...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>IIC:International review of intellectual property and competition law >'Max Bill Bar Stool' Decision of the Federal Supreme Court, 1st Civil Chamber (Bundesgericht, I. zivilrechtliche Abteilung) 12 July 2017 - Case No 4A_115/2017
【24h】

'Max Bill Bar Stool' Decision of the Federal Supreme Court, 1st Civil Chamber (Bundesgericht, I. zivilrechtliche Abteilung) 12 July 2017 - Case No 4A_115/2017

机译：联邦最高法院第一民事庭的“ Max Bill Bar Stool”裁决，2017年7月12日-案例4A_115 / 2017

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

1. Works of applied art enjoy the protection of copyright if they are to be regarded as intellectual creations with an individual character. Originality in the sense of the author's personal stamp is no longer necessary according to the current amended Act. 2. The individuality requirements depend on the scope available for the individual design. Protection is conferred on what as an individual or original creation is distinguishable from the factual or natural preconditions within the framework of the purpose for which it is intended. However, if the functional purpose dictates the design through previously known shapes in such a way that there is practically no scope for individual or original features, the result is a purely technical product that is to be excluded from the protection of copyright. Works of applied art are thus subject to relatively high individuality requirements. 3. The decisive factor for copyright protection is the artistic impression of the design, which is not necessarily or even exclusively a consequence of an individual component, but is determined by the composition, the lines and the interaction of all the elements. Admittedly, the composition of one element can dominate and be so salient that it has a determining effect. However, the comparison of individual elements is not decisive. In any event, it is not decisive that individual elements were previously known. 4. The decisive factor for the individuality of a work is that an individual artistic composition is identifiable going beyond a mere craftsmanship or industrial work and that it clearly contrasts with the previously known shapes. This can also be the case if no new style is created or significantly influenced. 5. The scope of application of the Copyright Act on the one hand and the Design Act on the other hand are distinguished by the fact that copyright law protects the "individual" and design law the "original" achievement. Since works of applied art are determined by their utilitarian purpose, the decisive factor is whether the artistic design differs significantly from the previously known shapes within the limits of this purpose to such an extent that it appears unique. 6. Rejection of individuality on the grounds that the technical and functional purpose of a bar stool could not be achieved better than with the minimum design of the necessary elements cannot be sustained. The artistic impression achieved by the minimalist design is not determined by functional considerations.
机译：1.如果将实用艺术作品视为具有个人特征的知识创造，则享有版权保护。根据现行修正案，不再需要作者个人印章上的原创性。 2.个性要求取决于单个设计的可用范围。授予保护的目的是在其目的范围内将个人或原始创造与事实或自然先决条件区分开。但是，如果功能目的是通过先前已知的形状来指示设计，而实际上没有个人或原始特征的范围，那么结果就是纯技术产品将被排除在版权保护之外。应用艺术的作品因此受到相对较高的个性要求。 3.版权保护的决定性因素是外观设计的艺术印象，它不一定是或仅是单个组件的结果，而是由组成，线条和所有元素的相互作用决定的。诚然，一种元素的组成可以占主导地位，并且非常突出，以至于具有决定性的作用。但是，各个元素的比较不是决定性的。无论如何，单个元素先前是否已知并不是决定性的。 4.作品个性的决定性因素是，可以识别的艺术作品不仅限于手工艺或工业作品，而且与先前已知的形状形成鲜明对比。如果未创建新样式或未显着影响新样式，也可能是这种情况。 5.一方面，《版权法》和《外观设计法》的适用范围的区别在于，版权法保护“个人”，外观设计法保护“原始”成就。由于应用艺术作品是由其功利目的决定的，所以决定性因素是艺术设计是否在此目的范围内与先前已知的形状有显着不同，以至于显得独特。 6.拒绝个性的理由是，不能实现高脚凳的技术和功能目的，而不能维持对必要元素的最小设计。极简设计获得的艺术印象并不取决于功能性考虑。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号