论文部分内容阅读
我国著作权法对室外公共场所艺术作品合理使用的方式和范围规定的简单且抽象,法官在适用法律时遇到了不少困难,使得纷繁复杂的著作权纠纷难以得到合理解决,即使得出判决也难以令人信服,这种司法实践上的尴尬引发了学界的争议。近年来学者多以再行使用行为是否具有营利性作为分界点来判断再行使用行为是否侵权,但否具有营利性只是判断再使用行为是否侵权的可参考因素而非决定性因素,对此应从再使用行为对象的性质方面来探讨。
The copyright law in our country has simple and abstract provisions on the ways and scope of fair use of works of art in outdoor public places. Judges have encountered many difficulties in applying the law, making it difficult to properly solve complicated and complicated copyright disputes, even if judgments are not effective People convinced that this embarrassment of judicial practice has caused controversy in academia. In recent years, scholars often re-use the behavior of profit as a cut-off point to determine whether the re-use of behavior is infringing, but not for profit only to determine whether reusability of infringement can be a reference factor rather than a decisive factor, which should be from Use the nature of the behavioral object to explore.