Transcript Communication and co-ordination practices in software

網路著作權之合理使用
報告人：陳正鎔
大
壹、前言
 貳、本文
 一、數位千禧著作權法
 二、電腦軟體複製
 三、合理使用之解釋
 四、合理使用相關法條
 五、資料下載合理使用
 六、網拍之合理使用
 七、網址轉貼之合理使用
 八、數位權利管理

綱
大
九、三百多字之官司
 十、轉載之合理使用
 十一、參議員之提案
 十二、未實際獲利
 十三、未引用姓名
 十四、明知合理使用？
 十五、賞金獵人
 参、結論與建議

綱
壹、前

言
著作權法於特定情形下，對著作人之法定權益作些許
限制與除外之規定，允許社會大眾(含政府機關)為學
術、教育、個人(含家庭)利用等非營利目的，得於適
當範圍內逕行利用他人之著作(亦即平衡著作人之著
作財產權)，謂之合理使用(Fair Use)。
壹、前
言
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and
106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such
use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any
other means specified by that section, for purposes such
as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching
(including multiple copies for classroom use),
scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of
copyright. In determining whether the use made of a
work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be
considered shall include —
 § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use,
Copyright Act.

貳、本文：一、數位千禧著作權法

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge handed
Google Inc. a major victory Wednesday by
rebuffing media company Viacom Inc.'s attempt
to collect more than $1 billion in damages for the
alleged copyright abuses of Google's popular
YouTube service.
一、數位千禧著作權法

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Louis Stanton
in New York embraces Google's interpretation of
a 12-year-old law that shields Internet services
from claims of copyright infringement as long as
they promptly remove illegal content when
notified of a violation.
Viacom Loses To YouTube In Landmark
Copyright Case
 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/23/youtu
be-viacom-lawsuit-se_n_623256.html，2011/7/15

一、數位千禧著作權法

Digital Millennium Copyright Act，DMCA

(1) does not have actual knowledge that the material or
activity is infringing; upon obtaining such knowledge or
awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable
access to, the material.

(2)
does not receive a financial benefit directly
attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which
the service provider has the right and ability to control
such activity.
一、數位千禧著作權法

(3) upon notification of claimed infringement as
described in subsection (c)(3), responds expeditiously to
remove.

(DMCA)§ 512. Limitations on liability relating to
material online ， Cornell University Law School ，
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_se
c_17_00000512----000-.html，2011/7/15
一、數位千禧著作權法
Copyright Act, Section (DMCA)1201, U. S. A.：
Circumvention of copyright protection systems
 Circumvention of copyright protection systems)
 No person shall circumvent a technological measure that
effectively controls access to a work protected under this
title.

一、數位千禧著作權法
OSLO, Norway -- A Norwegian teenager has been
cleared of DVD piracy charges in a landmark trial
brought by major Hollywood studios.
 The Oslo court said Jon Johansen, known in Norway as
"DVD Jon," had not broken the law when he helped
unlock a code and distribute a computer program
enabling DVD films to be copied.
 "Johansen is found not guilty," Judge Irene Sogn told the
court. She said prosecutors could appeal against the
unanimous verdict.
 Johansen said after the ruling that he would celebrate by
"watching DVD films on unlicensed players."

一、數位千禧著作權法
Prosecutors had asked for a 90-day suspended jail term
for Johansen, 19, who developed the program when he
was 15.
 The teenager has become a symbol for hackers
worldwide who say making software such as Johansen's
-- called DeCSS -- is an act of intellectual freedom rather
than theft.
 DeCSS defeats the copyright protection system known as
Contents Scramble System (CSS), which the
entertainment industry uses to protect films distributed
on DVDs.

一、數位千禧著作權法
Johansen created and published DeCSS so that he would
be able to view DVDs on his Linux computer. He said
the program meant the film industry no longer had a
monopoly on making DVD players.
 The prosecution was brought after a complaint was filed
by the Motion Picture Association (MPA), which
represents the major Hollywood studios.
 The studios argued unauthorised copying was copyright
theft and undermined a market for DVDs and videos
worth $20 billion a year in North America alone.

一、數位千禧著作權法
But Johansen argued his code was necessary to watch
movies he already owned, on his Linux-based computer,
for which DVD software had not yet been written.
 He said since he owned the DVDs, he should be able to
view them as he liked, preferably on his own computer.
The court, citing consumer laws which protect
consumers' fair use of their own property, agreed.
 The court ruled there was "no evidence" that Johansen or
others used the decryption code called DeCSS for illegal
purposes. Nor was there any evidence that Johansen
intended to contribute to illegal copying.

一、數位千禧著作權法
The court also ruled that it is not illegal to use the
DeCSS code to watch DVD films obtained by legal
means.
 In the United States, Johansen's case raised concerns
among Internet users of what they see as a constitutional
right to freedom of expression. A battle is raging in the
U.S. over a 1998 copyright law that bans software like
DeCSS.
 Even though Johansen's software is now outdated, it was
the first to give the so-called source codes, or
instructions, for how to decipher DVD codes.

一、數位千禧著作權法

Tuesday, January 7, 2003 Posted: 8:28 AM EST (1328
GMT), CNN.com/TECHNOLOGY,
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/01/07/dvd.johansen/i
ndex.html
二、電腦軟體複製
依著作權法之規定，著作人專有重製權，將電腦軟
體複製於軟碟兩份以上，已涉及重製之行為。符合著
作權法合理使用規定之情形，不會違反著作權法；事
先徵得該電腦程式著作財產權人或經其授權之人之同
意或授權，不生違反著作權法之疑慮。事先未取得著
作財產權人之同意而重製軟碟二份以上，無論時間而
用之於不同個人電腦(Personal Computer，PC)上，均
係侵害重製權之行為。重覆此種情況，則產生另一侵
害重製權行為。侵害重製權而符合著作權法所定之犯
罪構成要件時，恐罹違反著作權法之民、刑事責任。
台灣法律網轉載智慧財產局之文章
http://www.lawtw.com/article.php?template=article_cont
ent&parent_path=,1,655,7,&article_category_id=1964&j
ob_id=83397&article_id=37301，2011/7/14
三、合理使用之解釋

著作權法旨在保護著作人之權益，兼顧社會大眾利用
著作之權益亦為不可或缺。著作人之創作諒係非真空
環境下產生，乃遵循並發揚古今中外人類集體之智慧
結晶，同時受當代社會之知識傳遞影響，若謂其原創
性與人類之演化過程無關，其誰能信？著作權法於特
定情形下，對著作人之法定權益作些許限制與除外之
規定，允許社會大眾(含政府機關)為學術、教育、個
人(含家庭)利用等非營利目的，得於適當範圍內逕行
利用他人之著作(亦即平衡著作人之著作財產權)，謂
之合理使用(Fair Use)。合理使用允宜慎重，以避免
與著作權之正常利用相扞格，或不合理地損害著作人
之法定利益。
四、合理使用之判定參考
著作之利用是否合於第四十四條至第六十三條規定或
其他合理使用之情形，應審酌一切情狀，尤應注意下
列事項，以為判斷之基準：
 利用之目的及性質，包括係為商業目的或非營利教育
目的。
 著作之性質。
 所利用之質量及其在整個著作所占之比例。
 利用結果對著作潛在市場與現在價值之影響。

四、合理使用之判定參考
Under the Fair Use Doctrine and defense, the court must
take into account:
 (1) the purpose and character of the use, including
whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for
nonprofit educational purposes;
 (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
 (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in
relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
 (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or
value of the copyrighted work.

四、合理使用之判定參考
Lawrence Steingold, Technology and Employer Update:
Court Eliminates Defenses for Downloading
Copyrighted Materials, Querrey &
Harrow,http://www.querrey.com/assets/attachments/134.
pdf, 2011/7/16
 Copyright Act, Section 106, U. S. A.：Exclusive rights
in copyrighted works
 Copyright Act, Section 107, U. S. A.：Limitations on
exclusive rights: Fair use

五、資料下載合理使用

從網路下載學術資料(老師做研究、學生交報告)，或
ＭＰ３音樂檔案，至個人之電腦設備上，亦或向圖書
館借書影印，均可謂「重製」行為，該行為之適法性
以是否符合「合理使用」原則為依歸。
楊苡菁，網路著作權問題(上)，台灣法律網轉載小姜
法律生活報，
 http://www.lawtw.com/article.php?template=article_cont
ent&parent_path=,1,779,&article_category_id=824&job
_id=61802&article_id=30329，2011/7/14

六、網拍之合理使用
民眾於網路上拍賣影音光碟，有三種情況：
 (一)、將買來之合法影音光碟於網路再予販賣；
 (二)將自實體世界（例如零售店、量販店、夜市或其
他人等）買來之盜版影音光碟於網路予以販售；
 (三)、將自網路買來之盜版影音光碟於網路再販售。
 第一種情形，應可歸類為著作之合理使用，諒不構成
著作權之侵害。
 台灣法律網轉載經濟部智慧財產局文章，網路拍賣影
音等光碟法律效果之說明，
 http://www.lawtw.com/article.php?template=article_cont
ent&parent_path=,1,779,&article_category_id=828&job
_id=102237&article_id=43580，2011/7/14

七、網址轉貼之合理使用
如僅係將他人網站之網址轉貼於其網頁中，藉由網站
間鏈結之方式，使一般人得透過吾人網站進入其他網
站，無損對他人重製權之侵害。若明知他人網站內之
著作是有爭議(或盜版)之作品，仍透過鏈結方式，提
供給公眾，則有侵害公開傳輸權共犯或幫助犯之嫌。
倘將他人影片、文章或音樂直接上載於部落格(或聊
天室)中，固合於著作權法合理使用規定，為排除侵
害著作權之困窘，亦應以徵得著作財產權人之同意或
授權為宜。
 台灣法律網轉載經濟部智慧財產局文章
 http://www.lawtw.com/article.php?template=article_cont
ent&parent_path=,1,655,7,&article_category_id=1964&j
ob_id=83405&article_id=37309，2011/7/14

八、數位權利管理
Digital Rights Management (DRM) technologies attempt
to control what you can and can't do with the media and
hardware you've purchased.
 Bought an ebook from Amazon, but can't read it on your
ebook reader of choice? That's DRM.
 Bought a DVD or Blu-Ray, but can't copy the video onto
your portable media player? That's DRM.
 Bought a video-game, but can't play it today because the
manufacturer's "authentication servers" are off-line?
That's DRM.
 Bought a smart-phone, but can't use the applications or
the service provider you want on it? That's DRM.

八、數位權利管理
Corporations claim that DRM is necessary to fight
copyright infringement online and keep consumers safe
from viruses. But there's no evidence that DRM helps
fight either of those. Instead, DRM helps big business
stifle innovation and competition, by making it easy to
quash "unauthorized" uses of media and technology.
 DRM has proliferated thanks to the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA), which sought to outlaw
any attempt to bypass DRM.



Electronic Frontier Foundation,
http://www.eff.org/issues/drm, 2011-07-16
八、數位權利管理
Case decided by Justice Joseph Story that expanded the
scope of copyright protection and laid the foundations to
the later fair use doctrine. The case involved a
controversy over the use in a George Washington
biography of excerpts from his letters that were
previously published in a collection of Washington's
papers.
 The commentary describes the ways in which the dispute
created a clash between the popular republican ideology
of the antebellum period, one that celebrated the broad
and uninhibited access to knowledge by an informed
citizenry, and a rising trend of understanding copyright in
commercial market terms.

八、數位權利管理
The identity of the texts at issue sharpened this tension
and produced competing images of Washington's papers
as a national-public resource or commercial-private
property. The commentary argues that Justice Story's
decision of the case reinterpreted traditional copyright
doctrines that had previously shielded most secondary
uses of copyrighted works, subjected such uses to more
stringent limitations, and laid the doctrinal and
intellectual
foundations
for
additional
future
developments in this vein.
 Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900)
 http://www.copyrighthistory.org/htdocs/data/commentary
/us_1841/us_1841_com_107200702155.html, 2011/7/16

八、數位權利管理
The proposal is designated "R4", and works as follows:
 Report - a complainant serves a notice of infringing
material
 Remove- the ISP removes it, without judging the merits
 Respond- the author can contest this by asking for
replacement
 Replace- again the ISP acts automatically

八、數位權利管理
The key legal supports that are needed within such
legislation are:
 the ISPs are not liable if they follow the process
 and malicious or negligent claimants can be penalised by
the courts.


Richard Clayton(Internet Expert, Thus plc), Judge &
Jury? how "Notice and Take Down" gives ISPs an
unwanted role in applying the Law to the internet.
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/Judge_and_Jury.html,
2011/7/16
九、三百多字之官司
In 1977, former President Ford contracted with
petitioners to publish his as yet unwritten memoirs. The
agreement gave petitioners the exclusive first serial right
to license prepublication excerpts.
 Two years later, as the memoirs were nearing
completion, petitioners, as the copyright holders,
negotiated a prepublication licensing agreement with
Time Magazine under which Time agreed to pay $25,000
($12,500 in advance and the balance at publication) in
exchange for the right to excerpt 7,500 words from Mr.
Ford's account of his pardon of former President Nixon.

九、三百多字之官司
Shortly before the Time article's scheduled
release, an unauthorized source provided The
Nation Magazine with the unpublished Ford
manuscript.
Working directly
from
this
manuscript, an editor of The Nation produced a
2,250-word article, at least 300 to 400 words of
which consisted of verbatim quotes of copyrighted
expression taken from the manuscript. It was
timed to "scoop" the Time article.
 As a result of the publication of The Nation's
article, Time canceled its article and refused to
pay the remaining $12,500 to petitioners.

九、三百多字之官司
Petitioners then brought suit in Federal District Court
against respondent publishers of The Nation, alleging,
inter alia, violations of the Copyright Act (Act).
 The District Court held that the Ford memoirs were
protected by copyright at the time of The Nation
publication and that respondents' use of the copyrighted
material constituted an infringement under the Act, and
the court awarded actual damages of $12,500.
 The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that The Nation's
publication of the 300 to 400 words it identified as
copyrightable expression was sanctioned as a "fair use"
of the copyrighted material under 107 of the Act.

九、三百多字之官司
Section 107 provides that notwithstanding the provisions
of 106 giving a copyright owner the exclusive right to
reproduce the copyrighted work and to prepare derivative
works based on the copyrighted work, the fair use of a
copyrighted work for purposes such as comment and
news reporting is not an infringement of copyright.
 Section 107 further provides that in determining whether
the use was fair the factors to be considered shall
include: (1) the purpose and character of the use; (2) the
nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the substantiality of
the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a
whole; and (4) the effect on the potential market for or
value of the copyrighted work.

九、三百多字之官司
The Nation's article was not a "fair use" sanctioned by
107. Pp. 542-569.
 (a) In using generous verbatim excerpts of Mr. Ford's
unpublished expression to lend authenticity to its account
of the forthcoming memoirs, The Nation effectively
arrogated to itself the right of first publication, an
important marketable subsidiary right.

九、三百多字之官司

(b) Though the right of first publication, like other rights
enumerated in 106, is expressly made subject to the fair
use provisions of 107, fair use analysis must always be
tailored to the individual case.
The nature of the interest at stake is highly relevant to
whether a given use is fair. The unpublished nature of a
work is a key, though not necessarily determinative,
factor tending to negate a defense of fair use.
 And under ordinary circumstances, the author's right to
control the first public appearance of his undisseminated
expression will outweigh a claim of fair use.

九、三百多字之官司

(c) In view of the First Amendment's protections
embodied in the Act's distinction between copyrightable
expression and uncopyrightable facts and ideas, and the
latitude for scholarship and comment traditionally
afforded by fair use, there is no warrant for expanding, as
respondents contend should be done, the fair use doctrine
to what amounts to a public figure exception to
copyright.


Whether verbatim copying from a public figure's
manuscript in a given case is or is not fair must be
judged according to the traditional equities of fair use.
九、三百多字之官司

(d) Taking into account the four factors enumerated in
107 as especially relevant in determining fair use, leads
to the conclusion that the use in question here was not
fair.

(i) The fact that news reporting was the general purpose
of The Nation's use is simply one factor. While The
Nation had every right to be the first to publish the
information, it went beyond simply reporting
uncopyrightable information and actively sought to
exploit the headline value of its infringement, making a
"news event" out of its unauthorized first publication.
九、三百多字之官司

The fact that the publication was commercial as opposed
to nonprofit is a separate factor tending to weigh against
a finding of fair use. Fair use presupposes good faith.

The Nation's unauthorized use of the undisseminated
manuscript had not merely the incidental effect but the
intended purpose of supplanting the copyright holders'
commercially valuable right of first publication.
九、三百多字之官司

(ii) While there may be a greater need to disseminate
works of fact than works of fiction, The Nation's taking
of copyrighted expression exceeded that necessary to
disseminate the facts and infringed the copyright holders'
interests in confidentiality and creative control over the
first public appearance of the work.
九、三百多字之官司

(iii) Although the verbatim quotes in question were an
insubstantial portion of the Ford manuscript, they
qualitatively embodied Mr. Ford's distinctive expression
and played a key role in the infringing article.
九、三百多字之官司

(iv) As to the effect of The Nation's article on the market
for the copyrighted work, Time's cancellation of its
projected article and its refusal to pay $12,500 were the
direct effect of the infringing publication. Once a
copyright holder establishes a causal connection between
the infringement and loss of revenue, the burden shifts to
the infringer to show that the damage would have
occurred had there been no taking of copyrighted
expression.
九、三百多字之官司

Petitioners established a prima facie case of actual
damage that respondents failed to rebut. More important,
to negate a claim of fair use it need only be shown that if
the challenged use should become widespread, it would
adversely affect the potential market for the copyrighted
work. Here, The Nation's liberal use of verbatim excerpts
posed substantial potential for damage to the
marketability of first serialization rights in the
copyrighted work.
九、三百多字之官司

HARPER & ROW v. NATION ENTERPRISES, 471
U.S. 539 (1985), HARPER & ROW, PUBLISHERS,
INC., ET AL. v. NATION ENTERPRISES ET AL.,
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, Argued
November 6, 1984
Decided May 20, 1985 , No. 83-1632.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=U
S&vol=471&invol=539, 2011/7/16
十、轉載之合理使用
以數據傳輸機及通訊軟體透過電話連線所公開發表於
由教育部電算中心所屬臺灣學術網路之電子佈告欄上
之他人文字創作，他人有著作財產權及著作人格權，
倘未經著作權人之授權或同意，且非屬合理使用範圍
，不得重製、販賣。(第十八章：著作權之侵害，校
園法律實務，教育部社教司)
 如：某甲等四人意圖銷售營利，以專線經由種子網路
(亦稱為SEEDNet)或網際資訊網路(或稱為HINet)，與
臺灣學術網路連通，先後二次由臺灣學術網路之電子
佈告欄中截錄他人著作，並委由不知情之B公司大量
重製(燒錄)在A公司出版並發行之「某月刊」隨書販
售之光碟片內(該光碟片另有其他內容)，交付不特定
之買受人購後使用。(台灣台北地方法院八十四年度
訴字第二三四一號刑事判決)

十一、參議員之提案

Senator Leahy introduced the PROTECT-IP Act (S. 968)
on May 12, designed to combat websites “dedicated to
infringing activities.” The legislation is cosponsored by
Sens. Schumer, Feinstein, Whitehouse, Graham, Kohl
Coons, and Blumenthal.
十一、參議員之提案

According to the official summary, the legislation would
allow the Justice Department obtain court orders against
these sites and require third parties to “either prevent
access to the internet site (in the case of an internet
service provider or search engine), or cease doing
business with the internet site (in the case of a payment
processor or advertising network).”
十一、參議員之提案

Unlike last year’s Combating Online Infringements and
Counterfeits Act, private IP owners can bring similar
actions against payment processors and advertisers. The
PROTECT-IP Act also contains a safe harbor for firms
that take voluntary actions against sites selling
illegitimate pharmaceuticals online.

Mike Palmedo, Preventing Real Online Threats to
Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property
(PROTECT-IP) Act Introduced in the Senate,
http://infojustice.org/archives/3401, 2011/5/16
十二、未實際獲利
臺灣臺北地方法院96年度訴字第146號刑事判決
事實
 某甲為A公司總經理以該公司之名義，欲建置線上B
資料庫，指派員工某乙等人執行，並委由C公司員工
某丙等人負責，渠等引用C公司所建置之某線上資料
庫。

十二、未實際獲利
判決理由
 除屬於著作權法第9條所列之外，凡具有原創性，能
具體以文字、語言、形像或其他媒介物加以表現而屬
於文學、科學、藝術或其他學術範圍之人類精神力參
與的創作，均係受著作權法所保護之著作。




而所謂原創性，廣義解釋包括狹義之原創性及創作性
，狹義之原創性係指著作人原始獨立完成之創作，非
單純模仿、抄襲或剽竊他人作品而來；
十二、未實際獲利
創作性則並不必達於前無古人之地步，僅依社會通念
，該著作與前已存在之作品有可資區別的變化，足以
表現著作人之個性為已足；
 而編輯著作為著作之一種，自仍須具備上開關於「著
作」之基本要素，亦即經過選擇、編排之資料而能成
為編輯著作者，除有一定之表現形式外，尚須其表現
形式能呈現或表達出作者在思想上或感情上之一定精
神內涵始可，同時該精神內涵應具有原創性，且此原
創性之程度須達足以表現作者之個性或獨特性之程度
。

十二、未實際獲利

又舉凡著作、資料，其他獨立素材之集合，以一定之
系統或方法加以收集選擇即由一大群資料中擷取應用
其部分資訊、編排整理即由一大群資料中擷取應用其
部分資訊，並得以電子或其他方式以較高之效率檢索
查詢其中之各數筆資料者為資料庫，且被收編之資料
與資料庫本身即分屬不同之保護客體，不論原始收編
資料是否受著作權之保護，只要對所收編資料之選擇
及編排具有創作性而具有前開「著作」之基本要素，
即應受到著作權法關於編輯著作相關規定之保護，經
濟部智慧財產局94年4 月15日電子郵件940415號函亦
同此見解。
十二、未實際獲利

線上B資料庫與C公司所建置之某線上資料庫內容有
多筆雷同，這些檔案有不少在司法院資料庫，也搜尋
得到，是否屬智慧財產保護範疇，成為兩造攻防重點
。智慧財產法院判決指出，因A公司未實際獲利，某
甲在審理中亦曾表示和解
台灣專利智財部落格轉載：陳俊雄，法律網複製資料
案，中國時報，2010/05/17，
 http://taiwanpatent-ip.blogspot.com/2010/06/blogpost.html，2011/7/16
 一審某甲敗訴

十三、未引用姓名
臺灣士林地方法院95年度智字第25號民事判決
 一、不爭執事項：
1、被告於某機關之A會議所發給(電子檔形式之資料)
含標點符號在內共計2,451 字均與原告早(先之)電子
郵件所寄予某機關所屬人員某甲之「B文章」著作文
字相同。

2、被告於系爭文章內並未使用或引用原告之姓名。

3、某機關委託被告整理文獻資料，係為A會議預作
準備，並不具營利目的。
十三、未引用姓名

二、爭執事項：
1、被告是否因未引用原告之姓名做為出處而侵害原
告之著作姓名權？
2、上開系爭參考資料與原告所創作著作文字相同部
分是否因被告故意或過失未合理使用原告之著作而侵
害原告的著作財產權？
十三、未引用姓名
三、本院得心證之理由：
（一）被告的重製及未引用出處行為是原告該部分的
主張，尚屬有據，應足認定。
（二）原告著作人格權請求
 著作人格權之內涵有三，即公開發表著作權、姓名表
示權及禁止不當改變權，惟有侵害著作人之公開發表
著作權、姓名表示權及禁止不當改變權之情事發生，
致使著作人名譽受損時，著作人始得主張其著作人格
權受有侵害。又姓名權係保護身分上同一性之利益，
如無權使用他人姓名而使用，或不當使用他人姓名是
，但如未侵害該身分同一性之利益，就不屬姓名之侵
害。

十三、未引用姓名

經查：被告固重製原告著作部分文字於系爭著作內，
但只是未引用原告姓名，已如前述，是被告既無無權
使用原告姓名而使用，或不當使用原告姓名等使原告
之身分同一性利益將因被告重製時未引用原告姓名而
受有較低的評價或其他侵害，是參照前揭意旨，原告
關於其著作之公開發表著作權、姓名表示權及禁止不
當改變權等著作人格權並未因侵害而致原告的名譽受
損。
十三、未引用姓名

2、經查：
（一）系爭著作確係某機關基於行政目的委請被告所
製作之著作。且參以系爭著作係以正反意見整理，與
被告所述相符，確實可提供與會人員迅速掌握議題核
心，瞭解爭議所在，其中原告所代表立場，從其被重
製文字部分觀之，甚為鮮明流暢，對於會議之召開時
做為參考之用，確有必要性。
十三、未引用姓名
（二）系爭重製文字部分在全文僅為表現特定立場，
故被告於編輯時，已於文內明確表明此為國內所代表
贊同意見之見解，並未收奪重製部分的文字做為系爭
著作的創見甚明。是系爭著作在名稱及用途上係屬參
考資料，在性質上原本可能引用眾多著作，而無何創
見價值存在；
 又被告之重製部分在全文的性質上，一望即知係引用
採贊同見解之學者專家見解，該重製部分並非用來表
徵系爭著作的重要價值所在，其份量自屬不重，況誠
如前述，系爭著作是做為內部會議參考之用，並無外
流之虞，應無營利之目的可言，是參照前揭規定，被
告之重製行為尚屬著作權法第44條所規定之合理使用
行為，應堪認定。

十四、明知合理使用？
臺灣高等法院96年度上訴字第3921號刑事判決
理由
一、公訴意旨略以：被告某甲明知告訴人某乙並無侵
害著作權之犯行，竟基於意圖使他人受刑事追訴之犯
意，誣指某乙非法重製其所攝影著作(網站：**生態
** － *百科全書)，並公開上市銷售等事實。嗣迭經
為不起訴處分確定，因認被告某甲所為係犯誣告罪嫌
。
二、又誣告罪之成立以意圖他人受刑事處分或懲戒處
分，而為虛偽之告訴告發報告者為要件。所謂虛偽係
指明知無此事實故意捏造而言，若告訴人誤認有此事
實或以為有此嫌疑，自不得指為虛偽，即難科以本罪
（最高法院40年台上字第88號判例參照）。

十四、明知合理使用？
三、
 四、
 五、茲應審酌者，乃被告是否明知告訴人並無侵害其
著作權之犯行，仍基於意圖使告訴人受刑事追訴之故
意，而向該管公務員誣告。

十四、明知合理使用？
經查：
(一)
 (二)
 (三)
(四)然被告主觀上既無明知無此事實故意捏造，而向
該管公務員誣告之故意，即與刑法誣告罪之要件不符
。
六、綜上所述，被告主觀上既無明知無此事實故意捏
造之故意，所為即與刑法誣告罪之要件不符，即應為
被告無罪之諭知。
 一審被告敗訴

十五、賞金獵人
賞金獵人：為了金錢和獎賞（賞金）而去捕抓亡命之
徒或罪犯
 賞金獵人，維基百科，
 http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%B5%8F%E9%87%91
%E7%8C%8E%E4%BA%BA，2011/7/16
 著作權賞金獵人進行拍照蒐證之餘，尚寄送警告信函
並附上和解書，略以將依著作權法規定訴追其刑、民
事責任，請受警告人洽談賠償事宜。一般而言， (和
解金)約為新台幣5 萬元至20 萬元左右，此與委託律
師進行一個審級之訴訟代理費用相當。
 許銘森，論著作權的正當行使-從著作權賞金獵人出
發，逢甲大學財經法律研究所碩士論文，2010/5

参、結論與建議
一、 著作權法於第六十五條第二項第一款規定，判
斷是否合於合理使用時應審酌利用之目的及性質，包
括係為商業目的或非營利教育目的。智財法院明言對
於「利用之目的或性質」，應揚棄單純以商業營利與
非商業營利利用二分法之適用，改從能否有助於調和
社會公共利益或國家文化發展為斷。
 惟智財法院於案例中實際適用該款時，仍多以「係商
業目的或非營利教育目的」或以「有無生產性或轉換
性之利用」做判斷。則何謂「生產性或轉換性之利用
」？又所謂「有助於調和社會公共利益或國家文化發
展」究應如何判斷？

参、結論與建議
二、 承上，同條項第二款規定，應考量「著作之性
質」，作為輔助同項第四款之判斷基準。惟智財法院
對此著墨甚少，僅於98 年度民著上易字第3 號判決中
略提原著作之類型係攝影著作，其原創性非低。則所
謂「著作之性質」其實質內涵為何？
 三、 承上，同條項第三款規定，「所利用之質量及
其在整個著作所佔之比例」亦應審酌。學理上應認為
，「整個著作」係指原著作，亦即利用的部分占原著
作之比例(98 年度民著訴字第2 號)；惟由相關判決觀
之，其中不乏有以利用人之著作為計算比例之基準
(98 年度民著訴字第15 號、98 年度民著上易字第3 號
等)。此判決歧異之現象，是否應予以檢討？

参、結論與建議
四、 承上，同條項第四款亦規定須審酌「利用結果
對著作潛在市場與現在價值之影響」，於適用該款時
，是否得以於「Yahoo!奇摩搜尋」上輸入關鍵字之結
果，由搜尋之難易度、是否須費力搜尋等類似方法
(98 年度民著訴字第5 號)，來判斷有無影響原著作之
潛在市場價值？
 五、著作權法第六十四條關於合理使用應標示原著作
人姓名之規定，與合理使用是否有必然關係？意即是
否一旦違反標示姓名之規定，即無主張合理使用之空
 間(臺灣士林地方法院95年度智字第25號民事判決)？
 謝銘洋(座談會主持人)，從智慧財產法院相關判決探
討著作權之合理使用範圍，99年度第1次智慧財產實
務案例評析座談會，2010/2/9

参、結論與建議
GUIDELINES I. Single Copying for Teachers
 A single copy may be made of any of the following by or
for a teacher at his or her individual request for his or her
scholarly research or use in teaching or preparation to
teach a class:
 A chapter from a book;
 An article from a periodical or newspaper;
 A short story, short essay or short poem, whether or not
from a collective work;
 A chart, graph, diagram, drawing, cartoon or picture
from a book, periodical, or newspaper.

参、結論與建議
II. Multiple Copies for Classroom Use
 Multiple copies (not to exceed in any event more than
one copy per pupil in a course) may be made by or for
the teacher giving the course for classroom use or
discussion; provided that:
 The copying meets the tests of brevity and spontaneity as
defined below; and,
 Meets the cumulative effect test as defined below; and,
 Each copy includes a notice of copyright.

参、結論與建議
Definitions
 Brevity


(i) Poetry:
 (a) A complete poem if less than 250 words and if
printed on not more than two pages or,
 (b) from a longer poem, an excerpt of not more than 250
words.

参、結論與建議
(ii) Prose:
 (a) Either a complete article, story or essay of less than
2,500 words, or
 (b) an excerpt from any prose work of not more than
1,000 words or 10% of the work, whichever is less, but
in any event a minimum of 500 words. Illustration: One
chart, graph, diagram, drawing, cartoon or picture per
book or per periodical issue.

参、結論與建議
(iii) 'Special' works: Certain work in poetry, prose or in
'poetic prose' which often combine language with
illustrations and which are intended sometimes for
children and at other times for a more general audience
fall short of 2,500 words in their entirety.
 Paragraph 'ii' above notwithstanding such 'special works'
may not be reproduced in their entirety; however, an
excerpt comprising not more than two of the published
pages of such special work and containing not more than
10% of the words found in the text thereof, may be
reproduced.

参、結論與建議

(Each of the numerical limits stated in 'i' and 'ii' above
may be expanded to permit the completion of an
unfinished line of a poem or of an unfinished prose
paragraph.)

AGREEMENT ON GUIDELINES FOR CLASSROOM
COPYING in NOT-FOR-PROFIT EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTIONS
 http://www.rbs2.com/copyr2.htm

参、結論與建議
成立專責之「合理使用」法庭
 成立民間之「網路著作權之合理使用」仲裁機構
 成立民間之「網路著作權之合理使用」學會、協會
 政府或民間舉辦系列之「網路著作權之合理使用」學
術與實務研討會
