论我国邻接权制度的改进——以“体育赛事节目”的著作权法保护切入  

On the Improvement of China’s Neighboring Right System: From the Perspective of the Copyright Protection of "Sports Event Programs"

作　　者：卢海君[1] LuHaijun

机构地区：[1]对外经济贸易大学法学院

出　　处：《知识产权》2020年第11期50-58,共9页Intellectual Property

基　　金：对外经济贸易大学中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金(项目编号:CXTD10-04)资助;对外经济贸易大学法学院“双一流人才工程”个人项目资助,项目名称:“人工智能时代知识产权制度的变革与发展研究”。

摘　　要："体育赛事节目"著作权法保护争议产生的根本原因在于我国著作权法设置的关于录像制作者权的邻接权制度。《罗马公约》中并无录像制作者权,并非当时录像技术尚未成熟所致,而是在视听作品著作权保护规范完善的情形下,录像制作者权的邻接权规范并无必要。邻接权之所以叫"邻接"权或"相关"权,其根源在于邻接权与他人权利尤其是著作权相关,且邻接权人并未创作出全新的作品。邻接权客体存在独立价值,需要对其赋予独立于作品著作权的保护。邻接权制度致力于对邻接权进行充分保护的同时不减损与其相关的著作权等权利的保护。我国现行著作权法中录像制作者权的建构误读了邻接权的宗旨,司法实践误将"创作高度"的高低作为著作权客体与邻接权客体的划分标准,导致著作权法理解与适用的混乱。2020年《著作权法》仍保留录像制品这一概念。在法律适用时,应严格限制录像制品的外延。The fundamental reason for disputes over the copyright protection of "sports event programs" lies in China’s special neighboring right system. Rome Convention didn’t provide for the right of video producer, not because of the immature video technology at the time, the truth is, while the copyright protection over audiovisual works is complete, giving neighboring right protection to video producer is unnecessary. Neighboring right or related right has got the name from its relationship to the right of others, especially copyright;besides, the neighboring right holder has not created new works. The independent value of the object of neighboring right necessitates protection independent of copyright. The neighboring right system is committed to fully protecting neighboring right without detracting from the protection of related copyright and other right. The construction of the right of video producer in China’s current copyright law misreads the purpose of neighboring right, and mistakenly regards the level of creativity as the criterion for dividing the object of copyright and neighboring right, which leads to confusion in understanding and applying copyright law.

关 键 词：著作权法 体育赛事节目 邻接权 《罗马公约》 录像制作者权 

分 类 号：D923.41[政治法律—民商法学]