2009年1月，台灣出現一則新聞：一家涮羊肉火鍋店擅自使用故宮院藏「元世祖」半身像及「元世祖出獵圖」的影像重製品，遭故宮員工舉發，被追繳了萬餘元影像授權費。 同時之間，另一則新聞則是，遠雄集團希望取得聯合報所拍之國寶翠玉白菜照片，以為商業廣告之用，故宮亦跟遠雄要求授權金。但是，根據我國著作權法規定，著作權只保護到著作人死後五十年。元世祖半身像、元世祖出獵圖及翠玉白菜，創作人早已經死亡超過五十年，故宮並無著作權，這些著作物均已經進入公共所有（public domain），為全民所共享，而其重製之影像，是否為著作權客體？如果不是，那故宮博物館是據何主張授權金？本文即受上述新聞啟發，探討像博物館之類的文化保存機構，面對其所藏物品的重製行為，在著作權法上的定位為何。首先介紹歐盟著作權指令中，對仍受著作權保障之著作物，文化資產保存機構為保存或建檔之需要，可為合理之重製行為，如同我國著作權法第48 條的規定。其次以美國判例為例，探討若為著作權已消滅之物品所為之重製品，博物館為收藏品所拍之照片，可否為著作權之客體、要求利用人付授權費用？若其答案為否，那博物館是否有著作權以外之依據？最後即以我國故宮主張「文化資產保存法」為例，探討「文保法」的保障目的與精神，應不可與著作權法相提並論，廣及一切複製行為。

In January 2009, National Palace Museum found a Khubilai Khan Restaurant, famous for its Mongolian-style hot pots, had been using the image replicas of two paintings “Portrait of Emperor Shih-tsu (Khubilai Khan),” and “Kuhbilai Khan on a Hunt” without its authorization, so it had asked for more than 10 thousand NT dollars from the restaurant successfully as a licensing fee for using the image replicas. Simultaneously, there’s another news showing that the Farglory Group was asked by National Palce Musuem to pay licensing fees for using a photograph of its collections “Jadeite Cabbage”, though which in fact was taken by staff working for the United Daily News. However, according to the Copyright Law in Taiwan, copyright protections expire 50 years from the death of the owners. Undoubtedly, copyrights of the above mentioned paintings and the Jade carving already expired long before and all of them are in the public domain. Therefore it is doubtful whether the replicas of these creations are still entitled to copyright protections. If not, the requests for licensing fees from National Palace Museum might be unlawful. Inspired by the two stories, this article intends to explore the copyright issues relating to the reproduction of collections of the cultural heritage preservation institutions such as museums. Firstly, it begins with an introduction on European Directives which permit cultural heritage preservation institutions to reproduce copyright protected works for preservation or archiving purposes on a fair-use ground. Secondly, it takes precedents of USA courts as examples, discussing whether replicas of their collections which are already in the public domain such as photos of ancient paintings or carvings, are justified to claim copyright protection and ask for licensing fees from their users. Furthermore, National Palace Museum insisted it was entitled to the licensing fees according to the Cultural Heritage Preservation Law. In the last section of this article, this article will explore relevant rules and argue that the spirit of the Cultural Heritage Preservation Law shall not be in conflict with that of the Copyright Law.