版权改革

IF 4.9 1区 社会学 Q1 Social Sciences Stanford Law Review Pub Date : 2004-11-01 DOI:10.4324/9781315092621-8
Christopher Sprigman
{"title":"版权改革","authors":"Christopher Sprigman","doi":"10.4324/9781315092621-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Reform(aliz)ing Copyright looks at the effect of the removal from the U.S. copyright laws of copyright formalities like registration, notice, and renewal. Beginning in 1976, the U.S. moved from a conditional copyright system that premised the existence and continuation of copyright on compliance with formalities, to an unconditional system, where copyright arises automatically when a work is fixed. Richard Epstein has aptly characterized these changes as copyright law . . . flipping over from a system that protected only rights that were claimed to one that vests all rights, whether claimed or not. That is a fundamental shift in any property rights regime, and one that, in the copyright context, represented a break with almost two centuries of practice.The advent of unconditional copyright has generated little comment in the academic literature - perhaps because the very term formalities signals that the former requirements were trifling, ministerial, or more bothersome than helpful. This paper argues that the disappearance of formalities was an important shift, and a harmful one. The paper recommends the re-introduction of formalities - albeit in a new form that accounts for changes in technology and complies with our international obligations under the Berne Convention, the principal international treaty governing copyright. This paper explores the important role that formalities played in our traditional copyright regime, particularly with respect to maintaining a balance between private incentives to produce creative works, and public access to those works. The paper then lays out a few possible approaches to re-introducing new-style formalities that comply with Berne.","PeriodicalId":51386,"journal":{"name":"Stanford Law Review","volume":"57 1","pages":"485-568"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2004-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"35","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reform(aliz)ing Copyright\",\"authors\":\"Christopher Sprigman\",\"doi\":\"10.4324/9781315092621-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Reform(aliz)ing Copyright looks at the effect of the removal from the U.S. copyright laws of copyright formalities like registration, notice, and renewal. Beginning in 1976, the U.S. moved from a conditional copyright system that premised the existence and continuation of copyright on compliance with formalities, to an unconditional system, where copyright arises automatically when a work is fixed. Richard Epstein has aptly characterized these changes as copyright law . . . flipping over from a system that protected only rights that were claimed to one that vests all rights, whether claimed or not. That is a fundamental shift in any property rights regime, and one that, in the copyright context, represented a break with almost two centuries of practice.The advent of unconditional copyright has generated little comment in the academic literature - perhaps because the very term formalities signals that the former requirements were trifling, ministerial, or more bothersome than helpful. This paper argues that the disappearance of formalities was an important shift, and a harmful one. The paper recommends the re-introduction of formalities - albeit in a new form that accounts for changes in technology and complies with our international obligations under the Berne Convention, the principal international treaty governing copyright. This paper explores the important role that formalities played in our traditional copyright regime, particularly with respect to maintaining a balance between private incentives to produce creative works, and public access to those works. The paper then lays out a few possible approaches to re-introducing new-style formalities that comply with Berne.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51386,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Stanford Law Review\",\"volume\":\"57 1\",\"pages\":\"485-568\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2004-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"35\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Stanford Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315092621-8\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stanford Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315092621-8","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 35

摘要

《版权改革》着眼于美国版权法中版权手续(如注册、通知和续订)的取消所带来的影响。从1976年开始,美国从以遵守形式为前提的版权存在和延续的“有条件的版权制度”,转变为只要作品固定就自动产生版权的“无条件的版权制度”。理查德·爱泼斯坦恰当地将这些变化描述为版权法……从一个只保护被要求的权利的制度转变为一个赋予所有权利的制度,无论是否被要求。在任何产权制度中,这都是一个根本性的转变,在版权方面,这也代表着与近两个世纪以来的惯例的决破。无条件版权的出现在学术文献中几乎没有引起什么评论——也许是因为“形式”这个词本身就表明,以前的要求是琐碎的、部门式的,或者与其说有帮助,不如说更麻烦。本文认为,形式的消失是一个重要的转变,也是一个有害的转变。本文建议重新引入形式——尽管是以一种新的形式,考虑到技术的变化,并符合我们在《伯尔尼公约》(管理版权的主要国际条约)下的国际义务。本文探讨了形式在我们传统的版权制度中所起的重要作用,特别是在保持私人创作作品的动机与公众获取这些作品之间的平衡方面。然后,论文列出了几种可能的方法来重新引入符合伯尔尼的新型形式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Reform(aliz)ing Copyright
Reform(aliz)ing Copyright looks at the effect of the removal from the U.S. copyright laws of copyright formalities like registration, notice, and renewal. Beginning in 1976, the U.S. moved from a conditional copyright system that premised the existence and continuation of copyright on compliance with formalities, to an unconditional system, where copyright arises automatically when a work is fixed. Richard Epstein has aptly characterized these changes as copyright law . . . flipping over from a system that protected only rights that were claimed to one that vests all rights, whether claimed or not. That is a fundamental shift in any property rights regime, and one that, in the copyright context, represented a break with almost two centuries of practice.The advent of unconditional copyright has generated little comment in the academic literature - perhaps because the very term formalities signals that the former requirements were trifling, ministerial, or more bothersome than helpful. This paper argues that the disappearance of formalities was an important shift, and a harmful one. The paper recommends the re-introduction of formalities - albeit in a new form that accounts for changes in technology and complies with our international obligations under the Berne Convention, the principal international treaty governing copyright. This paper explores the important role that formalities played in our traditional copyright regime, particularly with respect to maintaining a balance between private incentives to produce creative works, and public access to those works. The paper then lays out a few possible approaches to re-introducing new-style formalities that comply with Berne.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
2.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Information not localized
期刊最新文献
Does nationality affect nurses' information security participation? A comparative study in Iran and Poland. "Sorry” Is Never Enough: How State Apology Laws Fail to Reduce Medical Malpractice Liability Risk. What Is Federalism in Healthcare For? "Sorry” Is Never Enough: How State Apology Laws Fail to Reduce Medical Malpractice Liability Risk. Interrogated with Intellectual Disabilities: The Risks of False Confession.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
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
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
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
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