| 826 | 22 | 121 |
| 下载次数 | 被引频次 | 阅读次数 |
无论是在理论界还是实务界,对体育赛事节目法律性质的认定都存在严重的分歧。根据独创性的基本原理以及著作权/邻接权二元立法模式存在的问题,综合《伯尔尼公约》、美国法、欧盟法有关体育赛事节目法律性质的规定,我国立法对体育赛事节目在创造性程度上的要求不应过高。体育赛事节目只要达到最低限度的创造性程度,就应当构成作品,归入"以类似摄制电影的方法创作的作品"这一类别受《著作权法》保护。北京市知识产权法院作出的新浪诉天盈九州案终审判决否定了体育赛事节目的作品属性,是对我国《著作权法》的机械适用,不仅存在法律解释和适用上的问题,同时也与目前世界各国将视听成果纳入作品范围予以著作权保护的趋势背道而驰。此外,体育赛事节目的《反不正当竞争法》保护路径看似"一劳永逸",实则其作用具有局限性,应当审慎适用。
Abstract：In both theoretical and practical field,there are significant differences in the determination of the legal nature of sports programs. According to the basic principle of originality and problems about copyright/neighboring rights binary legislative mode,considering together the Berne Convention,the United States,the European Union law regulations on legal nature of the sports programs,China's legislation of sports programs in the creative degree requirements should not be too high. As long as the sports program reaches the minimum level of creativity,it shall constitute a work and shall be protected by the copyright law in the category of"works created by virtue of the analogous method of film production". The Beijing intellectual property court's final judgment on the Sina v. Tian Yin Jiu Zhou case dismissed the work properties about sports programs,there is the problem on the legal interpretation and application,is the too rigid application about Copyright Law of China,at the same time also run in the opposite direction with the trend about countries all over the world that included the audio visual outcome in the scope of works and with the copyright protection. In addition,the protection path of The Anti-Unfair Competition Law of sports programs seems to be once and for all,but there are great hidden dangers,but its role is limited which should be applied cautiously.
[1]北京市知识产权法院.京知民终字（2015）第1818号民事判决书[EB/OL].http：//wenshu.court.gov.cn/content/content?DocID=176b7def-5828-4b1e-8901-a8c900108061.
[2]孙远钊.从著作权独创性谈中超联赛直播案[EB/OL]. http：//mp.weixin.qq.com/s/-f9zarpzC7v58nLVtCWj4Q.
[3]上海市浦东新区人民法院.浦民二（商）初字（2012）第2451号民事判决书.上海市第一中级人民法院.沪一中民五（知）终字（2013）第59号民事判决书[EB/OL]. https：//www.tianyancha.com/lawsuit/87e9e67f9c0e11e788a5008cfaf8725a.
[4]北京市朝阳区人民法院.朝民（知）初字（2014）第40334号民事判决书[EB/OL].http：//www.shipa.org/ip_litigation_show.asp?id=595.
[5]广东省深圳市福田区人民法院.深福法知民初字（2015）第174号民事判决书[EB/OL].http：//wenshu.court.gov.cn/content/content?DocID=f5c2566f-e367-41b5-8bb2-aa2dcaacbde0.
[6]刘家瑞.论体育节目的国际版权保护[J].知识产权，2017(8):11-20.
[7]姚鹤徽.论体育赛事类节目法律保护制度的缺陷与完善[J].体育科学，2015(5):10-15.
[8]吴汉东.知识产权法[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社，2007:40.
[9]王迁.著作权法[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社，2015:24.
[10]《保护文学和艺术作品伯尔尼公约》（1979年9月28日修订）（正式翻译）[EB/OL]. http：//www.wipo.int/wipolex/zh/treaties/text.jsp?file_id=283696.
[11] Feist Publications,Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co.,499 U.S.340(1991)[EB/OL].https：//supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/499/340/.
[12]张伟君.德国著作权法中作品的“个性（individualitaet）”[EB/OL].http：//blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4da63f410102vljh.html.
[13]张伟君.德国著作权法中的“独创性”以及“一小枚硬币的厚度”标准[EB/OL]. http：//blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4da63f410100qqgz.html.
[14]刘春田.知识产权法[M].北京：高等教育出版社，2013:109.
[15]王迁.体育赛事现场直播画面的著作权保护：兼评“凤凰网赛事转播案”[J].法律科学，2016(1):182-191.
[16] The House Report on the Copyright Act of 1976,H.R.REP.94-1476[EB/OL].https：//en.wikisource.org/wiki/Copyright_Law_Revi(Housion_se_Report_No._94-1476）/Annotated.
[17] Nat'l Football League v. Prime Time 24 Joint Venture,211 F.3d 10,13(2d Cir.2000)[EB/OL].https：//www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/211_F3d_10.htm.
[18]欧盟信息社会版权指令[EB/OL].https：//bbs.mysipo.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=39994.
[19] Asser Institute,Study on Sports Organisers’Rights in the European Union(2014)[EB/OL].https：//papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2455313.
[20] BLEISTEIN V.Donaldson Lithographing Co.188 U.S. 239,251(1903)[EB/OL].https：//supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/188/239/.
[21]揭秘足球比赛电视转播的奥秘，全景解读机位设置与镜头语言[EB/OL].https：//bbs.hupu.com/14904509.html.
[22]欧阳骁锋.浅析电视体育赛事解说[J].传媒论坛，2013(8):83-84.
[23]卢海君.论体育赛事节目的著作权法地位[J].社会科学，2015(2):98-105.
[24]广州市知识产权法院.粤知法民初字（2015）第16号民事判决书[EB/OL].http：//www.chinaiprlaw.cn/index.php?id=4998.
[25]王好.体育比赛网络实时转播权的归属及体系定位：以新浪网诉凤凰网案为例[J].天津体育学院学报，2015(6):514-519.
[26]芮松艳.体育赛事节目的著作法保护问题：北京知产法院判决新浪公司诉天盈九州公司侵犯著作权及不正当竞争纠纷案[N].人民法院报，2018-4-26(006).
[27] WIPO,Guide to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works(1978)[EB/OL].https：//www.wipo.int/treaties/en/text.jsp?file_id=283698.
[28]刘铁光、赵银雀.体育赛事直播画面侵权案件法律适用的规范研究：基于新进案例的实证分析[J].体育科学，2018(1):90-96.
基本信息:
DOI：10.13297/j.cnki.issn1005-0000.2020.04.016
中图分类号:D923.41;D920.5
引用信息:
[1]马丽萍.论体育赛事节目的法律性质——兼评新浪诉天盈九州体育赛事转播案终审判决[J].天津体育学院学报,2020,35(04):467-473.DOI:10.13297/j.cnki.issn1005-0000.2020.04.016.
基金信息:
湖南省社会科学成果评审委员会项目(项目编号：XSP19YBC006)