政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/134108
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文笔数/总笔数 : 94986/125531 (76%)
造访人次 : 31050326      在线人数 : 392
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜寻范围 查询小技巧:
  • 您可在西文检索词汇前后加上"双引号",以获取较精准的检索结果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜寻,建议至进阶搜寻限定作者字段,可获得较完整数据
  • 进阶搜寻


    请使用永久网址来引用或连结此文件: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/134108


    题名: 由國際發展趨勢檢討我國著作權法上表演之保護制度—以財產權為中心
    An assessment of property rights protection granted to performers by the R.O.C.(Taiwan) Copyright Act, in consideration with international trends and developments
    作者: 葉盈汝
    Yeh, In-Ru
    贡献者: 沈宗倫
    Shen, Chung-Lun
    葉盈汝
    Yeh, In-Ru
    关键词: 表演人權利
    著作鄰接權
    著作財產權
    原創性
    公平報酬請求權
    Performers’ rights
    Neighboring rights
    Copyright
    Originality
    Right equitable remuneration
    日期: 2021
    上传时间: 2021-03-02 14:38:14 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 我國著作權法就既有著作與民俗創作之表演以獨立之著作保護,由於以羅馬公約為主要架構之國際鄰接權條約以著作鄰接權之概念架構表演人之權利內容,我國不採鄰接權法制,卻實質限縮保護內容,遂於解釋上面臨是否應以原創性檢驗其著作適格、標準為何之困擾。為了尋求合理的保護架構,本文爬梳國際條約就著作權鄰接權之發展脈絡、介紹歐盟及美國分別立於著作人法系及著作權人法系觀點所為之立法政策與法制建構與個別國家就表演於著作權法制上保護之具體實踐,並由德國、美國與我國就表演人保護規定之要件分析,探尋表演於著作權法制下之保護核心論述,佐以新興著作權保護客體於比較法案例上就原創性之討論,提出我國法可能採行的兩種解釋路徑,一為在現行著作權保護架構下降低表演之原創性標準,二為採取鄰接權概念建立層級化的保護架構,廣泛納入以藝術性、唯一性為表演之保護門檻,並向具備著作創作高度之表演提供著作地位之保護,最後參考歐盟以法律介入著作權契約之公平報酬請求權機制提出我國未來立法建議。
    The Copyright Act of Taiwan protects pre-existing works and folklore performances as independent works. Building upon the framework established by the Rome Convention, subsequent international treaties have viewed performers’ rights in the context of neighboring rights. The concept of neighboring rights are absent in Taiwan’s Copyright Act, which nevertheless limits the scope of its protections, resulting in frequent uncertainty as to how and to what extent originality applies to a work, and which protections are thereto afforded. The present thesis delineates the context and development of copyright and neighboring right in international treaties, and the respective protections offered to performances in the EU’s authors’ rights system and the US’s copyright system. In assessing the concept of protection of performances within the copyright system, we compare the criteria for legal protection afforded to performers as defined in Germany, the US, and Taiwan, and discuss to what extent originality plays a part in comparative studies of objects of copyright protection. Finally, we propose two possible paths for the current legal system in Taiwan: first, the benchmark for determining originality under current copyright protections could be lowered; second, a multi-level protective framework based on the concept of neighboring rights could be considered, under which artistic merit and uniqueness may serve as criteria for protection, and thus performances which may be considered creative works in their own right can be offered protection as substantive, individual works. The EU’s legal framework concerning contracted copyright usage is taken into consideration, offering a final insight into future possibilities for legislation in Taiwan.
    參考文獻: 一、書籍
    中文
    1. 李劍非,著作權與網路資訊自由,2011年11月。
    2. 章忠信,著作權逐條釋義,2019年,五版。
    3. 羅明通,著作權法論(一),2005年,六版。
    4. 蕭雄淋,著作權法論,2015年,八版。
    5. 蕭雄淋,著作權法漫談精選,1995年。
    英文
    1. Davies, Gillian (1994), COPYRIGHT AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST, Wiley-VCH.
    2. Ficsor, Mihály (2002), COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS, WIPO.
    3. Knox, T. M. (1967), HEGELS PHILOSOPHY OF RIGHT, London: Oxford University Press.
    4. Morgan, Owen (2002), INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION OF PERFORMERS RIGHTS, UK: Bloomsbury Publishing PLC.
    5. Murray, Andrew D. (2007), THE REGULATION OF CYBERSPACE CONTROL IN THE ONLINE ENVIRONMENT, New York: Routledge-Cavendish.
    6. Patterson, Lyman Ray (1968), COPYRIGHT IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE, Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
    7. Rosati, Eleonora (2013), ORIGINALITY IN EU COPYRIGHT: FULL HARMONIZATION THROUGH CASE LAW, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing
    8. Throsby, David (2001), ECONOMICS AND CULTURE, Cambridge University Press.
    9. v. Lewinski, S. (2008), INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT LAW AND POLICY, New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
    10. Watal, Jayashree (2001), INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE WTO AND DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, Kluwer Law International.
    11. Deazley, Ronan, Kretschmer, Martin, & Bently, Lionel (eds.) (2010), PRIVILEGE AND PROPERTY: ESSAYS ON THE HISTORY OF COPYRIGHT, Cambridge: OpenBook Publishers.
    12. Garnett, Kevin, Davids, Gillian & Harbottle, Gwilym (15th ed.2005), COPINGER AND SKONE JAMES ON COPYRIGHT, Sweet & Maxwell.
    13. Nimmer, Melville B.& Nimmer, David (2001), NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT, Volume VIII, New York: LexisNexis Matthew Bender.
    14. Reinbothe, J. & von Lewinski, S. (2d ed. 2015), THE WIPO TREATIES ON COPYRIGH: A COMMENTARY ON THE WCT, THE WPPT, AND THE BTAP, New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
    15. Walter, M. M. & v. Lewinski, S. (2010), EUROPEAN COPYRIGHT LAW A COMMENTARY, U.K.: Oxford University Press.

    二、專書論文
    中文
    16. 許曉芬,視聽著作的另一種觀點—法國法的堅持或偏執?載:國際比較下我國著作權法之總檢討,229-257,2014年。
    17. 陳木金,談教育基本法的立法對我國教育行政的啟示,載:教育行政論壇第五次研討會學術論文集,333-55,1999年。 https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/bitstream/140.119/38157/1/4-5.pdf
    18. 張懿云,視聽表演人保護之研究—以視聽表演北京條約為中心,載:國際比較下我國著作權法之總檢討,301-332,2014年。
    19. 馮震宇,歐盟著作權指令體制與相關歐盟法院判決之研究,載:國際比較下我國著作權法之總檢討,491-543,2014年。
    英文
    1. Fisher, William (2000), Theories of Intellectual Property, in S. Munzer ed., NEW ESSAYS IN THE LEGAL AND POLITICAL THEORY OF PROPERTY, Cambridge University Press. (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press)
    2. Katzenberger, Paul (1986), Trips and Copyright Law, in Beier and Schricker eds., FROM GATT TO TRIPS: THE AGREEMENT ON TRADE-RELATED ASPECT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHT. (Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers)
    德文
    3. P. Katzenberger, Inländerbehandlung nach dem Rom-Abkommen in C. Heath and P. Ganea(eds), Urheberrecht: Gestern-Heute-Morgen, Festschrift für Adolf Dietz zum 65. Geburtstag ,2001, S. 481ff.
    4. Lewinski, Urheberrecht auf dem Weg zur Informationsgesellschaft in Schricker (Hrsg.), 1997, S. 229ff.
    三、期刊論文
    中文
    5. 王必芳,法國行政法上的公益概念,中原財經法學第30期,1-69(2003)
    6. 王怡蘋,契約自由與著作人格權之保護,輔仁法學第51期,1-52(2016)
    7. 王思原,著作人與著作人格權之歸屬—英國法的觀察,月旦法學雜誌,第279期,174-84(2018)
    8. 林依仁,文化憲法的意義(上),月旦法學雜誌第290期,164-88(2019)
    9. 林亞婷(譯),Susan Leigh Foster(著),編創舞蹈與編舞者—編舞一詞的由來,藝術評論第18期,1-25(2008)
    10. 周志宏,制定文化基本法之法律問題,法之橋:臺灣與法國之法學交會,243-84(2016)
    11. 洪德欽,歐洲聯盟法的法源,華岡法粹第57期,1-42(2014)
    12. 馬鈺婷,簡介原住民族傳統智慧創作專用權及實務狀況,萬國法律第229期,22-30(2020)
    13. 章忠信,92年新修正著作權法簡析,月旦法學雜誌第103期,103-119(2003)
    14. 章忠信,北京視聽表演條約後的表演人權利保護,智慧財產權月刊第179期,5-50(2013)
    15. 陳新民,著作權的社會義務:由德國憲法學的角度檢驗智慧財產權的保障及其限制,臺大法學論叢,第37卷第4期,115-177(2008)
    16. 陳建綱,效益主義的發軔:初探邊沁的政治思想,人文及社會科學集刊,第29卷第4期,1-37(2017)
    17. 馮震宇,論文物藝術品攝影著作之保護與利用,月旦法學雜誌,第249期,70-88(2016)
    18. 黃心怡,論攝影之原創性,東吳法律學報第24卷第3期,125-148(2013)
    19. 黃居正、邱盈翠,公共領域的結構轉型:以美國著作權法的理論變遷與食物觀點為中心,歐美研究,第41卷第4期,1023-1097(2011)
    20. 鄭中人,知識經濟時代下的著作權(上),月旦法學雜誌,第105期,92-107(2004)
    21. 蔡明誠,評1990年著作權法修正草案,政大法學評論,第40期,203-216(1989)
    22. 賴文智,著作物重製設備補償金收取制度之研究,智慧財產權月刊第85期,107-128(2006)
    23. 謝銘洋,衍生著作及其相關問題研究,最高法院106年度民事學術研討會,台灣法學雜誌第338期,59-82(2018)
    24. 蕭雄淋,著作鄰接權與日本著作權法,中興法學第22期,497-526(1986)

    英文
    1. Fisher ll, William W., Recalibrating Originality, 54(2) Houston Law Review, 438-468 (2016).
    2. Ginsburg, Jane C., A Tale of Two Copyrights: Literary Property in Revolutionary France and America, 64 Tul. L. Rev. 991-1031 (1990).
    3. Gruenberger, Michael, A duty to protect the rights of performer? Constitutional foundations of an intellectual property right, 24 Cardozo Arts & Entertainment, 617-685 (2006).
    4. Horwitz, William E., Scope of Gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 after Rumsey v. Wilson: White Buffalo or Brown Cow, 14 CARDOZO Arts & ENT. L.J. 153 (1996).
    5. Hughes, Justin, The Philosophy of Intellectual Property, 77 Geo. L. J. 287-359 (1988)
    6. Hughes, Justin, The Photographer’s Copyright—Photograph as Art, Photograph as Database, 25 HARV. J. L. & TECH. 328-413 (2012).
    7. Maroz, Raman, The freedom of artistic expression in the jurisprudence of the United States supreme court and frderal constitutional court of Germany: A comparative analysis, 35(2) Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 341-382 (2017).
    8. Netanel, N., Copyright and a Democratic Civil Society. 106(2) The Yale Law Journal, 283-387 (1996).
    9. Neu, Timm, The Fair Pay Revolution: German Copyright Law’s International Reach, 26 MICH. St. INT’L. Rev., 445-482 (2018).
    10. Parker, Jordan, Smile and Say, “We Need Not Decide:” Decoding The Federal Courts’ Nonanswers Regarding The Derivative-Works Status of Photographs, 14 TUL. J. Tech & Intell. Prop. 261-281264 (2011).
    11. Reinbothe, J., Martin-Prat, M., & v. Lewinski, S., The New WIPO Treaties: A First Resume, European Intelletual Property Review, 19, 171-6 (1997)
    12. Radin, Margarey Jane, Property and Personhood, 34 Stanford Law Review 957-1015 (1982).
    13. Senftleben, Martin, More Money for Creators and More Support for Copyright in Society-Fair Remuneration Rights in Germany and the Netherlands, 41 COLUM. J.L. & Arts. 413-433 (2018).
    14. Stengel, Daniel, Intellectual Property in Philosophy, Archives for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy 90, no. 1, 20-50 (2004)
    15. Hilty, Rero M. & Peukert, Alexander, Equitable remuneration in copyright law: The amended german copyright act as trap for the entertainment industry in the U.S., 22(2) Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 401-450 (2004).
    16. Joyce, Craig & Patterson, L. Ray, Copyright in 1791: An Essay Concerning the Founders' View of the Copyright Power Granted to Congress in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution, 52 Emory Law Journal 909-953 (2003)

    四、其他
    1. 許忠信,國際著作權公約及發展趨勢,智慧財產局培訓學院教材53。
    2. 王泰銓編印(1996),伍、法國著作權法令曁判決之研究,國際著作權法令曁判決之研究,內政部85年度研究報告。
    3. 蔡明誠編印(1996),肆、德國著作權法令曁判決之研究,國際著作權法令曁判決之研究,內政部85年度研究報告。
    4. 蔡明誠(2010),從比較法觀點論著作之原創性及創作性要件,載:行政訴訟及懲戒廳(編),智慧財產權訴訟制度相關論文彙編第1輯。
    5. 蔡英文編印(1996),陸、歐盟著作權法令曁判決之研究,國際著作權法令曁判決之研究,內政部85年度研究報告。
    6. 陳家駿、張懿云、馮震宇、黃銘傑、謝銘洋、劉孔中(2013),整體著作權法制之檢討,計畫系統編號:PG8902-0127,台北,經濟部智慧財產局。
    7. 林郁菁,著作權法對表演人保護規範本土化之研究,國立交通大學科技法律研究所碩士論文(2007)
    8. 立法院:會議議案關係文書院總第553號政府提案第3963號之1 https://lis.ly.gov.tw/lgcgi/lgmeetimage?cfcec7c7cdcacfcfc5c7cdd2cec7c9
    9. 立法院:會議議案關係文書院總第553號政府提案第5490,810,1548號之1
    10. 台北市藝術創作者職業工會(2019):藝術工作勞動調查報告 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l3UI_amy5zDXKWyUBpyKRGl-PBaCjFl9/view?fbclid=IwAR3t2q3DmrBK_I1KcwsOYQgQmrSk2qcGB5ZneKZCoRg_8TKjK6jrwW4PreU
    11. 吳尚昆(2019),文化基本法制定後對著作權的思考 https://wulaw.blog/2019/05/23/文化基本法制定後對著作權的思考
    12. 吳霈栩、郭建中(2019),美國音樂現代化法案對數位音樂的影響 http://www.winklerpartners.com/?p=9475&lang=zh-hant
    13. 風傳媒(2015),月河—險些被剪掉的奧斯卡最佳電影歌曲 https://www.storm.mg/article/52741?page=2
    14. 經濟部智慧財產局:魔術表演能不能受著作權法保護? https://www.tipo.gov.tw/tw/cp-51-658167-1d8f5-1.html
    15. 章忠信(1999),立法院三讀通過科學技術基本法,著作權筆記http://www.copyrightnote.org/ArticleContent.aspx?ID=54&aid=2019
    16. 章忠信(2011):美國錄音著作保護現況,著作權筆記 http://www.copyrightnote.org/ArticleContent.aspx?ID=54&aid=2235
    17. APEO-ARTIS (2014):Performers’ Right in International and European Legislation: Situation and Elements for Improvement https://www.aepo-artis.org/usr/files/di/fi/2/AEPO-ARTIS-study-on-performers-rights-1-December-2014-FINAL_201611291138.pdf
    18. APEO-ARTIS (2018):Performers’ Right in International and European Legislation: Situation and Elements for Improvement https://www.aepo-artis.org/usr/files/di/fi/2/AEPO-ARTIS-Study-2018---Performers%E2%80%99-Rights-in-International-and-European-_20181161711.pdf
    19. Bursztynsky, Jessica (2020): Netflix says these three effects of the coronavirus crisis are impacting its business, https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/21/netflix-q1-2020-earnings-three-effects-coronavirus-has-on-business.html
    20. ECS (2018): Comment of the European Copyright Society Addressing Selected Aspects of the Implementation of Articles 18 to 22 of the Directive (EU) 2019/79- on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. https://europeancopyrightsocietydotorg.files.wordpress.com/2020/04/ecs-comment-article-17-cdsm.pdf
    21. Treppoz, Edouard & Arbant, Géraldine (2019), The EU Copyright Directive: The new best-seller right. https://mediawrites.law/the-eu-copyright-directive-the-new-best-seller-right/
    22. UNESCO (2013):Creative Economy Report 2013 http://www.unesco.org/culture/pdf/creative-economy-report-2013.pdf
    23. UNESCO, ILO & BIRPI (1961):Records of the Diplomatic Conference on the International Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000003572
    24. UNESCO & WIPO (1985):MODEL PROVISIONS FOR NATIONAL LAWS ON THE PROTECTION OF EXPRESSIONS OF FOLKLORE AGAINST ILLICIT EXPLOITATION AND OTHER PREJUDICIAL ACTIONS https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/tk/en/folklore/1982-folklore-model-provisions.pdf
    25. v. Lewinski, S. (2007) :Stakeholder Consultation on Copyright Levies in a Converging World. Response of the Max Planck Institute Intellectual Property, Munich https://ip.mpg.de/en/publications/details/stakeholder-consultation-on-copyright-levies-in-a-converging-world-response-of-the-max-planck-institute-intellectual-property-munich.html
    26. WCED (1987):Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf
    27. WIPO(1981):Guide to the Rome Convention and to the Phonograms Convention https://www.wipo.int/publications/en/details.jsp?id=3161&plang=EN
    28. WIPO (1991):The International Bureau of WIPO prepared a memorandum for the first session of the Committee of Experts on a Possible Protocol to the Berne Convention in November 1991 (document BCP/CE/I/2)
    29. WIPO (1992):Questions Concerning a Possible Protocol to the Berne Convention, part I, Memorandum.
    30. WIPO (1996):Resolution Concerning Audiovisual Performances Adopted by the Diplomatic Conference on December 20,1996 https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/diplconf/en/crnr_dc/crnr_dc_99.doc
    31. WIPO (2001):Wipo Report on Fact-Finding Missions on Intellectual Property and Traditional Knowledge (1998-1999): Intellectual Property Needs and Expectations of Traditional Knowledge Holders https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/tk/768/wipo_pub_768.pdf
    32. WIPO (2008):Protecting Traditional Knowledge, Folklore/Traditional Cultural Expressions and Genetic Resources: Policy and Legal Challenges for Caribbean countries https://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=114457
    33. WIPO (2011):Statement by Javier Bardem to the High Level Copyright Dialogue on the Film Industry https://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/activities/copyright_dialogue/statements/bardem.html
    34. WIPO (2016):Mihály Ficsor, Copyright, cultural diversity and development https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/mdocs/.../wipo_ipda_ge_16_t14.pptx
    35. WTO:Frequently asked questions about TRIPS [ trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights ] in the WTO https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/tripfq_e.htm
    36. Persée:Rapport par M. Le Chapelier du comité de constitution sur la pétition des auteurs dramatiques, lors de la séance du 13 janvier 1791 https://www.persee.fr/doc/arcpa_0000-0000_1885_num_22_1_9756_t1_0210_0000_4
    描述: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    法律科際整合研究所
    104652026
    資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0104652026
    数据类型: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/NCCU202100186
    显示于类别:[法律科際整合研究所] 學位論文

    文件中的档案:

    档案 描述 大小格式浏览次数
    202601.pdf1972KbAdobe PDF5检视/开启


    在政大典藏中所有的数据项都受到原著作权保护.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - 回馈