著作权侵权合法来源抗辩的司法认定问题研究

A Study on the Judicial Determination of the Defense of Legitimate Source in Copyright Infringement Cases

摘要: 在涉及著作权侵权案件中，当事人通过主张合法来源抗辩从而免除法律责任成为司法实践中常见的抗辩路径。该制度的核心规范依据源于《著作权法》第五十九条第一款之规定，然而由于该条款规范表述存在模糊性，司法实践中长期面临法律适用标准不明确、裁判尺度不一致等问题。通过对裁判文书的分析，合法来源抗辩在司法实践中主要面临三个问题：主体范围界定不清、构成要件标准不一以及共同被告追加规则存在争议。为解决这些问题，需深入探究其成因并提出切实可行的建议。关于主体范围，应将仅从事销售行为且非源头销售商的主体纳入适用范围；就构成要件而言，主观善意应界定为既无明知也无过失不知侵权，且举证责任应由被告承担，被告需证明自己已履行了合理的注意义务的义务，即可被推定其主观上是善意的。法院在审查合理注意义务应综合考虑以下因素：复制件的合法来源、售价差异、外包装区别、作品知名度以及是否存在侵权提示信息等；在符合相关法律规定的情况，关于认定合法来源抗辩有关共同被告的追加方面，法院可以同意追加供应商为被告参与诉讼。关于共同被告的追加，若符合《民事诉讼法》相关规定，法院应准许追加直接供货方为共同被告。

Abstract: In cases involving copyright infringement, parties often invoke the defense of legitimate source to avoid legal liability, making it a common defense strategy in judicial practice. The core legal basis for this system stems from Article 59 (1) of the Copyright Law. However, due to the vague wording of this provision, judicial practice has long faced issues such as unclear legal application standards and inconsistent judicial rulings. Through an analysis of judicial rulings, the defense of legitimate source primarily faces three issues in judicial practice: unclear definition of the scope of parties, inconsistent standards for the elements of the defense, and disputes over the rules for adding co-defendants. To address these issues, it is necessary to thoroughly investigate their causes and propose practical solutions. Regarding the scope of applicable entities, entities that engage solely in sales activities and are not the original sellers should be included within the scope of application. Regarding the criteria for establishing the defense, “good faith” should be defined as having neither knowledge nor negligence regarding the infringement, and the burden of proof should rest with the defendant. The defendant must demonstrate that they have fulfilled their duty of reasonable care, which would then presume their good faith. When reviewing the duty of reasonable care, the court should comprehensively consider the following factors: the legitimate source of the copies, price differences, distinctions in outer packaging, the fame of the work, and whether there are any infringement warning notices. In cases where the relevant legal provisions are met, regarding the addition of co-defendants in relation to the defense of legitimate source, the court may agree to add the supplier as a defendant in the litigation. Regarding the addition of co-defendants, if the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Law are met, the court should permit the addition of the direct supplier as a co-defendant.