解构精神权利

Q1 Social Sciences
C. Rigamonti
{"title":"解构精神权利","authors":"C. Rigamonti","doi":"10.7892/BORIS.69876","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"One of the most noteworthy developments in transnational copyright law over the past twenty years has been the adoption of statutory moral rights regimes in a number of countries that had previously ardently rejected the civil law concept of moral rights as completely alien to their legal tradition, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Ireland, and New Zealand. The standard scholarly reaction to these developments is to ask what they mean for the two classic questions of comparative moral rights law, namely whether the common law countries fulall the requirements for moral rights protection under international law and whether the common law countries provide a degree of protection comparable to that available in civil law countries.1 In this context, the enactment of statutory moral rights appears to be simply another factor to be considered when measuring the substantive level of moral rights protection in the United States, just as the Supreme Court’s recent Dastar decision,2 the copyright management information provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998,3 or the Family Movie Act of 20054 are factors","PeriodicalId":35765,"journal":{"name":"Harvard International Law Journal","volume":"64 1","pages":"353-412"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"44","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Deconstructing Moral Rights\",\"authors\":\"C. Rigamonti\",\"doi\":\"10.7892/BORIS.69876\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"One of the most noteworthy developments in transnational copyright law over the past twenty years has been the adoption of statutory moral rights regimes in a number of countries that had previously ardently rejected the civil law concept of moral rights as completely alien to their legal tradition, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Ireland, and New Zealand. The standard scholarly reaction to these developments is to ask what they mean for the two classic questions of comparative moral rights law, namely whether the common law countries fulall the requirements for moral rights protection under international law and whether the common law countries provide a degree of protection comparable to that available in civil law countries.1 In this context, the enactment of statutory moral rights appears to be simply another factor to be considered when measuring the substantive level of moral rights protection in the United States, just as the Supreme Court’s recent Dastar decision,2 the copyright management information provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998,3 or the Family Movie Act of 20054 are factors\",\"PeriodicalId\":35765,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Harvard International Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"64 1\",\"pages\":\"353-412\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"44\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Harvard International Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7892/BORIS.69876\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Harvard International Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7892/BORIS.69876","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 44

摘要

在过去的二十年里,跨国版权法中最值得注意的发展之一是在一些国家采用了法定的道德权利制度,这些国家以前强烈地拒绝民法中道德权利的概念,认为这与他们的法律传统完全不同,包括美国、英国、澳大利亚、爱尔兰和新西兰。学术界对这些发展的标准反应是问它们对比较道德权利法的两个经典问题意味着什么,即英美法系国家是否满足国际法对道德权利保护的要求,以及英美法系国家是否提供了与大陆法系国家相当的保护程度在这种背景下,法定精神权利的制定似乎只是衡量美国精神权利保护的实质性水平时要考虑的另一个因素,正如最高法院最近的达斯塔判决2、1998年《数字千年版权法案》的版权管理信息规定3或2004年《家庭电影法案》都是因素
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Deconstructing Moral Rights
One of the most noteworthy developments in transnational copyright law over the past twenty years has been the adoption of statutory moral rights regimes in a number of countries that had previously ardently rejected the civil law concept of moral rights as completely alien to their legal tradition, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Ireland, and New Zealand. The standard scholarly reaction to these developments is to ask what they mean for the two classic questions of comparative moral rights law, namely whether the common law countries fulall the requirements for moral rights protection under international law and whether the common law countries provide a degree of protection comparable to that available in civil law countries.1 In this context, the enactment of statutory moral rights appears to be simply another factor to be considered when measuring the substantive level of moral rights protection in the United States, just as the Supreme Court’s recent Dastar decision,2 the copyright management information provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998,3 or the Family Movie Act of 20054 are factors
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
Harvard International Law Journal
Harvard International Law Journal Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
期刊介绍: In an opinion survey published in The International Lawyer, senior scholars in the international and comparative law fields ranked the Harvard International Law Journal as having the “strongest academic reputation” of all student-edited international and comparative law specialty journals published in the United States. The ILJ publishes articles on international, comparative, and foreign law, the role of international law in U.S. courts, and the international ramifications of U.S. domestic law. These articles are written by the most prominent scholars and practitioners in the field and have been recognized as important contributions to the development of international law.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信