摘要
电子游戏规则属于思想与表达两分法中的思想。思想与表达并非以概括与具体作为区分标准,电子游戏规则不因其具体、复杂就从思想转为表达。不能为了绕开著作权法不保护规则的原理,就将电子游戏规则等同于游戏规则的表达。任何操作方法都属于思想,不能以违反法律解释基本原则的方式将音乐作品、戏剧作品和摄影作品等受著作权法保护的作品解释为“操作方法”,从而为著作权法保护电子游戏规则提供正当性。作为表达受著作权法保护的情节只针对叙事性文学作品且能够被表演,而电子游戏规则不具有叙事性且不能被表演,不能被类比为情节。电子游戏规则并不处于“文学、艺术和科学领域”,《著作权法》第3条对作品的定义只是构成作品的必要条件而非充分条件,具备独创性的电子游戏规则因属于思想并不能作为作品受著作权法保护。将电子游戏规则作为新类型作品保护将导致国际保护中的不平衡,即国外的电子游戏规则将根据国民待遇原则在我国被认定为作品并受到保护,而我国的电子游戏规则在国外无法被认定为作品并受到保护。
Video game rules belong to the “idea” in the “idea and expression dichotomy”.The “idea and expression dichotomy” is not based on the distinction between “general” and “specific”,and video game rules do not become “expression” simply because they are concrete or complex.Video game rules should not be equated with the expression of game rules to circumvent the principles of copyright law that do not protect rules.Any operating method belongs to the “idea”.According to legal interpretation methods,works protected by copyright law,such as musical works,dramatic works,and photographic works,cannot be regarded as “operating methods” to justify protecting video game rules as operating method.“Plot” protected by copyright law as “expression” only applies to narrative literary works that can be performed,and video game rules cannot be analogized as “plot”.Video game rules are not located in the “literature,art,and science fields”,and the definition of works in Article 3 of the Copyright Law is a “necessary condition” rather than a “sufficient condition” for constituting works.Treating video game rules as a new type of work will result in foreign video game rules being protected by copyright in China,while Chinese video game rules will not receive the same protection overseas.
出处
《法学》
CSSCI
北大核心
2024年第3期123-139,共17页
Law Science
基金
国家社会科学基金重大项目《媒体融合中的版权理论与运用研究》(项目批准号:19ZDA330)
教育部人文社会科学研究规划基金项目《网络游戏产业良性发展的版权保障研究》(项目批准号:19YJA8200040)的阶段性成果。
