电影类作品中的版权问题/董世连

作者:法律资料网 时间:2024-07-23 03:53:28   浏览:8622   来源:法律资料网
下载地址: 点击此处下载
电影类作品中的版权问题

董世连


一、电影类作品的概念

  电影类作品是指摄制在一定的介质上,由一系列连续有伴音和无伴音的画面组成,并借助适当装置放映、播放或者以其他方式传播的作品,包括电影作品和以类似摄制电影的方法创作的作品。纪录片、电视剧、动画片、故事片、科教片、美术片、广告片等均属电影类作品。一般而言,电影类作品具有以下特点:1.包含的信息是一个完整的综合信息;2.由一系列有伴音或无伴音的画面组成,并以某种连续的、动态的方式表达;3.具有独创性,而不是复制已有的作品。

二、电影类作品的版权主体

  电影类作品的形成是一个比较复杂、系统的智力创作过程,它是由众多作者共同创作的综合性艺术类作品,例如,一部电影可能涉及小说作者、将小说改编成剧本的作者、将剧本改编成分镜头剧本的作者(导演)、拍摄影片的摄影作者、配曲配调的词曲作者、美工设计的作者等。虽然电影类作品是由编剧、导演、摄影、作词、作曲等作者共同创作完成的,但是根据《著作权法》规定,电影类作品的版权由作品的制片者享有。当然,电影编剧、导演、摄影、作词、作曲等也享有署名权,并有权按照与制片者签订的合同获得报酬。同时,电影类作品中的剧本、音乐等可以单独使用的作品的作者有权单独行使其版权。

三、电影类作品的版权内容

  根据《著作权法》规定,电影类作品属于艺术类“作品”的范畴,制片者对其享有完整的版权,既包括基于电影类作品的产生而依法享有的发表权、署名权、修改权和保护作品完整权等人身权,也包括基于电影类作品的利用而带来的复制权、发行权、出租权、放映权、改编权等财产权。
  为了理解制片者对电影类作品享有的版权的完整性,应把制片者对电影类作品享有的权利和录音录像制品制作者对录音录像制品享有的权利进行区分。录音录像制品是对他人作品的一种复制,不具有独创性,例如,复制性的录制他人报告、讲学等而制作的电视片、录像片等不属于《著作权法》规定的“作品”。录音录像制品制作者享有的权利是一种邻接权,是从属于版权的一种权利,是一种不完整的权利,这种权利的获取,需要取得相应作品的版权人许可,例如,录音录像制作者要将他人的演讲制作成录音录像制品进行发行,必须取得演讲者许可。录音录像制作者对其制作的录音录像制品,只享有许可他人复制、发行、出租、通过信息网络向公众传播并获得报酬的财产权。

四、电影类作品的相关权利分析

(一)可单独使用的作品的版权行使与制片者合理使用的限度

  电影类作品是由相关作者共同创作完成的综合性艺术作品,存在电影类作品的整体版权与单独作品版权两个方面的版权。
  制片者与电影类作品涉及的相关作者签订合同,支付报酬,根据法律规定对电影类作品的整体享有版权。制片人行使电影类作品的版权,不能侵犯单一作品创作者的权利,即不能超过电影类作品的正常商业运作的合理限度,除非在与创作者的合同中获得了这些权利,例如,如果音乐作者只转让了其作品在电影中使用的权利,制片者就不能将其制作为唱片内容。
  电影类作品中的剧本、音乐等可以单独使用的作品的作者享有并有权行使其作品的版权,例如,编剧作者可以出版其创作的剧本,词曲作者也可以将他们的作品另外制作唱片,动画片中的剧本、音乐、人物造型设计等也可以单独使用。但是单一作品版权的使用,不得与电影类作品整体版权的行使相冲突,并且不得违反与制片者的合同约定。

(二)电影类作品中的角色保护问题

  随着“米老鼠”、“大力水手”等侵权案件的发生,电影类作品中的角色,已成为一种开发资源,也成为一种权利客体。
  根据相关研究,目前无论国际公约还是我国的《著作权法》对作品中“角色”保护都没有明确的规定。作品中“角色”是否受法律保护,以及谁为权利主体,应根据“角色”使用情况来确定。例如,如果电影类作品中的“角色”属于可以单独使用的作品,那么“角色”版权应该由相应的创作者享有,又如,单一使用角色的静止图案,并与原作品中含角色的场景画面(连续或静止)构成实质性相似,则可能侵害了相应美术作品或者摄影作品创作者的版权。

(三)参与电影类作品创作的相关权利人

  参与电影类作品创作的相关权利人,一般包括:脚本、撰稿、解说词等文字作者;音乐词曲作者、演唱者、演奏者;影视、摄影、文献、档案等素材的权利人;在一些纪录片中还可能有嘉宾、被采访者;在动画片等作品中,还有人物造型设计者、动画场景设计者、分镜头台本作者、配音演员等参与创作的人员;以及其他创作人员。以上权利人在作品中均享有署名权,同时有根据合同获得相应报酬的权利。

(四)电影类作品版权行使中涉及的相关合同种类

  在电影类作品形成过程中,根据作品内容、使用情况和参与人员,一般制片者应与相关权利人签订以下几类合同:

1.使用、改编、翻译国内外的作品,包括文字、音乐、摄影资料等作品,应签订版权许可合同,获得相关权利人许可;
2.委托创作各类作品,应与受托人签订作品委托创作合同;
3.邀请演员、嘉宾参加节目录制时,应签署表演合同或确认书;
4.在作品形成过程中,因创作产生的其他与作品版权相关的合同。
  在合同中,合同双方应该明确约定权利的内容和范围,例如,合同中如果明确约定,单独作品版权中全部财产权归属制片方,则单独作品版权人就不可以单独行使其版权。
  同时制片者可与相应版权集体管理组织形成长期合作关系,与之签订一揽子合同并付酬使用相关作品。

(五)对不同作品,应根据其保护期限和范围进行使用

  版权保护是有期限限制的,同时我国《著作权法》中有合理使用和法定许可制度,而且有些作品根据自身特点,可能会有多个权利人,所以对于不同的作品,可视不同情况进行使用。例如,对于已过版权保护期的国内外音乐作品进入公有领域,其财产权利不再受法律保护,任何人均可使用该作品,但应尊重作者署名权;使用他人已经合法录制为录音制品的音乐作品制作录音制品的,可以不经著作权人许可,但应当按照规定支付报酬,著作权人声明不许使用的除外;使用他人录音录像制品的,既要经录音录像制作者许可,还应和版权人、表演者签订合同,取得许可。
  总之,电影类作品的创作过程复杂,涉及各方面的法律关系,均应一一理顺,避免侵权,减少不必要的损失。
下载地址: 点击此处下载

国家税务总局关于严格执行税款入库和退库制度严肃财税纪律的补充通知

国家税务总局


国家税务总局关于严格执行税款入库和退库制度严肃财税纪律的补充通知

国家税务总局《关于严格执行税款入库和退库制度严肃财税纪律的紧急通知》(以下简称通知)下发后,一些地区反映通知中重申的有关代征手续费提取范围与财政部《关于修订代征手续费提取办法的有关规定的通知》及国家税务局《关于城镇土地使用税等税种可否按全额提取手续费问题的函》的代征手续费提取范围不一致,经研究,现补充明确如下:
通知中“对企业自行申报的税款、税务机关直接开票征收的税款和助征员征收的税款,不得纳入代征手续费提取范围”,是指除城镇土地使用税、房产税、车船使用税、屠宰税和税款滞纳金罚款收入以外的其他税款,对于城镇土地使用税、房产税、车船使用税、屠宰税和税款滞纳金罚款收入,其代征手续费提取范围仍按原规定执行。



Chapter Ⅲ
Initiation of Panel Procedures


OUTLINE

Section One Role of Consultations: Art. 4
I The Importance of Consultations
II Issues Concerning the “adequacy” of Consultations
Section Two Establishment of Panels: Art. 6.2
I Introduction
II Indication of Consultations Process
III Identification of “the specific measures at issue”
IV Provision of “a brief summary of the legal basis of the complaint”
V Concluding Remarks
Section Three Terms of Reference of Panels: Art. 7
I Introduction
II Effect of Consultations on Terms of Reference of Panels
III The “matter referred to the DSB”
Section Four The Mandate of Compliance Panels: Art. 21.5
I Introduction
II Clarification of “measures taken to comply”
III Perspective of Review under Art.21.5
IV Examination of the New Measure in Its Totality and in Its Application
Section Five Third Party Rights : Art. 10
I Introduction
II Generic Third Party Rights: Interpretation of Art. 10.3
III Extended Third Party Rights: Exercise of Panels’ Discretion
IV Summary and Conclusions





Section One
Role of Consultations: Art. 4

The procedures for consultations under the WTO, significantly different from the procedures for good offices, conciliation or mediation as prescribed in Art. 5 of the DSU which remains voluntary options if the parties to the dispute so agree, remains a mandatory first step in the dispute settlement process as embodied with text of Art. 4 of the DSU. However, as to be shown below, there is something to be clarified so as to understand appropriately the role of consultations under the WTO dispute settlement mechanism.

I The Importance of Consultations
The practice of GATT contracting parties in regularly holding consultations is testimony to the important role of consultations in dispute settlement. Art. 4.1 of the DSU recognizes this practice and further provides that: “Members affirm their resolve to strengthen and improve the effectiveness of the consultation procedures employed by Members.” A number of reports made by panels or by the Appellate Body under the WTO have recognized the value of consultations within the dispute settlement process.
As noted by a panel, Members’ duty to consult concerns a matter with utmost seriousness: “Compliance with the fundamental obligation of WTO Members to enter into consultations where a request is made under the DSU is vital to the operation of the dispute settlement system. Article 4.2 of the DSU provides that ‘[e]ach Member undertakes to accord sympathetic consideration to and afford adequate opportunity for consultation regarding any representations made by another Member concerning measures affecting the operation of any covered agreement taken within the territory of the former’. Moreover, pursuant to Article 4.6 of the DSU, consultations are ‘without prejudice to the rights of any Member in any further proceedings’. In our view, these provisions make clear that Members' duty to consult is absolute, and is not susceptible to the prior imposition of any terms and conditions by a Member.” 1
Another panel addresses the essence of consultations, and they rule there that: “Indeed, in our view, the very essence of consultations is to enable the parties gather correct and relevant information, for purposes of assisting them in arriving at a mutually agreed solution, or failing which, to assist them in presenting accurate information to the panel.”2
The Appellate Body confirms panels’ rulings in this respect. For example, the Appellate Body stresses those benefits afforded by consultations to the dispute settlement system in Mexico-HFCS(DS132)(21.5)as: “[…] Through consultations, parties exchange information, assess the strengths and weaknesses of their respective cases, narrow the scope of the differences between them and, in many cases, reach a mutually agreed solution in accordance with the explicit preference expressed in Article 3.7 of the DSU. Moreover, even where no such agreed solution is reached, consultations provide the parties an opportunity to define and delimit the scope of the dispute between them. Clearly, consultations afford many benefits to complaining and responding parties, as well as to third parties and to the dispute settlement system as a whole.”3

II Issues Concerning the “adequacy” of Consultations
As noted above, the procedures for consultations remain a mandatory first step in the dispute settlement process under the WTO. However, does it mean that there is a requirement for the adequacy of consultations before initiating a panel proceeding?
With regard to this issue, on the one hand, the Panel on Alcoholic Beverages (DS75/DS84) finds that, “the WTO jurisprudence so far has not recognized any concept of ‘adequacy’ of consultations”, the Panel Report reads in pertinent part:4
“In our view, the WTO jurisprudence so far has not recognized any concept of ‘adequacy’ of consultations. The only requirement under the DSU is that consultations were in fact held, or were at least requested, and that a period of sixty days has elapsed from the time consultations were requested to the time a request for a panel was made. What takes place in those consultations is not the concern of a panel. The point was put clearly by the Panel in Bananas III, where it was stated:
‘Consultations are […] a matter reserved for the parties. The DSB is not involved; no panel is involved; and the consultations are held in the absence of the Secretariat. While a mutually agreed solution is to be preferred, in some cases it is not possible for parties to agree upon one. In those cases, it is our view that the function of a panel is only to ascertain that the consultations, if required, were in fact held. […]’