论邻接权保护古籍点校成果的可行性和必要性——比较典型侵权纠纷案例之思考
On the Feasibility and Necessity of the Protection of Ancient Book’s Proofreading Results by Neighboring Rights—Reflections on Typical Infringement Dispute Cases
摘要: 由于相关法律法规缺位,目前在司法实践中对于如何保护古籍点校成果有较大争议。现有的古籍点校成果侵权纠纷典型案例中法院主要提出的两大保护路径——以著作权保护和以普通民事权益保护,或在法理上不正确,或在执行上可行性低。与现有的两大保护路径比较,以邻接权保护古籍点校成果,不仅符合邻接权保护客体要求、符合邻接权制度初衷,具有法理上的可行性;而且既能建立起有效的激励机制,又能充分保障古籍出版产业公正的竞争秩序,具有权益平衡上的必要性。建议通过立法,增加《著作权法》中邻接权的种类,设置“古籍点校者权”,以疏通邻接权保护路径在立法上的障碍。
Abstract:
Due to the lack of relevant laws and regulations, there is a great controversy in judicial practice on how to protect ancient book’s proofreading. In the existing typical cases of infringement disputes over the results of ancient book’s proofreading, the courts mainly put forward two main protection paths, namely copyright protection and ordinary civil rights and interests, which are either incorrect in legal theory or have low feasibility in enforcement. Compared with the existing two major protection paths, the protection of ancient book’s proofreading by neighboring rights not only meets the requirements of the object of protection of neighboring rights, but also conforms to the original intention of the neighboring rights system, and has legal feasibility. Moreover, it can not only establish an effective incentive mechanism, but also fully guarantee the fair competition order of the ancient book publishing industry, which is necessary to balance rights and interests. It is suggested that legislation should be passed to increase the types of neighboring rights in the Copyright Law, and to set up the “right of proofreaders of ancient books” to clear the legislative obstacles to the protection of neighboring rights.
参考文献
|
[1]
|
任海涛. 古籍整理成果可版权性刍议——以司法实践中的观念演进为中心[J]. 中国出版史研究, 2018(3): 31-42.
|
|
[2]
|
李谢标. 论古籍点校成果邻接权保护模式[J]. 山东图书馆学刊, 2022(2): 15-20.
|
|
[3]
|
王迁. 古文点校著作权问题研究——兼评“中华书局诉国学网案”等近期案例[J]. 华东政法大学学报, 2013(3): 11-19.
|
|
[4]
|
宋慧献. 古籍整理成果的著作权保护: 寻求立法突破[J]. 出版发行研究, 2015(7): 83-86.
|
|
[5]
|
何怀文. 古籍点校本的法律保护: 特设民事权益与著作权之外第三条出路[J]. 中国出版, 2013(13): 25-27.
|
|
[6]
|
梁志文. 作者意图、事实与作品的可版权性——以古籍整理相关案件为主线[J]. 政治与法律, 2015(12): 124-135.
|
|
[7]
|
王国柱. 邻接权客体判断标准论[J]. 法律科学(西北政法大学学报), 2018, 36(5): 163-172.
|
|
[8]
|
彭学龙. 古籍点校科学版本的邻接权保护[J]. 法商研究, 2023, 40(4): 188-200.
|