论文部分内容阅读
我国1991年《著作权法》规定:“按照工程设计、产品设计图纸及其说明进行施工、生产工业品,不属于本法所称的复制。”2001修正后的新《著作权法》删除了此规定。从新法条文的表面文义看,复制是否扩展到“平面到立体”并不十分明确,因而引发了较大的争议。本文以两则案例为切入点,就上述问题从法律条文、海外经验、法理等方面进行论证分析,由此得出结论:对于“平面到立体”是否属于著作权法意义上的复制问题,不能一概而论,要视具体的著作权客体而定,可把此类著作分为两大类:一为美术作品,如绘画、书法、照片等;二为图形作品,如电路图、产品设计图纸等科技或工程设计图。在进行立体转换时,前者可认定构成著作权法意义上的复制,而后者则不构成。
China’s Copyright Law of 1991 stipulates: “The construction and production of industrial products in accordance with the engineering design, product design drawings and their descriptions do not belong to the duplicates referred to in this Law.” “2001 The revised Copyright Law was deleted This requirement. From the surface of the text of the new law to see the text, whether the extension of copy to ”plane to three-dimensional “ is not very clear, which triggered a larger controversy. This article takes two cases as the starting point, and carries on the demonstration analysis on the above issues from the aspects of law, overseas experience and jurisprudence, and draws the conclusion: As to whether ”plane to stereo" belongs to the replication of copyrights in the sense of copyright law, Can not be generalized, depending on the specific subject of copyright, may be divided into two categories of such works: one for the works of art, such as painting, calligraphy, photographs, etc .; two graphic works, such as circuit diagrams, product design drawings and other technology or Engineering drawings. In the case of stereoscopic conversion, the former may be deemed to constitute copying in the sense of copyright law, while the latter does not constitute.