毕业论文全套系列九 法学专业 外文翻译 论我国民间文学艺术保护体系的构建.doc

法学专业 外文文献翻译题 目: 论我国民间文学艺术保护体系的构建 姓 名: 学院（部）: 专 业: 法 学 班 级: 法学 学 号: 指导教师: 职称: 外文文献翻译版权和民间文艺口头传统在人类历史上构成了强大的文化力量和不竭的精神资源。很多受人崇敬的文学作品起源于不知名的口头歌手的歌曲和演讲者的叙述。在印度，例如，早期经典史诗Mahaabhaarata和Raamaaya na是分别出于伟大诗人Vyaasa 和Vaalmiiki的，即使缺乏怀疑创作过程中的历史知识。然而，学术界的理解是这两篇史诗的材料在由一些个别圣人或诗人构思出一个长期而完整的故事的想法和叙述被编纂成书面形式之前存在着口头形式。口述从未承认它文学和艺术的作用。传统表演就是这方面的例子，它们一直用各种方式口述。Raama的故事在过去几个世纪已经在大约20歌南亚和东南亚国家朗诵、演唱、舞蹈和用几十种语言口述。这导致了现在有数百个不同特点的Raamaaya nas，从而怀疑这些是否源于同一个根。一些学者在这里看到的只有类似的传统，而不是出于一个和相同的故事。更深一步，这数百个Raamaayanas 或当地的口头诗反映了一些主题的古典史诗的流行解释和含义是为了适应只要地方社会和社区的目的。换句话讲，口述和文字，民间文学和古典文学在过去不断地进行对话，到现在仍在继续。面对这样的文化多样性似乎怀疑Raama的故事的真实身份，而出现对版权的徒劳地发问。如果有的话，谁是Raamade 的故事的合法所有者？我是一个民俗和人道主义者，而不是一个版权律师。然而，在1982年和以后几年我被邀请参加由世界知识产权（世界知识产权组织）和科教文组织的在日内瓦和巴黎的几次会议。这些会议的一个产物是“保护民间文学表达形式、防止不正当利用及其他侵害行为的国内法示范法条”，在1983年制定的，但从未正式通过科教文组织。我在后来的过程中写了两份工作文件，并于1987年5月在巴黎主持了通过建议文本的会议。大约80个科教文组织会员国代表出席了会议，几十个非政府组织观察员也参加了会议。让我简略地描述这两个关于版权和民间传说的权威性声明的相关性。背景首先谈谈如何开始。20世纪70年代初，至少在民间文艺独立分成两个派之前，民间文艺的版权的想法不存在。1973年，玻利维亚政府向科教文组织总干事提出要求让科教文组织开始审查民间文艺的状态，并提出了增加世界版权公约的建议。一个可能不是真实的故事也许说明了这一行动的背景。在这个时候，流行歌手保罗 西蒙发表的新歌“尼尔尼诺婆娑秃鹰”，迅速被认为是玻利维亚民歌。自从创纪录带来了“作者”的可观收入，有人认为至少有一些应该引导回导玻利维亚。无论如何，民间文艺的版权的主动反映了更广泛认为有必要在发展中国家制定来自本身的新的力量，一旦国家摆脱了殖民关系就可以自由发展民间传统。术语“传统文化”首选是“民俗”，因为后者诋毁西方色彩。有人表示关切，不仅在经济上剥削民俗而且在出口的传统文化和表达上不以冒犯社区对生产和维护传统的原来方式。从一开始，有两个主要问题，经济和道德。争论开始于工业化国家，1974年首次在北欧国家出现，显然和玻利维亚在科教文组织的倡议没有任何联系。在北欧民间文艺研究所担任主任期间，并从芬兰的律师那里调查到版权和民间文艺之间的关系。她的报告1975年出版于瑞典。它考虑除其他外，通过邻国的权利民间文艺家和问题在概念上是否可以得到保护，即通过保护艺术家的产品和表演的版权。民间文艺只能用表演才看得到，这种方式将全面涵盖民间文艺表现形式。然而，民间艺术的个人所有权在关于传统社会解释和维护民间文艺的主导作用的问题上是有争议的。玻利维亚开始了这个制定示范法的过程，那些希望继续民间文艺版权的国家接受了这个示范法。一些国家，如突尼斯，已经有国家法律规范商业民族手工业和其他地区的传统文化。1982年夏天，世界知识产权组织和联合国科教文组织在日内瓦召开政府间专家会议，批准了“保护民间文学表达形式、防止不正当利用及其他侵害行为的国内法示范法条”的文件。外文文献翻译原文Copyright and folkloreby Dr Lauri Honko, Kalevala InstitutePaper read at the National Seminar on Copyright Law and Matters,Mangalore University, Mangalore, Karnataka, India, on February 9, 2001 Oral traditions constitute a powerful cultural force and an inexhaustible spiritual resource in the history of mankind. Many a venerated literary work has its origins in the songs and narratives of anonymous oral singers and storytellers. In India, for example, the early classical epics Mahaabhaarata and Raamaayana are attributed to the great poets Vyaasa and Vaalmiiki, respectively, even though the historical knowledge about the creation processes in question is scanty. The scholarly understanding is, however, that the poetic materials of both epics largely existed in oral forms before the idea of a truly long and well-integrated superstory was conceived by some individual sage or poet and before the narrative was codified into a written form. Orality never fully conceded its role to literacy and literature. Performance traditions are a case in point: they have remained oral in a variety of ways. The story of Raama has been recited, sung, danced and orally enacted in dozens of languages in about 20 South and Southeast Asian countries over the centuries. The result is that we have today hundreds of Raamaayanas which show so few common features that it is doubtful whether these narratives stem from a common root. Some scholars see here only parallel traditions, not derivations from one and the same story. To complicate the matter further, there are hundreds of anti-Raamaayanas or local oral epics which reflect popular interpretations of some themes of the classical epic and shape their meaning to suit mainly local, social and communal ends. In other words, orality and literacy,folk literature and classical literature have been in a constant dialogue in the past and that dialogue still continues today. In the face of such cultural variety, which seems to question the true identity of the Raama story, it may appear futile to ask questions of copyright. Who is the rightful owner of the Raama story, if it exists? I am a folklorist and humanist, not a copyright lawyer. Yet I was invited in 1982 and the following years to participate in several meetings organised by WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) and Unesco in Geneva and Paris. One product of these meetings was the Draft Treaty for the Protection of Expressions of Folklore Against Illicit Exploitation and Other Prejudicial Actions, formulated in 1983 but never formally adopted by Unesco. Another document pertaining to the application of copyright on folklore and produced by several Intergovernmental Expert Committees, in which I had the privilege of participating during 1982-89, was the Recommendation on the Safeguarding of Traditional Culture and Folklore, adopted by Unescos General Assembly in November 1989. I wrote two working documents for the latter process and presided over the meeting in Paris in May 1987 which finalised the Recommendation text. About 80 Member States of Unesco were represented and dozens of Non-Governmental Organizations sent their observers to the meetings. Let me briefly sketch the relevance of these two authoritative statements as regards copyright and folklore.The background First a few words about how it all began. The idea that folklore could be copyrighted was obviously in the air in the early 1970s, since it emerged independently in two contexts at least. In 1973, the Government of Bolivia submitted to the Director-General of Unesco the request that Unesco begin to examine the state of folklore and make a proposal for an addition to the Universal Copyright Convention. The background to this action may be illustrated by an anecdote which may or may not be true. It was at about that time that the pop singer Paul Simon published his song El Condor Pasa, which was soon identified as a Bolivian folk song. Since the record brought the author considerable revenue, it was felt that at least some of it should be channelled back to Bolivia. At any rate, the initiative to copyright folklore reflects the more widely felt need in the developing countries to draw new intellectual strength from the countrys own unique, freely developed folk tradition once the country becomes freed from its colonial ties. The term traditional culture was preferred to folklore, because the latter carried disparaging Western overtones. Concern was expressed not only over the economic exploitation of folklore but also over the exportation of traditional culture and presentation outside its original contexts in a way that offended against the communities producing and preserving this tradition. From the beginning, then, there were two main concerns, the economic and the ethical. The debate was launched in the industrialised countries, too, first in the Nordic countries in 1974, obviously without any connection to the Bolivian initiative at Unesco. At the time I was serving as the director of the Nordic Institute of Folklore and ordered an investigation on the relations between folklore and copyright from a Finnish lawyer. Her report was published in Swedish in 1975. It pondered, among other things, on the concept of folk artist and the question whether folklore could be protected through neighbouring rights, i.e. through the protection given to artists concerning the copyright of their products and performances. Since folklore is observable only in performance, this alternative wo