论文部分内容阅读
“活表演”能否构成作品,这是一个一直备受争议的问题。比较法研究显示,两大法系的主要国家均未将表演定性为作品,邻接权国际公约的实施并未从根本上影响这些国家传统上对于表演的法律定性。尽管动作、声音、表情等人体“活表演”可以构成作品的表达媒介,而且其有形形式固定或复制也不成问题,但表演的内涵决定了其独创性的缺失。作为法律术语,表演应指以人体的动作、声音及表情忠实的再现具有可表演性的剧本、乐谱或舞谱等作品。在作品从文字到动作和/或声音的表达媒介转换中,作品的内在表达不变,而表演者也未对作品的外在表达做出创作、选择、安排或取舍。通常所说的“即兴表演”之所以能构成作品,是因为它同时是即兴创作。
“Live performance ” can constitute a work, this is a controversial issue has always been. Comparative law research shows that neither of the major countries in the two major legal systems characterize performance as a work. The implementation of the international convention on neighboring rights has not fundamentally affected the legal qualifications of these countries for performance. Although movements, voices, expressions and other human body “live performances” can constitute the medium of expression, and the tangible form of fixation or reproduction is not a problem, but the content of the performance determines its lack of originality. As a legal term, performance should refer to works that faithfully reproduce a playable script, sheet music, or dance score with human actions, sounds and expressions. The intrinsic expression of the work is unchanged in the transformation of the work from the writing to the movement and / or voice, and the performer does not create, choose, arrange or choose the external expression of the work. What is commonly referred to as “improvisation ” is composed of works because it is simultaneously an improvisation.