{"title":"英国版权法中定义戏剧的电影太多","authors":"C. Paul Sellors","doi":"10.1080/17577632.2020.1831141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In Norowzian v Arks Ltd. (No.2) the Court of Appeal determined that the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 protects films as dramatic works. What, conceptually and in practice, this means is not clear. This article examines and compares the history of film with the definitions of film in the Berne Convention and UK copyright laws to argue that practical and legal definitions of film were already diverging when the Copyright Act 1911 was enacted. It contends the continuing divergence between film and its legal classification in copyright law develops from the underscoring aesthetic theory on which classifications from the 1911 Act onwards depend. Establishing the classifications in CDPA 1988 on an alternative aesthetic theory could better accommodate filmic expression.","PeriodicalId":37779,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Media Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17577632.2020.1831141","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Too much drama defining film in UK copyright law\",\"authors\":\"C. Paul Sellors\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17577632.2020.1831141\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT In Norowzian v Arks Ltd. (No.2) the Court of Appeal determined that the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 protects films as dramatic works. What, conceptually and in practice, this means is not clear. This article examines and compares the history of film with the definitions of film in the Berne Convention and UK copyright laws to argue that practical and legal definitions of film were already diverging when the Copyright Act 1911 was enacted. It contends the continuing divergence between film and its legal classification in copyright law develops from the underscoring aesthetic theory on which classifications from the 1911 Act onwards depend. Establishing the classifications in CDPA 1988 on an alternative aesthetic theory could better accommodate filmic expression.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37779,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Media Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17577632.2020.1831141\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Media Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2020.1831141\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Media Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2020.1831141","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
ABSTRACT In Norowzian v Arks Ltd. (No.2) the Court of Appeal determined that the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 protects films as dramatic works. What, conceptually and in practice, this means is not clear. This article examines and compares the history of film with the definitions of film in the Berne Convention and UK copyright laws to argue that practical and legal definitions of film were already diverging when the Copyright Act 1911 was enacted. It contends the continuing divergence between film and its legal classification in copyright law develops from the underscoring aesthetic theory on which classifications from the 1911 Act onwards depend. Establishing the classifications in CDPA 1988 on an alternative aesthetic theory could better accommodate filmic expression.
期刊介绍：
The only platform for focused, rigorous analysis of global developments in media law, this peer-reviewed journal, launched in Summer 2009, is: essential for teaching and research, essential for practice, essential for policy-making. It turns the spotlight on all those aspects of law which impinge on and shape modern media practices - from regulation and ownership, to libel law and constitutional aspects of broadcasting such as free speech and privacy, obscenity laws, copyright, piracy, and other aspects of IT law. The result is the first journal to take a serious view of law through the lens. The first issues feature articles on a wide range of topics such as: Developments in Defamation · Balancing Freedom of Expression and Privacy in the European Court of Human Rights · The Future of Public Television · Cameras in the Courtroom - Media Access to Classified Documents · Advertising Revenue v Editorial Independence · Gordon Ramsay: Obscenity Regulation Pioneer?
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
