做了一個「挪用」的動作－論轉化性於挪用藝術之適用

Transformation on Appropriation Art

胡心蘭(Hu, Hsin-Lan)

《東海大學法學研究》 49期 (2016/08) Pp. 153-212

摘要

在2012 年的Cariou v. Prince 案中，美國第二巡迴上訴法院主審意見認為挪用藝術家Richard Prince 挪用了攝影師Patrick Cariou 花了六年的時間在牙買加叢林所拍攝的有關Rastafarians族人與其生活環境的照片，進而創作自己的Canal Zone 系列作品的行為，符合轉化之要件，因而成立合理使用。然指定陪席的第九巡迴上訴法院Wallace 法官表示無法理解，其在部分不同意見書中指出：「我可以大方的承認我並非藝術評論或專家，（因此）我無法理解為何主審可以如此得有自信的區別出可以成立合理使用的二十五幅作品，及無法立即判定的另外五幅。」而關鍵就在於法院對合理使用原則中「轉化」要件之認知與適用上之不同。自1990 年美國紐約南區聯邦地方法院法官Pierre N. Leval在哈佛法學期刊發表了一篇名為「樹立合理使用之標準」的文章，提出「轉化」之概念，並於1994 年為美國最高法院於Campbell案時引用後，「轉化性」之認定幾乎與合理使用之成立畫上等號。但究竟何謂「轉化」？此一轉化之要素之於「挪用藝術」又應如何適用？根據專門收藏現代藝術作品的英國國家泰特美術館（Tate Gallery）的定義，「挪用藝術」即「或多或少採用實物或甚至既有藝術作品而令其直接成為藝術作品。」而「挪用藝術」與著作權法的關聯開始密切，則是因為如Andy Warhol、Jeff Koons 等視覺藝術家，以及包括Richard Prince 與Sherrie Levine在內之「圖像世代」的藝術家們公然且理直氣壯的挪用他人的作品成就自己的作品——而且獲得極大的成功，這些挪用藝術家的作品即成為著作權侵權訴訟裡的題材。本文之目的，即在針對挪用藝術之特殊性，探討何為「轉化」？「挪用」此一行為之本身代表之意義是否符合「轉化」之內涵？以此做為出發，輔以Leval法官於2015 年Google 案中適用「轉化」要件之分析，重新檢討著作權合理使用原則中轉化要件之內涵與適用。

關鍵字

挪用藝術 ； 後現代藝術 ； 轉化性利用 ； 合理使用 ； Campbell案

並列摘要

In Cariou v. Prince, a 2012 case of the Second Circuit Court, Photographer Patrick Cariou sued appropriation artist Richard Prince for copyright infringement after Prince ＂altered and incorporated＂ several of Cariou's photos into his own paintings and collages. Judge J. Clifford Wallace, dissenting in part, was departed from the majority on the question of how to find transformative use in some of the works, but not others. The division in Cariou highlights the tremendous uncertainty created by the transformative element. Ever since Judge Leval wrote the Harvard Law Review article ＂Toward a Fair Use Standard＂ published at 1990 creates- and then adopted in Campbell by Supreme Court- the ＂transformative＂ element under the first fair use factor, court decisions that unequivocally characterize the defendant's use as transformative almost universally find fair use. But what is ＂transformative＂ really meant? Besides, how to apply the transformation element to case involves appropriation art? The Tate Gallery has defined appropriation art as ＂the more or less direct taking over into a work of art a real object or even an existing work of art.＂ The essential of appropriation art is taking compositions from existing work to accomplish her own work, in other word, copying may be the necessary step to make appropriation art. While visual artists such as Andy Warhol and Jeff Koons, and artists of ＂The Pictures Generation＂ such as Richard Prince and Sherrie Levinethe openly and confidently using others works to accomplish their own works – and receive great success and fortune- appropriation art has more frequently be the subject of copyright infringement lawsuit. Combining with the examination of Judge Leval's re-interpretation of ＂transformative use＂ in 2015 significant case of Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., this article expected to, as said Judge Leval, ＂tests the boundaries of fair use＂.

並列關鍵字

Appropriation Art ； Postmodern Art ； Transformative Use ； Copyright Fair Use ； Campbell

參考文獻

趙健宏(2014)。後現代攝影挪用對原創性的詮釋，以Sherrie Levine翻拍攝影為例。議藝份子。22，77-92。

Beebe, Barton(2008).An Empirical Study of U.S. Copyright Fair Use Opinions, 1978-2005.U. PA. L. Rev..156,549-624.

Bunker, Matthew D.,Calvert, Clay(2014).The Jurisprudence of Transformation: Intellectual Incoherence and Doctrinal Murkiness Twenty Years After Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music.Duke L. & Tech. Rev..12,92-128.

Chused, Richard H.(2014).The Legal Culture of Appropriation Art: The Future of Copyright in the Remix Age.Tul. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop..17,163-215.

Everson, Brittani(2014).Comment, The Narrowest and Most Obvious Limits: Applying Fair Use to Appropriation Art Economically Using A Royalty System.Cath. U. L. Rev..63,729-758.