Abstract: The legislative orientation of China’s Civil Law on the types of intellectual property objects upholds the legalistic stance, while the current Copyright Law has undergone a significant transformation in the selection of work types from “legal work types” to “open work types”, resulting in an objective difference in the legislative models of open and closed object types of rights between the two laws. In practice, the essence of this false contradiction should be revealed, the logical misunderstanding of the misplaced analogy between the concepts of species in the private rights sector should be clarified, the lack of interpretation of the transitional basic norms of intellectual property rights on the particularity of individual intellectual property laws should be clarified, and the practice of relevant norms of intellectual property objects in judicial application should be implemented based on the “intergenerational” adjustment relationship between the Civil Code and the Copyright Law. That is to say, starting from the realistic performance of the expansion of the types of works and the experience of Statutory interpretation, based on the value concept of civil private rights, adhering to the principle of prudent openness, systematic interpretation and priority of judicial confirmation, in accordance with the logical level of the positioning of intellectual property rights, copyright rights and the positioning of the types of works in specific cases, we should strictly hold a relatively open and prudent judgment view when the right object is used to collect the funds.