【作者】 王莉；

【导师】 金俭；

【作者基本信息】 南京大学 ， 法律硕士（非法学）（专业学位）， 2020， 硕士

【副题名】以游戏规则为视角

【摘要】 随着社会发展,人们在文学、艺术和科学领域不断创造了一系列新型智力劳动成果,由于我国《著作权法》和《著作权法实施条例》中仅列举规定了八种具体作品类型,对于以游戏规则为代表的难以解释为现有作品类型的智力劳动成果能否受到著作权法保护在学界和实务界一直存在分歧,同案不同判的现象突出。另一方面,作为网络游戏中吸引玩家的关键要素,游戏规则研发周期长、成本高,但由于法律规定不明确、审判实践态度不统一,相较于复制游戏的源代码、美术、音乐作品等行为,游戏规则抄袭被认定构成侵权的风险反倒更小,这使得游戏规则成为抄袭的重灾区。本文以游戏规则为视角,立足于著作权的保护客体,从理论层面详细论述了思想/表达二分法和功能性原则的本质,以及在这两大原则下的著作权保护对象和保护范围的确定。再结合审判实践,提出特定游戏规则可以成为著作权保护对象的理论依据。第一部分分析了在现有法律规定下,新型智力劳动成果的著作权保护困境。本文认为著作权法中的作品类型只是例示性而非限定性的,对于无法解释为现有作品类型,但符合作品构成要件且法律未明确排除的新型智力劳动成果,不应排除著作权保护。第二部分梳理并分析了目前审判实践对游戏规则保护的不同态度。大多数法院认定游戏规则不属于著作权保护客体,但可通过反不正当竞争法予以规则;少数法院通过肯定其他类型作品的著作权间接保护游戏规则。本文认为前者与著作权法的立法目的相冲突,后者的保护效果有限,无法真正规制游戏规则抄袭行为。第三部分论述了思想表达二分下著作权的保护范围和认定方法,尤其是详细分析了著作权意义上“思想”和“表达”的内含及两者在作品中的关系。本文认为在作品中,从思想到表达实质是从抽象到具体多层次的过程,著作权法不仅保护具体的表达形式,也保护表达形式之下介于字面表达与思想之间的“表达内容”,游戏规则中具有独特和识别性的具体规则属于表达范畴。第四部分详细论述了功能性原则对不属于著作权保护范围的表达的过滤。本文认为应当区分“事实功能性”和“法律功能性”,作品中具有功能性表达,并不排除能与之分离的艺术性表达受著作权法保护。并在此分析之上,梳理了游戏规则中的功能性表达。第五部分针对游戏规则的非字面复制行为,分析了著作权侵权认定中的“实质性相似”规则。本文认为“实质性相似”是以作品的“独创性”为基础,判断被控侵权作品是否使用了权利作品的实质部分。对于游戏规则,应当通过三步检验法或内外部检测法,以一般受众的知识水平和注意能力对是否构成实质性相似进行判断,其中不以混淆作为考量标准。由于我国对游戏规则的司法保护起步较晚,在论证过程,引入了域外的多个典型案例与国内审判实践相互印证,以期通过梳理和分析对现实中同案不同判现象的改善、游戏产业的健康有序发展有所推动。更多还原

【Abstract】 With the development of society,people have continuously created a series of new intellectual labor results in the fields of literature,art and science.Copyright Law and Regulations for the Implementation of the Copyright Law only list eight specific types of works.Therefore,there are always divergences in the academic and practical circles as to whether the intellectual labor achievements that are difficult to interpret as existing works represented by the rules of the game can be protected by copyright law.The phenomenon of different judgments in the same case is prominent.On the other hand,as a key element of attracting players in online games,the game rule development cycle is long and the cost is high.However,due to the unclear legal regulations and inconsistent attitudes of trial practice,the risk of plagiarism of a game rule is deemed to be smaller than the risk of copying the game’s source code,art,and music.That makes game rule became a disaster area of plagiarism.From the perspective of the rules of the game,this article is based on the subject matter of copyright protection,and discusses the nature of the ideology / expression dichotomy and functional principles in detail from a theoretical level,and the determination of the objects and scope of copyright protection under these two principles.Combined with trial practice,it is proposed that the rules of the game can be the theoretical basis for the object of copyright protection.The first part analyzes the copyright protection plight of new types of works under the existing laws.This article considers that the types of works in copyright law are only illustrative and not restrictive.For new types of works that cannot be interpreted as existing works,but meet the composition of the work and are not explicitly excluded by law,copyright protection should not be excluded.The second part sorts out and analyzes the different attitudes of current trialpractice to the protection of game rules.Most courts find that the rules of the game are not subject of copyright protection,but can be regulated by anti-unfair competition laws.A few courts indirectly protect the rules of the game by affirming the copyright of other types of works.This article considers that the former conflicts with the legislative purpose of copyright law,and the latter has limited protection effects and cannot truly regulate the plagiarism of game rules.The third part discusses the scope of protection and identification methods of copyright under the dichotomy of expressions.In particular,it analyzes the meaning of ‘idea’ and ‘expression’ in the sense of copyright and the relationship between the two in the works.This article believes that in the works,from the idea to the essence of expression is a multi-level process from abstraction to concrete.Copyright law not only protects specific expressions,but also protects the ‘expression content’ between expressions and ideas under the expressions.The specific and recognizable specific rules in the game rules belong to the expression category.The fourth part discusses the filtering of copyright protection objects in detail by the functional principle.This article argues that a distinction should be made between‘factual functionality’and ‘legal functionality’.The functional expression in the work does not exclude that the artistic expression that can be separated from it is protected by copyright law.Based on this analysis,sort out the functional expressions in the game rules.The fifth part analyzes the ‘substantially similar’ rules in the determination of copyright infringement for non-literal copying of game rules.This article considers that ‘substantial similarity’ is based on the ‘originality’ of the work,and judges whether the alleged infringing work uses the substantial part of the right work.As for the rules of the game,the three-step test method or the internal and external test methods should be used to judge whether the general audience’s knowledge level and attention ability constitute a substantial similarity,and no confusion should be taken as the criterion.Due to the late start of China’s judicial protection of game rules,in the process of demonstration,multiple typical cases outside the territory and domestic trial practice were introduced to verify each other.It is expected to promote the improvement of different judgments in the same case and the healthy and orderly development of the game industry.更多还原