非法演绎作品后续利用行为的侵权定性  

The Nature of Subsequent Use of An Illegal Derivative Work

作　　者：张书青 

机构地区：[1]华东政法大学 [2]杭州市中级人民法院

出　　处：《电子知识产权》2018年第3期84-92,共9页Electronics Intellectual Property

摘　　要：有观点认为:对非法演绎作品的复制与发行不侵害原作品著作权人的复制权、发行权;基于改编权的"延伸效力",该行为应构成对原作品改编权的侵权。该观点缺乏法律依据,对"复制"、"发行"的理解过于机械,经不起体系解释的检验,不仅带来现实操作的困难,还可能破坏多项著作权利益平衡机制。而有关"如无‘延伸效力’,改编权的控制力将落空"的观点,既不符合法理的解释,也与司法实践中的现实做法脱节,不能成立。著作权侵权判定的正确规则应是"哪里有独创性表达,哪里才有保护;哪里有独创性表达,哪里就有保护"。对演绎作品进行复制、发行等后续利用同样属于对原作品独创性表达的利用,应归原作品著作权人相应专有权利的控制,未经许可的行为应依据其类型分别定性为对相应专有权利的侵权。There is a viewpoint holding that the reproduction and distribution of an illegal derivative work does not constitute infringement of the right of reproduction and the right of distribution of the original work.Instead,since that the right of adaption has its“extending power”,such conducts should be determined as an infringement of the right of adaption.This view point is groundless and cannot withstand a systematic checking through;its understanding of“reproduce”,“distribute”is not right.It would bring not only difficulties when putting into application,but also destruction to the balancing systems that copyright law has been trying to maintain.For the viewpoint that“without extending power,the right of adaption would have nothing to control”,it does not comply with a logic interpretation and goes adrift from judicial practice;so it is baseless.According to the basic logic of law--“where there is original expression,there is protection;only where this is original expression,there is protection”,the usage of derivative work constitutes the usage of the original expression of the original work at the same time,and should be ranged under the power of each specific right.Such usage without permission should be determined as infringement to each exclusive right accordingly.

关 键 词：改编权 演绎作品 复制权 侵权 延伸效力 

分 类 号：D923.41[政治法律—民商法学]