas the ethos of social networking is the promotion of sharing. In particular, this article focuses on the disparity between the restricted acts of copying and communication to the public under copyright law and the encouragement of sharing on SNS Instagram. In doing so, it contextualises the debate surrounding copyright and social media and provides an understanding of the legal implications of using Instagram. As such this paper analyses (1) the infringement of copyright protected work on Instagram, and (2) the user-agreement and licensing of copyright material on Instagram. This study concludes that the disparity between the principles of copyright and social media lead to confusion and vulnerability of users. Therefore, it is suggested that Instagram should better inform its users of the implications of sharing third-party content as well as the terms of its user agreement. This could be done by implementing a copyright strategy, which includes a notice and takedown system as well as investing in producing educational content for users. Perhaps SNSs, such as Instagram might be more motivated to take steps to recognise intellectual property rights if they were considered Internet Services Provides such as YouTube.     

论著作权制度中的利益博弈与利益平衡

目前,我国已经着手对著作权法进行第二次修改。在考虑我国著作权法的修改问题时,如何从利益平衡的角度思考其中的利益博弈并寻求合作均衡,不但符合博弈各方的利益,对于达到修改著作权法的目的、实现整个社会的文学、艺术和科学事业的繁荣亦具有直接作用。这种利益博弈和利益平衡的辨析正是研究著作权法、探讨其中具体的保护性规定和限制性规定的魅力所在。具体到著作权法修改中的利益博弈和利益平衡来看,应在客观分析利益博弈现实的基础上,充分考虑利益博弈方的理性需求,将著作权制度中的权、责、利进一步明晰化,实现科学的利益分配和均衡,尽可能地避免利益博弈所带来的不必要的成本消耗。     

遗产归扣制度的理论、制度构成及其本土化

从民法制度的发展与流变过程中可以看出,遗产归扣制度是一项历史悠久且饱含社会价值的法律制度。但是,我国现行法律尚未对其做出明确的规定。遗产归扣制度是法律拟制理论在立法中的运用,该理论完好地维护了家庭伦理关系,解决了整体性正义和个人自由之间的冲突。它的伦理性与我国婚姻家庭法的价值理念和社会现实有着极高的切合性,完全可以依我国民众的生活习惯和生活实际在继承立法中进行本土化改造后予以移植。     

Mental Capacity as Metaphor<Superscript>*</Superscript>

Mental capacity is a foundational concept in contract law, but the term is metaphorical, and a detailed analysis of three representative judicial opinions shows that the explanations that courts give of the term are equally metaphorical. As such, the term illustrates well the cognitivist view that abstract concepts arise through an imaginative but orderly projection from the domain of bodily and social experience. Legal Realists such as Felix Cohen condemned metaphors for their supposed failure to constrain judges, but recent empirical work suggests that metaphorical thinking is indeed constrained, and accordingly thinkers such as Cohen would probably in fact have welcomed cognitive analysis of law, both for its methods and for its substantively progressive disposition. ^*I am grateful to Andrea Coles-Bjerre, Mark Johnson, Jim Mooney, and Steve Winter for insightful comments on a draft of this article, to Stephen Morse for insightful commentary at a panel of the International Congress on Law and Mental Health in Amsterdam, and to participants at the International Roundtables for the Semiotics of Law in Lyon, the American Association of Applied Linguistics in Portland, and the Association for the Study of Law, Culture and the Humanities in Austin. For much-appreciated editorial support I thank Sophie Cacciaguidi-Fahy and Anne Wagner, and for financial support I thank the Luvaas Faculty Fellowship Endowment Fund.