论文部分内容阅读
当前我国立法仅对法律法规和裁判文书的著作权予以排除,尚未对其他法律文书类作品的著作权进行限制。司法实践对法律文书类作品的创造性(私权利)与功能性(公权利)矛盾如何平衡等问题一直存在分歧,理论研究亦有限。美国在这方面有较为成熟的法律适用规则:职责范围内的官方法律文书类作品无著作权保护;已被立法或判例法吸收的非官方法律文书类作品在某种程度上丧失著作权保护;未被立法或判例法吸收的非官方法律文书类作品也有可能因为公共政策而无法得到著作权保护。这些经验值得借鉴,与其他作品相比,法律文书类作品的作者权利应受到更多的公共政策制约,从而避免对公共利益的损害。
At present, our country’s legislation only excludes the copyright of laws, regulations and judgments, and has not restricted the copyright of other legal documents. Judicial practice has always been divided on issues such as the balance between the creative (private rights) and functional (public rights) contradictions of legal instruments, and theoretical studies are limited. The United States has more mature rules of law applicable in this respect: there is no copyright protection for the works of official legal instruments within the scope of its duties; the unofficial legal instruments that have been absorbed by legislation or case law lose their copyright protection to a certain extent; Legislation or case law may also attract non-official legal instruments that may not be protected by copyright because of public policies. These experiences are worth learning from. Compared with other works, the author’s rights of legal paper works should be subject to more public policies so as to avoid damaging the public interest.