关注微信

推荐商品

    加载中... 正在为您读取数据...
分享到:
  • 美国知识产权法(第2版?英文版)[平装]
  • 共1个商家     32.00元~32.00
  • 作者:陈剑玲(作者)
  • 出版社:对外经贸大学出版社;第2版(2012年9月1日)
  • 出版时间:
  • 版次 :
  • 印刷时间:
  • 包装:
  • ISBN:9787566304582

  • 商家报价
  • 简介
  • 评价
  • 加载中... 正在为您读取数据...
  • 商品描述

    编辑推荐

    《美国知识产权法(第2版?英文版)》是英美法案例精选丛书之一。

    目录

    第一编美国版权法
    第一章版权保护的条件
    第一节表达和思想观念
    案例1 Baker v.Selden
    案例2 Nichols v.Universal Pictures Corporation
    案例3 Morrissey v.Procter&Gamble
    第二节作品的原创性
    案例4 Feist v.Rural
    案例5 Gracen v.Bradford Exchange
    第三节作品的固定
    案例6 White Smith Music Pub Co.v.Appollo Co.
    案例7 National Football League v.McBee&Bruno's, Inc.
    第四节版权标记
    案例8 Hasbro Bradley, Inc.v.Sparkle Toys,Inc.
    第五节版权保护的消极条件
    案例9 Mitchell Bros.v.Cinema Adult Theater
    第二章作品的类型
    第一节一般形式
    案例10 Andrew Leicester v.Warner Brothers
    第二节特殊形式
    案例11 G.Ricordi & Co.v.Paramount Pictures,Inc.
    案例12 New York Times Co.v.Tasini
    第三章版权的保护期限
    案例13 Eric Eldred v.John D.Ashcroft
    第四章版权的内容
    第一节作者的权利
    案例14 Columbia Pictures Industries v.Redd Horne
    案例15 Quality King Distributors,Inc.v.L'Anza ResearchInt'l,Inc.
    第二节合理使用
    案例16 Harper & Row Publishers v.Nation Enterprises
    案例17 Campbell v.Acuff-Rose Music Inc.
    第五章版权的侵权和救济
    第一节侵权
    案例18 Sony Co.v.Universal City Studios, Inc.
    案例19 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc.v. Grokster.Ltd.
    第二节救济
    案例20 Feltner v.Columbia Pictures Television, Inc.
    案例21 Boisson V.Banian Inc.
    第六章版权法和其他知识产权法的关联
    第一节版权和专利
    案例22 MaZer v.Stein
    第二节版权和商标
    案例23 Dastar Corp.v.Twentieth Century Foxfilm Corp.
    第七章和计算机软件有关的版权问题
    第一节保护的范围
    案例24 Computer Associates International,Inc.,v. Altai.Inc.
    第二节保护的限制
    案例25 Sega Enterprises Ltd.v.Assolade,Inc.
    第八章版权滥用及其规则
    案例26 Lasercomb America v.Reynolds
    案例27 Practice Management Information Corp.v.AMA
    第二编美国专利法
    第九章专利保护的对象
    案例28 Diamond v.Chakrabarty
    第十章获得专利权的条件
    案例29 Graham v.John Deere Co. of Kansas City
    案例30 Bremner v.Manson
    案例31TP Laboratories, Inc.v.Professional Positioners, Inc.
    第十一章专利权的内容
    案例32 Paper Converting Machine Company,Appellee,v. Magna-Graphics Corporation, Appellant
    第十二章侵权
    案例33 Festo Corp.v.Shoketsu Kinzoku KogyokabushikiCo.
    第十三章专利滥用
    案例34 Morton Salt Co.V.G.S. Suppiger Co.
    第三编美国商标法
    第十四章保护的条件
    案例35 In Re Sun Oil Co.
    案例36 In Re Budge Manufacturing Co.,Inc.
    案例37 In Re N.A.D. INC., also trading as North American Drager
    第十五章商标种类
    案例38 In Re Advertising & Marketing Development
    案例39 Midwest Plastic Fabricators,Inc.v.Underwriters Laboratories Inc.

    文摘

    版权页:



    Leicester further maintains that the streetwall towers are a sculptural work which is "conceptually separate" from the building and thus independently entitled to copyright protection. Again, the district court found otherwise and we cannot say its finding lacks support. The streetwall towers were designed to extend the building visually, which they do along both Figueroa and Eighth. The Eighth Street smoke towers are equally integrated and serve the same purpose on Eighth as the Figueroa Street smoke towers do on Figueroa. This is powerful evidence that they (together with the additional two lantern towers on Figueroa) are part of the functional and architectural vocabulary of the building.
    Because the streetwall towers are part of the architectural work, 120(a) applies. It allows the public the right to photograph public buildings including, in this case, the streetwall smoke and lantern towers unless, as Leicester contends, the 1990 amendments specifically provide for the continued separate protection of sculptural works attached to buildings. Leicester's position is that the Berne Convention did not require taking away copyright protection for PGS works, and Congress did not do so when it passed the AWPCA implementing the Convention. He relies in particular upon passages in the legislative history indicating that certain works of authorship which may separately qualify for protection as PGS works may be permanently embodied in architectural works, and that in such cases the author (if the same for both works) may elect whether to seek a remedy under102(a)(5) or 102(a)(8).
    Whether or not Leicester may have some other claim for a different infringement of his copyright in the Zanja Madre towers as a sculptural work, we believe he has none for a pictorial representation of the 801Tower and its streetwall embodying a protected architectural work. Otherwise, 120(a)'s exemption for pictorial representations of buildings would make no sense.
    When copyright owners in architectural works were given protection for the first time in 1990, the right was limited by120(a) so that publicly visible buildings could freely be photographed. This reflected a shift from the prior regime of relying on "ad hoc determinations" of fair use. Having done this, it would be counterintuitive to suppose that Congress meant to restrict pictorial copying to some, but not all of, a unitary architectural work.