我国短视频著作权保护问题

近年来,短视频凭借其灵活生动、趣味十足的特点,契合了社会碎片化和快餐化的消费习惯,早已成为大众主流娱乐方式和新型社交平台。然而门槛低和便于复制模仿的特点使其常常面临著作权保护的困境。探析短视频是否享有著作权、明确短视频享有版权的核心构成要件、厘清短视频的权利类型和权利主体、认定侵犯短视频著作权的归责原则及相关主体的义务,不仅能促进整个短视频行业的规范健康发展,而且从长远角度来看,对我国文化产业的繁荣发展意义非凡。     

论思想的财产权地位

思想具有价值性,需要获得一定程度的法律保护。但思想没有外化为一定的可感知的形式,其界限无法予以确定,加之绝对性的财产权是一种对世权,效力范围广泛,对思想赋予普通财产权保护将会违背公共利益,故思想不应成为普通财产权的客体。虽然思想表达两分法要求思想上不应存在版权,但一些版权法规则与制度在一定程度上带有保护思想的附带效应。不同于版权的是,专利权的客体是思想,是一种形诸一定的产品或一定的方法、通过权利要求书加以限定和表达的具体性思想。尽管思想上不应存在普通财产权和版权,但从实现相对关系中思想提供者与思想接受者之间公平正义的角度出发,对思想赋予一定程度的相对权保护还是可行的。     

Legal rights in data

It is now apposite to speak of the ‘data centric world’. Businesses are paying ever more attention to their own, and others’ data, as a way of adding value to the organisation and conferring competitive advantage. This in turn is focusing attention on legal rights in data across many business sectors, where we’re starting to see more disputes. Data is funny stuff in and of itself - effectively inert in legal terms. It is more precise to speak of ‘legal rights in relation to data’. Those rights are IP rights - copyright, database right, confidentiality, patents and trade marks - and contract rights. Each IP right has its own rules, and applying those rules to data leads to a complex, multi-layered analysis where the law is unsettled and uncertain. This means that data is an area where contract is very often king, so most businesses regulate access to data by means of a series of agreements. The most commonly contested points in negotiations are around licence scope, derived data, commingled data and post term use.     

Hyperlinks citations, reproducing original works

A hyperlink (or simply a link) is a citation of an electronic address where further information can be found but, additionally, navigates the surfer almost instantaneously to material hosted anywhere on the Internet at a mere click of a mouse. Controversy arises because either the composition or functionality of the hyperlink can potentially infringe property rights of the claimant. Many have written about the hyperlink as a navigation tool authorising or contributing to infringement of copyright by a third party.¹This article concentrates on the composition of an external hyperlink, as a citation. Part 2 outlines the nature of Internet communication and explains why hyperlinks are often controversial. Part 3 asserts when copyright subsists in original literary works, but because a hyperlink may incorporate diverse formats, this part also addresses the protection of other works including the issue of composite works covered under section 1(1) of Copyright, Design and Patents Act, 1988. Applying copyright principles, it suggests that a hyperlink reproducing an identifiable part of a web page capable of standing apart from its context can infringe copyright in the web page containing the part. That said the claimant might face difficulty in demonstrating that the work is substantive or, where the hyperlink consists of diverse inputs, in categorising the subject matter. Part 4 acknowledges the significance (electronic) collections and therefore defines a database falling within the Databases Directive.² It then highlights challenges presented by copyright and sui generis right relating to databases concluding that reproducing an identifiable part of author compiled work can infringe copyright and/or sui generis right therein but the same is not true of search engine generated returns. Part 5 concedes that, in practice, subsistence of copyright and/or sui generis right is open to challenge because the part reproduced in a hyperlink may not be substantive, may not easily fit into the category of protected subject matter or lacks ‘substantial investment.’ Nevertheless, it argues that proving infringement in an identifiable part of a web page reproduced in a hyperlink remains the most viable option for indirectly controlling access to the target page, which may itself be unprotected by copyright.     

Sowing seeds of change for the digital world – A response to ‘Digital opportunity: A review of intellectual property and growth’

Professor Ian Hargreaves released his independent report entitled Digital Opportunity – A Review of Intellectual Property and Growth on 18 May 2011. Hargreaves advocates strategic change and policy initiatives for the intellectual property framework in both national and international contexts. Ten recommendations are proposed, including reform of copyright licencing procedures, implementation of a digital copyright exchange, and legislative exceptions to copyright infringement, along with restructuring of systems for the grant and enforcement of patents. In this article, the authors discuss Hargreaves’ recommendations and consider how intellectual property law and policy may be used to facilitate innovation and economic growth in the modern digital world.     

国际视野下的著作权强制许可制度探析

著作权强制许可制度已为大多数国家的国内立法所普遍采纳,国际公约也规定了这一制度以凸显对发展中国家的优惠和支持.在我国因著作权强制许可制度缺失而面临一系列困境的情况下,应首先从立法上进行完善,即引入著作权强制许可制度,形成统一协调的著作权权利限制体系,然后从执法上规范行政机关的自由裁量权,从司法上完善法律救济途径,切实给予申请人和著作权人有利的保障,从而使著作权在私权领域和公权领域的利益趋于平衡.     

TRIPS协议第13条“三步检验法”对著作权限制制度的影响——兼评欧共体诉美国“版权法110(5)节”案

从《伯尔尼公约》到TRIPS协议,三步检验法经历着从复制权限制的反限制到所有权利限制的反限制的扩大过程,其助推力则为美国版权法第110条款争端案和随后WTO专家组对TRIPS协议第13条的解释。对于三步检验法的三步优先适用顺序这一问题,WTO专家组以"等级命题"的方式给予回答。由此,三步检验法成为著作权限制制度适用的一个大前提,凸出了背后著作权人权利扩张的趋向,中国著作权法中三步检验法其实质为二步检验法,未来如何进行调整尚有待立法者和学界进一步思索。     

软件侵权计算机取证方法的法律推理

随着计算机越来越广泛地应用于国家和社会的各行各业中,软件带来的经济利益不断增多。各种软件不断地开发和应用,随之而来对软件的侵权行为也越来越多,只有完善法律法规,并大力打击侵权行为,才能有效保障软件开发者的利益。如何判断软件侵权行为是保护正版打击盗版的前提条件,这就是侦查和司法鉴定的计算机取证。     

论网络时代的版权保护

随着网络技术的飞速发展,传统版权制度受到了挑战。近年来,国内出现了一系列网络版权侵权纠纷案件,使得网络版权保护面临的问题日益突出。笔者通过对网络版权侵权行为的分析,就加强网络版权作品的权利保护方面提出了建议和措施。     

电子商务中的版权国际保护制度分析

电子商务正日益成为信息经济发展的动力和新经济增长点。版权保护问题是电子商务环境下亟待解决的基本法律问题,世界各国都面临着调整、修改现行知识产权制度以适应经济与科技发展的需要,版权保护体系的国际性调整尤其构成了对作为弱势一方的发展中国家的空前挑战。