視聽著作（或電影作品）較其他著作而言，是權利義務關係比較複雜的著作，有必要比較各國著作權法，以為立法的因應。兩岸著作權法在發展歷程中雖有差異，但立法均尚未臻成熟階段，有待在實踐中及相互切磋中不斷發現問題、解決問題，則處境地位相同。本文在比較兩岸著作權法有關視聽著作（或電影作品）之規定，初步認為台灣著作權法應考慮解決類似大陸著作權法及德國、法國所承認的錄像製品的保護問題。此外，兩岸著作權法均應參照日本及法國立法，就視聽著作（或電影作品）之著作人為何人加以界定。台灣著作權法應就視聽著作之著作財產權的歸屬，加以明定，最佳的選擇為採「法定移轉模式」（法定歸屬模式）。又大陸著作權法第15條規定中對於著作人的精神權利之規定，可能發生許多適用上的矛盾問題，立法理論有待解決。最後，有關視視聽著作（或電影作品）的著作財產權的保護期間與視聽著作（或電影作品）中原著作（如小說、劇本、音樂等）保護期間並不相同。如果視聽著作（或電影作品）保護期間屆滿，而原著作保護期間未屆滿，利用人利用著作是否可能侵害原著作的著作人的權利，日本著作權法第54條之立法，可以明確解決此一問題，可供兩岸著作權法立法之參考。

Audiovisual works (or motion pictures), in comparison to other copyrighted works, are works with complicated rights and obligations. Comparing copyright laws across the world becomes an essential task for the purpose of responding to our legislative needs. Despite discrepancies in the evolution of the legislative developments, copyright legislations on both sides of the Strait are still yet to be deemed as full-fledged and mature laws. The process of relentlessly discovering questions and solving problems continues as we apply the laws and exchange views. Both sides across the Strait share similar situation in this aspect.This paper compares the copyright laws on both sides of the Strait in relation to audiovisual works (or motion pictures). The preliminary conclusion is that Taiwan copyright law needs to address the issues of protecting audio and visual recordings, a right that is recognized by copyright laws in China, Germany and France.In addition, copyright laws on both sides of the Strait ought to, by modeling after the Japanese and French copyright legislations, clearly define the ”author” of a visual-audio work (or motion picture). Taiwan Copyright Law ought to clearly define the ownership of audiovisual works. The best option is to adopt the ”Legal Transfer Model” (Legal Ownership Model). Furthermore, the moral rights covered in Article 15 of the P.R.C. Copyright Law may give rise to contradictory applications of the rule. The underlying legislative theory demands further examination.Finally, the term of protection for the economic rights subsisting in audiovisual works (or motion pictures) is different from the term of protection for the pre-existing works of which the audiovisual works are consisted (e.g. novels, scripts, music scores, et cetera). In the event that the term of protection for an audiovisual work expires prior to that of its pre-existing component works, a question arises as to whether using the audiovisual work could potentially infringe the pre-existing works 'authors' copyright. Article 54 of Japanese Copyright Law is legislated in a way that clearly addresses this issue and may be used as a reference for copyright legislations on both sides of the Strait.