| The first chapter of this paper expounds the problems of useful art works under the current protection system of China’s copyright law.China’s copyright law does not explicitly provide for useful art works,but a large number of cases in judicial practice have developed rules for protection under the principals of copyright law,which also classifies them as artistic works for protection.However,the specific protection rules are rather vague,and the courts do not have a unified analytically framework on how to evaluate the functional and artistic characteristics that useful art works have.In response to the problems in practice,academics and legislation have attempted to create a separate category of works based on the provisions of international conventions and foreign legislation,but the reasons for creating a separate category of works are not sufficient.Relating to the protection of works of applied,the first problem is to discuss whether it is necessary to establish it as a separate type of work for protection;the second is the need to clarify the specific rules for the identification of works of applied.The second chapter of this paper responds to the question of whether it is necessary to protect useful art works as a separate type of work,arguing that useful art works are artistic works.Firstly,useful art works conform to the nature of artistic works,both of them convey beauty by appearance and shape,and useful art works also have formalistic originality.Secondly,the function of useful art works does not affect their nature as artistic works.Finally,the protection rules constructed by the claim of the independent work type are not separated from the framework of the protection rules for fine art works,so the independent protection is not profoundly meaningful.The third chapter of this paper elaborates on the rules for identifying works of applied.Firstly,the scope of useful art works is limited to three-dimensional objects that convey beauty in three dimensions:length,width and height,excluding three-dimensional objects that are only used as carriers of two-dimensional art works.Second,the scope of application and limitations of the "separation principle" are discussed.The much criticized ambiguity of the "separation principle" is that it is not applicable to useful artworks with originality in overall shape.This is why the principle of separation has been interpreted from various perspectives,resulting in the lack of a unified standard for the principle of separation.Works of applied with originality of overall shape should be judged by the originality of their overall shape in comparison with sculptures.Finally,works of useful art do not need to have a higher degree of originality than ordinary works of art.It is not an additional requirement,and it is difficult to judge the level of artistic value.The object of copyright protection is aesthetic value,while design patents protect the competitive advantage of a product’s unique appearance attached to a specific product,so the two protect different objects,not require different levels of originality. |
