首页 > 最新文献

The Cambridge Handbook of Copyright Limitations and Exceptions最新文献

英文 中文
Debunking the Fair Use vs. Fair Dealing Myth: Have We Had Fair Use All Along? 揭穿合理使用与公平交易的神话:我们一直都有合理使用吗?
Pub Date : 2021-01-07 DOI: 10.1017/9781108671101.011
Ariel Katz
Eleven decades ago, on December 16, 1911, the Imperial Copyright Act of 1911 received royal assent, codifying fair dealing for the first time, and thus explicitly recognizing it, in the imperial copyright legislation. Ten years later, the same fair dealing provision would appear in the Canadian Copyright Act and would remain the basis of the current fair dealing provisions. Tragically, what was supposed to be an exercise in the codification of a dynamic and evolving common law principle, usually referred to as “fair use,” ended up – with a few notable exceptions – in a hundred years of solitude and stagnation. Misinterpreting the 1911 Act, some courts and commentators in the UK and other Commonwealth countries adopted a narrow and restrictive view of fair dealing. Meanwhile, in the United States, fair use, the same common law concept that English and American courts developed, remained uncodified for most of the twentieth century. When the United States finally codified fair use in 1976, Congress left no doubt that the codification would not alter its common law basis and ought not hinder its flexibility and adaptability. Thus, toward the end of the twentieth century, a noticeable split in Anglo-American copyright law emerged: an open, flexible, and general fair use regime in the United States, and a seemingly rigid and restrictive fair dealing tradition in the Commonwealth countries.
十一年前,即1911年12月16日,《1911年帝国版权法》获得皇室批准,首次将公平交易写入法典,从而在帝国版权法中明确承认了这一点。十年后,同样的公平交易条款将出现在加拿大版权法中,并将继续成为当前公平交易条款的基础。可悲的是,本应是对一项充满活力和不断发展的普通法原则(通常被称为“合理使用”)进行编纂的一项实践,最终——除了一些值得注意的例外——陷入了百年的孤独和停滞。英国和其他英联邦国家的一些法院和评论员误解了1911年的法案,对公平交易采取了狭隘和限制性的看法。与此同时,在美国,英美法院发展起来的普通法概念“合理使用”在20世纪的大部分时间里都没有被编入法典。当美国最终在1976年将合理使用编纂成法典时,国会毫不怀疑地表明,编纂不会改变其普通法基础,也不应妨碍其灵活性和适应性。因此,在20世纪末,英美版权法出现了明显的分裂:美国是一个开放、灵活和普遍的合理使用制度,而英联邦国家则是一个看似严格和限制性的公平交易传统。
{"title":"Debunking the Fair Use vs. Fair Dealing Myth: Have We Had Fair Use All Along?","authors":"Ariel Katz","doi":"10.1017/9781108671101.011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108671101.011","url":null,"abstract":"Eleven decades ago, on December 16, 1911, the Imperial Copyright Act of 1911 received royal assent, codifying fair dealing for the first time, and thus explicitly recognizing it, in the imperial copyright legislation. Ten years later, the same fair dealing provision would appear in the Canadian Copyright Act and would remain the basis of the current fair dealing provisions. Tragically, what was supposed to be an exercise in the codification of a dynamic and evolving common law principle, usually referred to as “fair use,” ended up – with a few notable exceptions – in a hundred years of solitude and stagnation. Misinterpreting the 1911 Act, some courts and commentators in the UK and other Commonwealth countries adopted a narrow and restrictive view of fair dealing. Meanwhile, in the United States, fair use, the same common law concept that English and American courts developed, remained uncodified for most of the twentieth century. When the United States finally codified fair use in 1976, Congress left no doubt that the codification would not alter its common law basis and ought not hinder its flexibility and adaptability. Thus, toward the end of the twentieth century, a noticeable split in Anglo-American copyright law emerged: an open, flexible, and general fair use regime in the United States, and a seemingly rigid and restrictive fair dealing tradition in the Commonwealth countries.","PeriodicalId":424117,"journal":{"name":"The Cambridge Handbook of Copyright Limitations and Exceptions","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114713172","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Fair Use As an Advance on Fair Dealing? Depolarizing the Debate 合理使用是公平交易的前奏?去极化辩论
Pub Date : 2021-01-07 DOI: 10.1017/9781108671101.012
M. Handler, Emily Hudson
{"title":"Fair Use As an Advance on Fair Dealing? Depolarizing the Debate","authors":"M. Handler, Emily Hudson","doi":"10.1017/9781108671101.012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108671101.012","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":424117,"journal":{"name":"The Cambridge Handbook of Copyright Limitations and Exceptions","volume":"84 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122638881","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
From Fair Dealing to User-Generated Content: Legal La La Land in Hong Kong 从公平交易到用户生成内容:香港的法律之城
Pub Date : 2021-01-07 DOI: 10.1017/9781108671101.024
Alice Lee, Brendan Clift
{"title":"From Fair Dealing to User-Generated Content: Legal La La Land in Hong Kong","authors":"Alice Lee, Brendan Clift","doi":"10.1017/9781108671101.024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108671101.024","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":424117,"journal":{"name":"The Cambridge Handbook of Copyright Limitations and Exceptions","volume":"226 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133204363","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
“Fair Use” through Fundamental Rights in Europe: When Freedom of Artistic Expression Allows Creative Appropriations and Opens Up Statutory Copyright Limitations “合理使用”通过基本权利在欧洲:当艺术表达自由允许创造性挪用和打开法定版权限制
Pub Date : 2020-10-27 DOI: 10.1017/9781108671101.014
C. Geiger
This chapter discusses the evolution in jurisprudential understanding of the relationship between copyright and freedom of artistic expression in the European Union. It demonstrates how courts in France and several other EU member states have accepted a “fair use” approach that applies fundamental rights as external limitations to copyright law, in compliance with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights but contrasting with the recent conflicting position of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The chapter first analyses the application of freedom of artistic expression to copyright law on a case-by-case basis and shows that, although long contested, such an approach is now mandated by EU primary law, thus “flexibilizing” significantly the legal framework in this area. It then examines the balancing act between fundamental rights and copyright, with particular attention paid to the weight the judiciary should afford freedom of artistic expression versus copyright law in cases of creative appropriation, in order to comply with the obligations resulting from European, national, and international human rights provisions. Finally, the chapter concludes with a discussion and evaluation of the growing need for legislative reform to render freedom of artistic expression fully compatible with copyright law in the context of creative reuses of protected works.
本章讨论了欧盟对版权与艺术表达自由关系的法理理解的演变。它展示了法国和其他几个欧盟成员国的法院是如何接受一种“合理使用”方法的,这种方法将基本权利作为版权法的外部限制,符合欧洲人权法院的判例法,但与欧盟法院最近的冲突立场形成鲜明对比。本章首先逐案分析了艺术表达自由在版权法中的应用,并表明,尽管长期存在争议,但这种方法现在已被欧盟主要法律强制规定,从而大大“灵活”了这一领域的法律框架。然后,它审查了基本权利和版权之间的平衡行为,特别注意在创造性挪用的情况下,司法部门应该给予艺术表达自由与版权法的权重,以遵守欧洲、国家和国际人权规定所产生的义务。最后,本章最后讨论和评估了在创造性地重复使用受保护作品的情况下,越来越需要进行立法改革,使艺术表达自由完全符合版权法。
{"title":"“Fair Use” through Fundamental Rights in Europe: When Freedom of Artistic Expression Allows Creative Appropriations and Opens Up Statutory Copyright Limitations","authors":"C. Geiger","doi":"10.1017/9781108671101.014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108671101.014","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter discusses the evolution in jurisprudential understanding of the relationship between copyright and freedom of artistic expression in the European Union. It demonstrates how courts in France and several other EU member states have accepted a “fair use” approach that applies fundamental rights as external limitations to copyright law, in compliance with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights but contrasting with the recent conflicting position of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The chapter first analyses the application of freedom of artistic expression to copyright law on a case-by-case basis and shows that, although long contested, such an approach is now mandated by EU primary law, thus “flexibilizing” significantly the legal framework in this area. It then examines the balancing act between fundamental rights and copyright, with particular attention paid to the weight the judiciary should afford freedom of artistic expression versus copyright law in cases of creative appropriation, in order to comply with the obligations resulting from European, national, and international human rights provisions. Finally, the chapter concludes with a discussion and evaluation of the growing need for legislative reform to render freedom of artistic expression fully compatible with copyright law in the context of creative reuses of protected works.","PeriodicalId":424117,"journal":{"name":"The Cambridge Handbook of Copyright Limitations and Exceptions","volume":"72 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127040211","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Self-Actualization and the Need to Create As a Limit on Copyright 自我实现与创作对版权的限制
Pub Date : 2018-08-31 DOI: 10.1017/9781108671101.004
C. S. Yoo
Personhood theory is almost invariably cited as one of the primary theoretical bases for copyright. The conventional wisdom views creative works as the embodiment of their creator’s personality. This unique connection between authors and their works justifies giving authors property interests in the results of their creative efforts. This Chapter argues that the conventional wisdom is too limited. It offers too narrow a vision of the ways that creativity can develop personality by focusing exclusively on the results of the creative process and ignoring the self-actualizing benefits of the creative process itself. German aesthetic theory broadens the understanding of the interactions between creativity and personality. Psychologists, aestheticians, and philosophers have underscored how originating creative works can play an important role in self-actualization. When combined with the insight creative works frequently borrow from the corpus of existing works, this insight provides a basis for this insight provides a basis for broadening fair use rights. Moreover, to the extent that works must be shared with audiences or a community of like-minded people in order to be meaningful, it arguably supports a right of dissemination. The result is a theory that values the creative process for the process itself and not just for the artifacts it creates, takes the interests of follow-on authors seriously, and provides an affirmative theory of the public domain. The internal logic of this approach carries with it a number of limitations, specifically that any access rights be limited to uses that are noncommercial and educational and extend no farther than the amount needed to promote self-actualization.
人格理论几乎总是被引用为著作权的主要理论基础之一。传统观念认为,创造性作品是创作者个性的体现。作者和他们的作品之间的这种独特联系,证明了在作者的创作成果中给予他们财产利益是合理的。本章认为,传统智慧太过局限。它只关注创造过程的结果,而忽视了创造过程本身的自我实现的好处,从而对创造力发展个性的方式提供了过于狭隘的看法。德国美学理论拓宽了对创造力与个性之间相互作用的理解。心理学家、美学家和哲学家都强调了原创创作在自我实现中扮演的重要角色。当与创造性作品经常借用现有作品语料库的洞察力相结合时,这种洞察力为这种洞察力提供了基础,这种洞察力为扩大合理使用权利提供了基础。此外,在某种程度上,作品必须与观众或志同道合的人分享才能有意义,可以说它支持了传播权。其结果是一种理论,它重视创作过程本身,而不仅仅是它所创造的人工制品,认真对待后续作者的兴趣,并提供了一种公共领域的肯定理论。这种方法的内在逻辑带有许多限制,特别是任何访问权都限于非商业和教育用途,并且不得超过促进自我实现所需的数量。
{"title":"Self-Actualization and the Need to Create As a Limit on Copyright","authors":"C. S. Yoo","doi":"10.1017/9781108671101.004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108671101.004","url":null,"abstract":"Personhood theory is almost invariably cited as one of the primary theoretical bases for copyright. The conventional wisdom views creative works as the embodiment of their creator’s personality. This unique connection between authors and their works justifies giving authors property interests in the results of their creative efforts. \u0000 \u0000This Chapter argues that the conventional wisdom is too limited. It offers too narrow a vision of the ways that creativity can develop personality by focusing exclusively on the results of the creative process and ignoring the self-actualizing benefits of the creative process itself. German aesthetic theory broadens the understanding of the interactions between creativity and personality. Psychologists, aestheticians, and philosophers have underscored how originating creative works can play an important role in self-actualization. When combined with the insight creative works frequently borrow from the corpus of existing works, this insight provides a basis for this insight provides a basis for broadening fair use rights. Moreover, to the extent that works must be shared with audiences or a community of like-minded people in order to be meaningful, it arguably supports a right of dissemination. \u0000 \u0000The result is a theory that values the creative process for the process itself and not just for the artifacts it creates, takes the interests of follow-on authors seriously, and provides an affirmative theory of the public domain. The internal logic of this approach carries with it a number of limitations, specifically that any access rights be limited to uses that are noncommercial and educational and extend no farther than the amount needed to promote self-actualization.","PeriodicalId":424117,"journal":{"name":"The Cambridge Handbook of Copyright Limitations and Exceptions","volume":"71 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129901637","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
A Copyright Limitations Treaty Based on the Marrakesh Model: Nightmare or Dream Come True? 基于马拉喀什模式的版权限制条约:噩梦还是美梦?
Pub Date : 2017-11-03 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.3064823
Martin Senftleben
With the adoption of the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons who are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled in 2013, the international copyright community has shown its willingness to take further steps in the harmonization of limitations and exceptions in the field of copyright. However, the Marrakesh Treaty is only the tip of the iceberg. Its preparation and negotiation took place against the background of a much broader debate over the introduction of so-called “ceilings” in international copyright law: binding rules that set a maximum level of permissible protection. While the Marrakesh Treaty entered into force on September 30, 2016, the bigger project of regulating the ceilings of copyright protection in an international instrument is still pending. Hence, the question arises whether the results of the small step of adopting the Marrakesh Treaty are encouraging enough to take the giant leap of discussing ceilings of copyright protection and establishing a general Copyright Limitations Treaty. To answer this question, the following analysis will first shed light on the peculiar configuration of the Marrakesh Treaty. The Treaty combines both very specific and very open rules on L&Es for blind and print-disabled persons with the abstract criteria of the “three-step test” known from Article 9(2) BC, Article 13 TRIPS and Article 10 WCT. As a result of this treaty architecture, the objective of offering maximum legal certainty in respect of use privileges for blind, visually impaired and print-disabled persons is compromised. The Marrakesh Treaty can lead to a nightmare scenario in which neither the goal of legal certainty nor the advantage of flexibility is realized. However, the Marrakesh Treaty also demonstrates how international norms could be structured to arrive at a sufficiently flexible and sustainable treaty framework for the regulation of limitations and exceptions at the national level. Certain features of the Treaty can serve as a source of inspiration for the development of a dream scenario.
随着2013年通过《关于为盲人、视力障碍者或其他印刷品阅读障碍者获得已出版作品提供便利的马拉喀什条约》,国际版权界表明愿意采取进一步措施,协调版权领域的限制与例外。然而,《马拉喀什条约》只是冰山一角。它的准备和谈判是在更广泛的辩论背景下进行的,即在国际版权法中引入所谓的“上限”:设定允许保护的最高水平的具有约束力的规则。虽然《马拉喀什条约》已于2016年9月30日生效,但在一项国际文书中规范版权保护上限的更大项目仍悬而未决。因此,出现了这样一个问题:通过《马拉喀什条约》这一小步的结果是否足以令人鼓舞,从而可以迈出讨论版权保护上限和建立一项一般性的《版权限制条约》这一大步。为了回答这个问题,下面的分析将首先阐明《马拉喀什条约》的特殊结构。该条约结合了非常具体和非常开放的盲人和印刷品阅读障碍者的l&e规则,以及从《不列颠哥伦比亚省法典》第9(2)条、《与贸易有关的知识产权协定》第13条和《世界贸易公约》第10条所知的“三步检验”的抽象标准。由于这一条约架构,为盲人、视力障碍者和印刷品阅读障碍者的使用特权提供最大限度法律确定性的目标受到了损害。《马拉喀什条约》可能导致一种噩梦般的局面,既无法实现法律确定性的目标,也无法实现灵活性的优势。然而,《马拉喀什条约》也表明,如何构建国际规范,以形成一个足够灵活和可持续的条约框架,以便在国家一级管理限制和例外。《条约》的某些特点可以作为制定梦想情景的灵感来源。
{"title":"A Copyright Limitations Treaty Based on the Marrakesh Model: Nightmare or Dream Come True?","authors":"Martin Senftleben","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3064823","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3064823","url":null,"abstract":"With the adoption of the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons who are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled in 2013, the international copyright community has shown its willingness to take further steps in the harmonization of limitations and exceptions in the field of copyright. However, the Marrakesh Treaty is only the tip of the iceberg. Its preparation and negotiation took place against the background of a much broader debate over the introduction of so-called “ceilings” in international copyright law: binding rules that set a maximum level of permissible protection. While the Marrakesh Treaty entered into force on September 30, 2016, the bigger project of regulating the ceilings of copyright protection in an international instrument is still pending. \u0000Hence, the question arises whether the results of the small step of adopting the Marrakesh Treaty are encouraging enough to take the giant leap of discussing ceilings of copyright protection and establishing a general Copyright Limitations Treaty. To answer this question, the following analysis will first shed light on the peculiar configuration of the Marrakesh Treaty. The Treaty combines both very specific and very open rules on L&Es for blind and print-disabled persons with the abstract criteria of the “three-step test” known from Article 9(2) BC, Article 13 TRIPS and Article 10 WCT. As a result of this treaty architecture, the objective of offering maximum legal certainty in respect of use privileges for blind, visually impaired and print-disabled persons is compromised. The Marrakesh Treaty can lead to a nightmare scenario in which neither the goal of legal certainty nor the advantage of flexibility is realized. However, the Marrakesh Treaty also demonstrates how international norms could be structured to arrive at a sufficiently flexible and sustainable treaty framework for the regulation of limitations and exceptions at the national level. Certain features of the Treaty can serve as a source of inspiration for the development of a dream scenario.","PeriodicalId":424117,"journal":{"name":"The Cambridge Handbook of Copyright Limitations and Exceptions","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124631284","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
期刊
The Cambridge Handbook of Copyright Limitations and Exceptions
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1