依循契約自由原則，我國著作權法對於雇用與出資關係中之著作權歸屬，分別規範於第11條與第12條，依第11條第1項但書與第12條第1項但書規定，當事人得以契約約定由雇用人或出資人為著作人，從而使雇用人或出資人原始取得著作財產權與著作人格權。此項規定之目的固然在於保障雇用人與出資人對於該著作之利用，避免因受雇人或受聘人取得著作人格權，而藉此不當阻撓雇用人或出資人行使著作財產權。然雇用人或出資人嗣後若將著作財產權讓與第三人，仍可能因雇用人或出資人主張著作人格權，而使著作財產權之利用受到阻礙。有鑑於著作權法第11條第1項但書與第12條第1 項但書之規定未能達成其立法目的，卻使創作人無法享有著作人格權之保護，因此，本文主要以德國為比較法之研究對象，一方面探討契約約定著作人格權歸屬之妥適性；另一方面探討適度限制著作人格權之可能性，以避免不當影響著作財產權之利用。

In Base of the Principle of free contract the Article 11 and Article 12 of the Copyright Act allow the agreement to regard the employer or the investor as author. The employer or the investor will gain the moral right and copyright when the work is finished. The reason for this agreement is to avoid the abuse of moral right of the creators and protect the use of the employer or the investor. However, the employer or the investor can transfer his copyright to the other. Under this situation the abuse of moral right may not be to avoid. In considering of this possibility the Article 11 and Article 12 of the Copyright Act don't achieve the aim, but make the creator not have moral right. In according to the problem this article will make a comparative study on Germany and try to find other solution to balance the Moral Right and Copyright.