نقض حقوق مؤلف در پرتو اقتباس از اثر دیگری و از آن خودسازی هنری

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

پژوهشگر- عضو هیات علمی دانشگاه تهران

10.22099/jls.2021.38720.4109

چکیده

اقتباس از آثار ادبی و هنری، یکی از شیوه‌های رایج خلق آثار است. آثار اقتباسی می‌توانند از ارزش‌های مستقلی برخوردار باشند که آن‌ها را به اثری اصیل و قابل حمایت تبدیل نماید.استفاده از اثر دیگری در قالب اقتباس یا از آن خودسازی هنری به سازوکارهایی مانند اخذ اجازه از صاحب حق یا استناد به استثنائات قانونی وارد بر حق نیاز دارد. اما در رژیم های حقوقی معمولاً درباره قواعد اقتباس مانند حق تکثیر و استثنائات آن سخن نرفته است و این درحالی است که اقتباس و از آن خودسازی، یک جریان هنری رایج در جامعه به شمار می‌آید و میتواند در عمل دعاوی نقض متعددی را مطرح کند. مسئله جدی آن است که در چه چارچوب حقوقی میتوان از اثر دیگری اقتباس کرد؟ و مرز استفاده مجاز و غیرمجاز چگونه تعیین می‌شود؟. بی تردید تحلیل استفاده های مجاز به معیارهای حقوقی دقیقی وابسته است که ضمن حفظ حقوق مؤلف اثر نخستین، زمینه خلق آثار جدید را نیز فراهم آورد. مقاله حاضر با روش توصیفی تحلیلی سرانجام نتیجه‌گیری می‌کند که اقتباس با عنایت به سیاست های نظام حقوق مالکیت فکری هر کشوری، در چارچوب‌های مشخص مانند ارزیابی تاثیر بازار اثر اقتباسی بر اثر اصلی و با پذیرش پاره‌ای تعدیل ها در حقوق مؤلف ازجمله حق معنوی مجاز است.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Copyright Infringement in the light of Adaptation and Appropriation

چکیده [English]

Adaptation of literary and artistic works is one of the common ways of creating works.Adapted works can have independent values that make them original and protecting. The use of another work in the form of adaptation requires mechanisms such as obtaining permission from the right holder or invoking legal exceptions to the right. But legal regimes do not usually talk about the rules of adaptation, such as Right of Reproduction and its exceptions, while adaptation and appropriation is a common art movement in society and can in practice bring numerous Infringement. The serious question is in what legal framework can another work be adapted? and how the boundary between authorized and unauthorized use is determined? Undoubtedly, the analysis of permitted uses depends on precise legal criteria that, while preserving the copyright of the first work, also provide the basis for the creation of new works. The present paper concludes with a descriptive-analytical method that adaptation, considering the policies of each country's intellectual property system, is allowed in specific frameworks such as assessing the market impact of the adaptation on the original work and accepting some modifications in copyright, including moral rights.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Adaptation Right
  • Appropriation
  • literary and artistic work
  • Literary and artistic property rights
Abramowicz, Michael B. (2003) “Copyright Redundancy”, George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 03-03. 2003 .Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=374580 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.374580 (Last visited: 2020/09/10).pp.1-118.
Abramowicz, Michael B. (2005) ”A Theory of Copyright's Derivative Right and Related Doctrines”, Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 90, No. 2.
Afori,Orit Fischman (2007) “Copyright Infringement without Copying - Reflections on the Thcberg Case”, Ottawa Law Review, Vol. 39, No.1, pp.1-57.
Cabrera Blázquez F.J. Cappello M. Fontaine G. Valais S. (2017) “Exceptions and limitations to copyright, IRIS Plus “, Strasbourg: European Audiovisual Observatory.
Goldstein,Paul (1983) “Derivative Rights and Derivative Works in Copyright”, 30 J. COPYRIGHT SOC’Y U.S.A. 209.
GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 2013-89. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2282610, (Last visited: 2020/09/10) pp.388-318.
Geller, Paul Edward (2010) “A German Approach to Fair Use: Test Cases for TRIPS Criteria For Copyright Limitations?”, Journal of the Copyright Society of the U SA, Vo l. 57, pp.553-571.
Masouyé, Claude (1978) “Guide to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Paris Act, 1971)”, Genève: Published by the World Intellectual Property Organization.
McCutcheon, Jani (2019) “Making Art From Words: The Picturisation Adaptation Right In Copyright Law” (May 17, 2019). The Research Handbook on Art and Law ed. Jani McCutcheon and Fiona McGaughey, forthcoming 2019, Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3389634. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.374580  Last visited: 2020/07/10).pp.1-18.
Rennie, Douglas Campbell (2014) “This Book Is a Movie: The 'Faithful Adaptation' as a Benchmark for Analyzing the Substantial Similarity of Works in Different Media” (March 30, 2014). Oregon Law Review, Vol. 93, No. 1, pp.1-44.
Rubenfeld,Jed (2002) “‌The Freedom of Imagination: Copyright’s Constitutionality, Faculty Scholarship Series. 1556. Avaliable at: https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/1556. (Last visited: 2020/08/09).pp.1-60.
Samuelson, Pamela (1993) Fair Use for Computer Programs and Other Copyrightable Works in Digital Form: the Implications of Sony, Galoob and Sega 1 J. Intell. Prop. L. 49.
    Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/jipl/vol1/iss1/6
Samuelson, Pamela (2017) Justifications for Copyright Limitations & Exceptions (February 10, 2015).  The chapter in Copyright Law in an Age of Limitations and Exceptions, Ruth Okediji (ed.), Cameridge University Press.
Samuelson, Pamela (2012) “The Quest for a Sound Conception of Copyright's Derivative Work Right” Georgetown Law Journal, Forthcoming; UC Berkeley Public Law Research Paper No. 2138479. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2138479 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2138479. (Last visited: 2020/01/04), pp.1-52.
Lachaussée, Sébastien & Elisa Martin-Winkel (2016) ”Adaptation rights: how to deal with them under French law”, Avaliable at: https://avocatl.com/news/adaptation-rights-how-to-deal-with-them-under-french-law/.

Sir John Everett Millais, Bt (1851) “Ophelia”, (last Visited: 2021/10/20), Avaliable at: https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/millais-ophelia-n01506.

 
Documents
WTO (2000) “Article 13 TRIPS was considered by a Panel established by the WTO Dispute Resolution Body in the United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act” - WT/DS160/R - 15 June 2000. Avaliable at: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/1234da.pdf. (Last visited: 2020/05/05).
EPRS, European Parliamentary Research Service (2018) “COPYRIGHT LAW IN THE EU:
SALIENT FEATURES OF COPYRIGHT LAW ACROSS THE EU MEMBER STATES”.Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_STU (2018)625126. (Last visited: 2020/09/10).
WIPO (2003), Guide To The Copyright And Related Rights Treaties Administered By WIPO And Glossary Of copyright And Related Rights Terms. Available at: https://www.wipo.int/publications/en/details.jsp?id=361&plang=EN.. (Last visited: 2020/05/10).
 
Cases
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. 510 U.S. 569 (1994)
Corte di Cassazione (Italian Supreme Court), Section 1, No 14635/2018 [6 June 2018]
Dyason v Autodesk (1989) 24 FCR 147, 155 (Lockhart 1).
Estate of Hogarth v. Edgar Rice Burroughs Inc (United States District Court, SD New York 15 March 2002) No. 00 CIV 9569 (DLC) [3].
Feist Publications, inc. v. Rural Telephone service co. 499 U.S. 340 (1991).

Idema v. Dreamworks, Inc. 162 F. Supp. 2d 1129 (C.D. Cal. 2001)

Jeff Koons v Franck Davidovici (‘Fait d’hiver’), CA Paris 23 February 2021 n° 19/09059
Martin v. Polyplas Manufacturers Ltd [1969] N.Z.L.R. 1046 (New Zealand: Supreme Court(