:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:我國合理使用判斷基準之實證研究分析
書刊名:智慧財產評論
作者:蘇郁雅
作者(外文):Su, Yu-ya
出版日期:2012
卷期:10:2
頁次:頁133-237
主題關鍵詞:著作權法第65條第2項合理使用合理使用四款判斷基準實證研究Article 65(2) of the Taiwanese Copyright ActFair use doctrineFour-factor testEmpirical research
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(1) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:1
  • 共同引用共同引用:33
  • 點閱點閱:34
合理使用作為喘息空間,卻在判斷上充滿著不確定性,移植美國著作權法第107條之我國著作權法第65條第2項亦如此,因此,本文擬從實證方法看合理使用判決結果、各款判斷基準與各判斷因素間之關係,發掘實務上影響各款判斷基準的關鍵判斷因素以及合理使用判斷結果的關鍵判斷基準。本文發現:我國法院仍以商業與非商業二分法為第一款判斷基準之依歸;第二款判斷基準的運用,若改為著作類型進行判斷,反而比著作物性質之認定更為法院所用;第三款判斷基準之結果主要受質量比例與整體著作範圍判斷的影響,不過值得注意的是,法院計算取用比例多寡時,偶有誤用分母而造成判斷失準之結果;至於影響第四款判斷基準最主要的要素則為侵權著作未來散布過大的可能性。若從法院使用的情形來分析,我國並未只對第一款及第三款判斷基準為關注,第四款判斷基準也有其影響性,尤其是其與第一款判斷基準的連結關係:一、第四款判斷基準受第一款判斷基準結果所影響而與其判斷要素間的連結與既定規則不同;另,不論是智財法院、地方法院或是高等法院都有未為四款判斷基準完整審查的情形,究其原因除了高等法院受其審級及前審的影響外,主要還有第二款判斷基準與合理使用結果連結性過低的情形等。
As a ”breathing space”, the scope of fair use is uncertain to prohibit the spillover effect of copyright. In this empirical study, we will explain and verify how the fair use doctrine used in Taiwanese legal system. The perplexity occurred when the Section 107 of the U.S. copyright law was transplanted into Article 65 (2) of Taiwanese Copyright Act years ago. Even though rules were clearly announced by the authority body, it could not be assured the courts would follow the rules. As the the myth goes ”Leniency to those who confess their crimes and severity to those who refuse to”, it was not true in some empirical analysis.Reviewing the four-factor test, the courts prefer to interpret the first factor as the question of whether it was commercial use. In the second factor, because it was difficult to define ”the nature of the work”, the courts prefer to replacing with ”the category of the work”, making it easier to operate and predict. The third factor, the easiest one to sentence judgments, has usually been ignored when examining so-called ”the core value of the work”. Meanwhile, the courts may misapply denominators in the review of this factor in some cases. For the fourth factor, the courts mainly focused on whether the infringing product or work may spread around in the the market. In practice, the courts usually announced rulings on not only the first and third factors but the fourth, tightly joining with the first one. To our supprise, the interaction between the fourth factor and its elements recognized by the courts was different from the rules. This appearance might be resulted from the outcome of the first factor examination. In short, even though the courts literally examined four factors to decide the scope, they did not follow in real, probably resultig from the difficulty of interpreting the second factor.Since fair use concept is a tradeoff between flexibility and certainty, the localization of the four-factor test shall be thoroughly considered. Back to the legislative history and the spirit of fair use, obviously, the better solution would be to give more time and space for the Supreme Court to mold prejudications for lower courts to use the test first.
期刊論文
1.謝國廉(20100700)。著作合理使用之判斷基準--評最高法院與高等法院「紫微斗數案」之判決。月旦法學,182,205-222。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.Beebe, Barton(2008)。An Empirical Study of U.S. Copyright Fair Use Opinions, 1978-2005。University of Pennsylvania law review,156(3),549-624。  new window
3.Samuelson, Pamela(2009)。Unbundling fair uses。Fordham Law Review,77(5),2537-2622。  new window
4.林利芝(20120800)。教學講義找麻煩,合理使用費思量--評析智慧財產法院九十九年度刑智上易字第六一號刑事判決。月旦法學,207,150-175。new window  延伸查詢new window
5.Liu, Joseph P.(2008)。Two- Factor Fair Use?。COLUM. J.L. & ARTS,31,571+572。  new window
學位論文
1.黃怡騰(1996)。著作權法上合理使用原則之研究(博士論文)。國立政治大學。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.胡心蘭(2001)。論科技發展對合理使用與著作財產權限制之影響(碩士論文)。中原大學。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.蔡惠如(2007)。著作權之未來展望--論合理使用之價值創新。元照出版社。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.闕光威(200908)。作權法上之合理使用。元照出版社。  延伸查詢new window
3.蕭雄淋、幸秋妙、嚴裕欽(20091208)。國際著作權法合理使用立法趨勢之研究。經濟部智慧財產局。  延伸查詢new window
4.羅明通(2009)。著作權法論。三民書局。  延伸查詢new window
其他
1.黃怡騰(200108)。著作之合理使用案例介紹,經濟部智慧財產局。,http://www.tipo.gov.tw/ch/AllinOne_Show.aspx?path=1208&guid=8bb89965-36c6-407c-9ba6-2e60d351bl48&lang=zh-tw, 2012/07/20。  延伸查詢new window
2.王兆鵬、林定香、楊文山(2004)。民間司改會司法統計實證研究(1)--坦白未必從寬,抗拒未必從嚴。  延伸查詢new window
3.王敏銓(2001)。美國法的合理使用,元照出版社。  延伸查詢new window
4.高冠裕(2010)。從法院民事判決論我國對著作財產權限制之實踐。  延伸查詢new window
5.黃怡騰(2001)。著作權法第六十五條第二項四款衡量標準之研究。  延伸查詢new window
6.劉孔中、謝銘洋、馮震宇(201203)。著作權判決實證研究--從智財法院成立後三年相關判決出發。  延伸查詢new window
7.賴文智(2011)。著作權合理使用之研究,http://www.tipo.gov.tw/ch/Download_DownloadPage.aspxPath=3343&UID=9&ClsID=46&ClsTwoID=0&ClsThreeID=0&KeyWord。  new window
8.盧文祥(200602)。智慧財產權不確定法律概念的剖析研究--以專利進步性、商標混淆誤認及著作權合理使用為主之論述,瑞興出版社。  延伸查詢new window
9.SELTZER, LEON E.(1978)。EXEMPTIONS AND FAIR USE IN COPYRIGHT: THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS TENSIONS IN THE 1976 COPYRIGHT ACT。  new window
10.Leval, Pierre N.(1990)。Towards a Fair Use Standard。  new window
11.Nimmer, David(2003)。“Fairest of them all” and other fairy tales of fair use。  new window
12.Netanel, Neil W.(2012)。Making Sense of Fair Use。  new window
13.Sag, Matthew(2012)。Fairly Useful: An Empirical Study of Copyright’s Fair Use Doctrine。  new window
圖書論文
1.蔡惠如(2011)。我國著作權法合理使用之挑戰與契機--以著作權法第65條第2項之判斷基準為核心。著作權合理使用規範之現在與未來。臺北:元照出版有限公司。  延伸查詢new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE