作品類型限定表達範圍之反思與超越

在《著作權法》明確採取作品類型開放模式後，仍然存在一種以作品類型限定受保護表達範圍的觀點。據此，現實生活中的作品需依據表現形式的不同進行拆分，歸入法律上不同類型的作品單獨進行保護。然而，拆分保護模式可能面臨缺乏現實基礎、架空改編權、與現有權屬規則衝突等問題。表現形式與表達是不同的概念，表現形式僅僅與外在表達有關，與內在表達無關。作品表達具有整體性:作品的表達手段具有多樣性，內在表達建立在外在表達基礎之上、與之不可分離。特定類型作品定義中的表現形式是對該類作品特徵性表達手段的描述。作品類型作為示例性規範，並不具有限定作品表達範圍的功能。應當秉持作品表達整體保護觀，以被告是否利用了原告作品整體表達的實質部分做為侵權判定標準。上述裁判思路在“遊戲換皮”“靜態侵權”等類案件中應當得到貫徹。

After the China’s Copyright Law clearly adopted the open mode for the categories of protected works, there is still a view that the scope of protected expression in a specific work should be limited by the type of the works. Accordingly, works in real life should be separated according to different forms of expression, and put into different types of works in law for separate protection. However, the split protection mode may face problems such as lack of practical basis, denial of adaptation rights, and conflicting with the current ownership rules. It should be noted that “form of expression” and “expression” are totally different concepts. The form of expression is only related to the external expression, but is not related to internal expression. The expression of a work should be protected as a whole: a work is the synthesis of various means of expression, and the internal expression is based on the external expression and cannot be separated from it. The expression form in the definition of a specific type of work is the description of the characteristic expression means of this type of work. As an enumeration, work type should not limit the scope of expression of a specific type of work. So, we should adhere to the concept of comprehensive protection of the expression of works, and treat whether the defendant has used the substantial part of the comprehensive expression of the plaintiff􀆳s work as the standard for defining a copyright infringement. The logic above should be implemented in the sorts of “change of game skin” and “static infringement” cases.