Earticle

Abstract

중국어

1992年7月, 沈阳春风文艺出版社出版发行了鲁兆明创作的 《围城之后》. 钱钟书先生认为, 鲁兆 明未经许可擅自作续, 侵犯了其著作权. 由此引发了学者对续写及相关问题的讨论. 随着网络以及 影视业的发展, 续写已经不再单纯局限于小说, 更是扩展到影视作品等领域, 在此背景下. 续写该 如何定性?续写利益是否能权利化?续写利益归属谁?续写权利化之后的行使方式?等等问题的探讨, 就具有重要的理论价值和实践意义. 中国学者在探讨续写有关问题时, 多数侧重于续写一方进行论述. 笔者认为, 应兼顾原作和续写 双方的立场, 在现行著作权法框架下进行分析. 第一, 续写与原作的独创性. 续写, 即在已有作品的 基础上独立创作而成的新作品. 因此, 续作吸收了原作中的智力成果, 对原作品具有依附性. 但同 时, 续作又是续写者独立思维的结果, 构成一部新的具有独创性的作品. 第二, 续写与原作的著作 权及限制. 续写并没有对原作品本身进行改动, 而作品的“未来” 不属于保护作品完整权、改编权的 调整范围. 所以, 续写没有侵害原作的保护作品完整权、改编权；合理使用制度的目的在于确保公 众对社会信息的知悉权, 确保公众能够接近受著作权保护的作品. 即从作品中获得思想、素材、知 识和信息, 而续写属于对原作的利用范畴, 因此不宜定性为合理使用. 续写利益的权利归属. 中国著作权法从立法之初至今, 对续写的规制持续空白. 但随着实务中纠 纷的发生, 续写已成为无法回避的问题. 因此, 需要在充分论证的基础上, 明确续写利益的权利归 属. 续写利益具有权利化特征, 符合权利化要件, 因此, 续写利益权利化具有正当性. 并且, 续写利 益权利化有利于定纷止争, 所以, 中国应在借鉴美国等国外立法例的基础上, 将续写权配置给原作 著作权人. 续写权的性质与限制. 第一, 续写权的性质. 从权利本质来看, 著作人身权体现的是对作者人格的尊重. 而续写更多地 是影响作者对原作的后续创作开发, 所以, 续写权适宜定性为著作财产权. 第二, 续写权的限制. 为了平衡原作和续作的利益, 建议将续写权纳入法定许可范畴. 由于续写在 事实上是由他人独立完成的行为, 客观现实生活中, 原作著作权人对此难以事先控制. 此外, 无须 事先许可的法定授权模式, 不仅减少了交易的信息成本, 而且减少了谈判成本, 使双方当事人合作 成功交易的可能性大为增加. 但同时, 由于续写作品利用了原作品中的智力成果, 享受了原作品的 正外部性, 所以应当为此支付对价.

영어

In July 1992, Chunfeng Wenyi Publishing House (Shenyang) published and distributed “After the Fortress Besieged” created by Lu Zhaoming. Mr. Qian Zhongshu claimed that Lu Zhaoming created a sequel of Fortress Besieged without his permission has violated his copyright. This gave rise to a discussion among scholars of sequel and related issues. With the development of network, as well as film and television industry, sequel is no longer just limited to novel, but also extended to film and television works. In this context, what is the nature of sequel? Whether the interests of sequel can be a right? To whom the interests belong? And how to exercise the sequel rights after the interests recognized by law? Discussions of all these questions have an important theoretical and practical significance. When Chinese scho lars probe into sequel issues, most o f them focus on the side o f sequel writer. While the authors think the interests of both parties—— the original and sequel, should be taken into account, and be analyzed under the framework of existing copyright law. First, the sequel versus the originality of original. The sequel is a new work that created independently on the basis of the existing work. Therefore, a sequel is dependent on the original work though it has absorbed intellectual achievements of the original work. But at the same time, the sequel is the results of independent thinking, which constitutes a new work. Second, the sequel versus the copyright of original work and its restriction. S equel do es n o t make change t o the o riginal wo rk i tself, a nd t he work of “future” cannot be adjusted by the right of integrity, or adaptation right. As a result, sequel does not infringe on the above two rights of the original author. The purpose of fair use is to ensure the public’s right to know the society information, ensure the public can access to works protected by copyright, namely to get ideas, material, knowledge and information from them. The sequel is a kind of use; therefore it should not be characterized as fair use. On the ownership of sequel interests. Chinese Copyright Law lacks regulation of sequel, while sequel has become unavoidable in disputes. As a result, we need to clarify the right attribution of sequel interests on the basis of sufficient demonstration. The legitimacy of sequel interest arises from the right characteristics and the requirements of righting. Moreover, the righting of sequel interest is beneficial to settling disputes. We should learn from the United States and other foreign legislation, and then assign the sequel r ight t o t he o riginal a utho r. On the nature of sequel right and its restriction. The first question is the nature of the sequel right. From the perspective of the right essence, moral rights embodied respect for the author's personality. However the sequel right has more influence on the author's subsequent creation of the original, so it is preferably classified as economic right. The second question is the restriction of right. In order to balance the interests between t he o riginal a nd t he s equel, t he s equel right i s suggested to be taken into statutory license. As sequel is in fact done by others independently, in the real world, the original copyright holder is hardly able to control the behavior in advance. In addition, the statutory licensing models without prior approval can not only reduce the cost of transaction information, but also reduce the costs of negotiations; thus greatly increase the possibility of cooperation between the two parties. Meanwhile, as the sequel does use intellectual achievement of the original work, and enjoy the positive externalities of the original work, so it shall pay reasonable compensation.

Contents

摘要
 I. 续写的现行著作权法解读
 II. 续写利益的权利归属
 III. 续写权的性质与限制
 IV. 结论
 參考文獻
 

Authors

• 张玲 [ 장령 | 中国南开大学法学院教授, 博士生导师. ]
• 王果 [ 왕과 | 中国南开大学法学院2012级民商法硕士研究生. ]

Reference