知识产权相关外文翻译--建筑的著作权保护设计：概念和批评实践(编辑修改稿)

知识产权相关外文翻译--建筑的著作权保护设计：概念和批评实践(编辑修改稿)内容摘要：

和外观设计的图纸生产，除非它们分配给另一方。 该 AWCPA可能，此外，在一个顾问在著作权归属在整个建筑作品的兴趣，共同作者。 因此，应告知建 9 筑师取得任何该等权利 及其顾问可能。 建筑师还应该采取步骤，以确保他们的顾问工作不会造成侵权。 例如，一个公司可能要求其顾问，遵循同样的程序，公司与自己的员工使用。 与 开发商的关系 虽然避免了部分改动一个例外建筑师，开发商的冲突，在建筑设计版权创造，开发人员将要隔离的 AWCPA由自己创建的其他责任。 因为建筑师是谁的人通常会产生一种侵犯版权和最能阻止它的发生，发展商都希望从他们的建筑师赔偿。 “39。 一个建筑师可以反过来说，从开发人员寻求赔偿，但开发商没有动力去承担 一个风险，主要是根据建筑师的控制。 谁曾呼吁建筑设计版权保 护论者推测，建筑师将获得与版权被赋予了经济利益。 但建筑师出售其主要服务对象在一个小时的时间价值为基础。 他们的小时工资必须在同行业接轨。 只有当建筑师能够转售事先没有大幅度的调整设计，才能从中获利著作权归属。 在建造行业，通常用于重复设计分部，精良的开发商和业主要求将明智的版权在建筑师的服务合同转让。 因此，建筑师是不是有可能受益于版权保护他们的设计是由财政作为支持的 AWCPA承担。 尽管他们的工作可能是美观，建筑师主要提供服务，而不是创造艺术。 在市场开发人员的专业服务通常可以选择其他供应商之间。 只有在极少数情况下可 以要求建筑师一笔费用，超出了正常范围的每小时收费，即使考虑设计是可重复使用的目的。 因此，建筑师将接受其新近获得的版权保护的一些经济利益。 建筑师将，但是，承担侵权索赔首当其冲的成功对失败的债权，花的时间和金钱辩护。 至于其他形式的赔偿责任，一部分可以通过保险支付。 但所有的费用支付出了建筑界的集体收入。 四。 结论 建筑作品的著作权保护法 1990 年版权保护扩展到建筑的设计。 根据美国国会采取行动以回应美国的伯尔尼公约的义务，不因应建筑界的要求。 不适当地适用于该 AWCPA这样传统的版权主义建筑设计和， 无视建筑设计作为一个独特的性格和专业服务作为我们的公共环境的一部分。 版权法的冲突与惯例及规管架构这些方面狭隘的目的。 该体系结构的特定的例外包括在AWCPA不足以完全缓解这些冲突。 由于坚持伯尔尼标准，以争取其他标的国际版权保护压倒一切的重要性，然而， AWCPA废除是不现实的。 该 AWCPA从而创造了一个建筑师，谁是最有可能的侵权赔偿责任的新来源。 因此，建筑师应改变与发展商，顾问的关系，并为了保护自己的员工。 此外，法院可能会解释建筑作品的保护范围扩大到包括所有建筑设计，即使国会表示，希望仅仅是 区分建筑和建筑。 因为更广义的解释将增加建筑师的责任范围，建筑行业将得到更好的服务，修订了 “ 建筑作品 ” 的法定定义，以排除没有艺术或审美表达设计。 在确定在给定的设计中不可避免地存在这样的表达不完善，对保护标的物的范围将减少建筑师根据AWCPA限制赔偿责任。 10 附件 2：外文原文 一 Copyright 1996 by Washington Law Review Association COPYRIGHT PROTECTION FOR ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN: A CONCEPTUAL AND PRACTICAL CRITICISM Gregory B. Hancks* Abstract: The Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act of 1990 (AWCPA) extended copyright protection to architectural design as part of Congress39。 s effort to conform . law to the Berne Convention. . courts previously had treated architecture as a useful article and generally had denied it protection under the separability doctrine. The AWCPA treats architecture similarly to other categories of copyrightable subject matter. Conceptually, this is inappropriate because (I) architectural design is a professional service, (2) architecture is a part of our public environment, and (3) architecture39。 s expressive aspects cannot be adequately separated from its useful aspects. As a practical matter, the AWCPA imposes costs on architects that outweigh the benefits that it confers on them. To help alleviate this result, the AWCPA should be amended to limit protection to designs with artistic or aesthetic expression. Nevertheless, architects working under the AWCPA should alter their relationships with their employees, consultants, and clients to minimize liability for infringement. United States copyright law did not protect architectural design prior to 1990.39。 Any or all of a building39。 s features could be copied, whether observed in drawings, photographs, or the structure Copyright law limited this borrowing in only two ways. The reproduction of architectural drawings themselves was prohibited,3 and a sculptural feature of a building could not be copied if that feature could be considered a work of art independent of the building39。 s useful In the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act39。 of 1990 (AWCPA), Congress extended copyright to architectural design by adding architectural works as a category of protected subject matter. Many legal mentators had argued for such a Few architects had joined in requesting this additional legal control over their work, however. This Comment describes why the AWCPA is an inimical intrusion into the architectural design process. Part I summarizes copyright law39。 s treatment of architecture from the historical exclusion of architectural works as useful articles to the enactment of the AWCPA. Part II provides a conceptual framework for understanding architectural design as a professional service and as a part of our public environmentcharacteristics which copyright law does not adequately take into account. Part II also describes why 11 traditional copyright doctrine cannot resolve the problems inherent in protecting the design of useful articles such as architecture. Part III outlines the practical problems that the AWCPA creates and predicts how courts, architects, and others involved in the design and construction process will react. The Comment concludes that architects should alter their professional relationships to minimize their liability and that the AWCPA should be amended to protect only designs with artistic or aesthetic expression. I. HISTORICAL TREATMENT OF ARCHITECTURE IN . COPYRIGHT LAW A. Architectural Copyright Prior to the A WCPA In the Copyright Act of 19099 (1909 Act), Congress protected all the writings of an author0 upon publication if a notice of copyright was affixed to each copy. The 1909 Act did not further limit the subject matter that was protectable but did provide a list of registration classifications, which included works of art and designs for works of art.39。 Sculpture clearly could be copyrighted as a work of art. Monumental architecture, which is essentially largescale sculpture, could be copyrighted for the same When confronted with copyright claims on utilitarian designs with expressive4 features, courts concluded that only a feature which could 39。 be identified separately39。 and was 39。 capable of existing independently as a work of art39。 could be This separability doctrine effectively excluded most architectural design from copyright protection under the 1909 Act because nearly all such design is useful. In the Copyright Act of 1976 (1976 Act), Congress retained the restriction on copyright for useful articles7 and explicitly adopted the courtcreated doctrine used to define what is copyrightable:39。 8 [T]he design of a useful article cannot be copyrighted unless it incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features tha。