摘要
近年来,国内因音乐编曲产生的法律纠纷为数不少,但理论与实务界对“编曲”这一基础概念的准确含义及法律性质却难以形成共识,甚至存在诸多误解,导致交易实践与司法裁判中对编曲的认识各异,更远落后于域外成熟的法律制度与商业实践,致使我国编曲者的权利无法得到有效保护,亦阻碍了编曲的跨境交易与使用。对编曲法律性质的解读不应脱离乐理知识与产业实践,“编曲”的内涵不具有唯一性,其兼具舶来属性与本土含义,国内法律界应摒弃“编曲一律不具有著作权”的刻板认识,结合具体使用语境分析、判断所指“编曲”在著作权法上的性质。在制度选择上,我国不必单独设立所谓“编曲权”或“编曲者权”,而应视情况将具备独创性的编曲直接视为依原作演绎或独立存在的音乐作品,赋予符合条件的编曲者以作者地位,以切实保护我国编曲者的合法权益。
There have been a number of copyright disputes in China regarding“music arrangement”as well as instrumentation and adaptation of musical works.However,for both academia and legal practitioners of the Chinese intellectual property law,it is not easy to form a consensus on the definition and legal nature of“music arrangement”and the related misunderstandings are common as well.As a result,the decisions from courts are often established on the erroneous reasonings and the rights of music arrangers cannot be effectively protected.The legal professionals in China should abandon the stereotype that“music arrangement”is not protected as a copyrightable work.The narrow understanding of music arrangement should be discarded,and the legal nature of music arrangement should be decided in combination with the specific contexts.It is not necessary to separately establish a so-called“arrangement right”or“arranger right”.For original music arrangements,it should be regarded within the scope of“musical work”,and the arranger thus should be given the author’s status in order to effectively protect its rights and interests.
出处
《电子知识产权》
CSSCI
2020年第7期4-15,共12页
Electronics Intellectual Property
关键词
编曲
音乐作品
演绎作品
著作权
邻接权
Music Arrangement
Copyright
Musical Works
Derivative Works
Neighbouring Right
