字库单字著作权保护的实证考察及反思
Empirical Study on Protecting Copyright of Typeface Word
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In recent years disputes about typeface word have continuously occured, making it a hot issue in the field of intellectual property law. In the cases adjudicated some courts identified typeface word as a form of art work, while others denied this. These completely contradictory judgments of different courts in practice have attracted widespread attention in academia, leading to a heated debate amongst scholars where two opposite standpoints have emerged. The assentients take the opinion that as long as the typeface word meets the essential conditions of originality and reproducibility,copyright law can protect it. However, the dissenters maintain that only creative resultant can result in intellectual property; the fruits of labour are just enjoyed by traditional property rights. Thus the issue of whether typeface word can be added into the copyright law framework needs to be urgently theoretically clarified. By comprehensively applying the theory of copyright law and combining it with the texts of law and the nature of typeface word we can draw the conclusion that typeface word cannot be protected under the mode of copyright law. The reasons are as follows:(1) Making typeface word is a productive process, not a creative process. The typeface word is made in accordance with unified production standards, has a standardized production process, has a division of labor of people that possesses the characteristics of industrialized production, and also has strict quality inspection standards. (2) The use of typeface word is the result of typeface software. The interaction between the computer typeface and the computer operating system is similar in effect and method to a Chinese or English printer, providing the functions of text display and output. (3)Typeface word belong to useful article, and thus do not meet the standards of separation characteristics and independent existence. The major function of the typeface word is its utility function, and the aesthetic function is complementary. The nature of typeface word makes it impossible to have either "physical separability" or "conceptual separability". In the production process of the typeface word all the aesthetic artistic design components that the character font possesses have already been fused together with the character strokes. As a result it cannot be isolated again as an art work and exist independently. (4) Typeface word is a printing tool, different from the designer's word draft, and are not calligraphy. Calligraphy is an art form, emphasizing the personality. Only through the authors’ own creative activities can a piece of work be created. In order to pursue their sense of beauty and artistic conception the author directly creates a font where structures and layouts are variable, and each stroke echoes this. There is a qualitative difference between the original calligraphy and duplicated. Moreover, the functions of typeface word are for people to write articles and for typography when designing text; there is no difference between the original and duplicated.
Abstract
In recent years disputes about typeface word have continuously occured, making it a hot issue in the field of intellectual property law. In the cases adjudicated some courts identified typeface word as a form of art work, while others denied this. These completely contradictory judgments of different courts in practice have attracted widespread attention in academia, leading to a heated debate amongst scholars where two opposite standpoints have emerged. The assentients take the opinion that as long as the typeface word meets the essential conditions of originality and reproducibility,copyright law can protect it. However, the dissenters maintain that only creative resultant can result in intellectual property; the fruits of labour are just enjoyed by traditional property rights. Thus the issue of whether typeface word can be added into the copyright law framework needs to be urgently theoretically clarified. By comprehensively applying the theory of copyright law and combining it with the texts of law and the nature of typeface word we can draw the conclusion that typeface word cannot be protected under the mode of copyright law. The reasons are as follows:(1) Making typeface word is a productive process, not a creative process. The typeface word is made in accordance with unified production standards, has a standardized production process, has a division of labor of people that possesses the characteristics of industrialized production, and also has strict quality inspection standards. (2) The use of typeface word is the result of typeface software. The interaction between the computer typeface and the computer operating system is similar in effect and method to a Chinese or English printer, providing the functions of text display and output. (3)Typeface word belong to useful article, and thus do not meet the standards of separation characteristics and independent existence. The major function of the typeface word is its utility function, and the aesthetic function is complementary. The nature of typeface word makes it impossible to have either "physical separability" or "conceptual separability". In the production process of the typeface word all the aesthetic artistic design components that the character font possesses have already been fused together with the character strokes. As a result it cannot be isolated again as an art work and exist independently. (4) Typeface word is a printing tool, different from the designer's word draft, and are not calligraphy. Calligraphy is an art form, emphasizing the personality. Only through the authors’ own creative activities can a piece of work be created. In order to pursue their sense of beauty and artistic conception the author directly creates a font where structures and layouts are variable, and each stroke echoes this. There is a qualitative difference between the original calligraphy and duplicated. Moreover, the functions of typeface word are for people to write articles and for typography when designing text; there is no difference between the original and duplicated.
참고문헌 (29)
- 刘春田, "论方正‘倩体字’的非艺术性", 知识产权, 5, pp.7~13 (2011)
- 张今, "计算机艺术字体的作品属性与著作权保护", 中国版权, 5, pp.26~29 (2011)
- 陶鑫良, "具独创性的汉字印刷字体单字是著作权法保护的美术作品", 法学, 7, pp.55~60 (2011)
- 姚兵兵, "字库单字的美术作品性质", 中国版权, 1, pp.40~42 (2012)
- 张玉敏, "字形、字库、字库软件的法律保护问题", 中国版权, 5, pp.22~25 (2011)
- 吴伟光, "中文字体的著作权保护问题研究——国际公约、产业政策与公共利益之间的影响与 选择", 清华法学, 5, pp.57~82 (2011)
- 李琛, "计算机字库中单字著作权之证伪", 知识产权, 5, pp.28~31 (2011)
- 张玉瑞, "字体、计算机字体的版权保护", 电子知识产权, 9, pp.81~86 (2010)
- 黄武双等, "计算机字体与字库的法律保护:原理与判例" (2011), 法律出版社
- 何炼红, "计算机字库单个字体不宜受著作权法的保护", 政治与法律, 6, pp.113~120 (2012)
- 李雨峰, "使用特定字体字库软件中的汉字不构成侵权", 人民司法, 18, pp.97~101 (2011)
- 崔国斌, "单字字体和字库软件可能受著作权法保护", 法学, 7, pp.46~54 (2011)
- 张玉瑞, "论计算机字体的版权保护", 科技与法律, 1, pp.59~66 (2011)
- 卢海君, "版权客体论" (2011), 知识产权出版社
- 刘银良, "论版权法中的功能原则:以美国的立法和司法实践为视角", 电子知识产权, 12, pp.68~73 (2010)
- 李明德, "美国版权法与字体、字型和字库", 电子知识产权, 6, pp.71~74 (2011)
- 许超, "字体字形的知识产权保护", 知识产权, 5, pp.24~27 (2011)
- 李雨峰, "计算机字库、字体的法律地位", 知识产权, 5, pp.32~36 (2011)
- 陶鑫良, "中文印刷字体单字与字库软件的著作权辨析", 知识产权, 5 (2011)
- 张平, "再谈计算机字体的法律保护", 知识产权, 5, pp.19~23 (2011)
- 芮松艳, "计算机字库中单字的著作权保护——兼评‘方正诉宝洁’案", 知识产权, 10, pp.44~49 (2011)
- 黄武双, "实用功能排除了计算机字体著作权保护的可能性", 法学, 3, pp.40~45 (2011)
- 陶鑫良, "具独创性的汉字印刷字体单字是著作权法保护的美术作品", 法学, 7, pp.40~45 (2011)
- 陶鑫良, "商业广告宣传中字体单字使用的著作权辨析——从‘飘柔’倩体字形著作 权侵权诉讼案谈起", 电子知识产权, 4, pp.71~75 (2011)
- 张平, "计算机字库产业发展与字体的版权保护", 电子知识产权, 4, pp.65~70 (2011)
- 马东晓, "浅析字库字体单个文字字型的美术作品保护——以方正字库字体为例", 科技与法律, 1, pp.67~69 (2011)
- 陈婍茵, "美国法律对于字库软件的保护方式综述", 网络法律评论, 1, pp.206~211 (2010)
- 曹新明, "关于字体单字著作权问题的思考", 南京理工大学学报, 3 (2013)
- 黄汇, "计算机字体单字著作权保护中的公共领域保留——以方正诉宝洁侵犯计算机 倩体字‘飘柔’案为例展开", 法律适用, 4, pp.108~110 (2013)
