我國著作人格權之研究─以讓與、繼承及保護年限為中心

Study of Moral Rights in Taiwan: Focusing on Transfer, Inheritance, and Protection Term

蕭惠丹(Hui-Tan Hsiao)

指導教授 ： 洪鎌德

國立臺灣大學/社會科學院/國家發展研究所/碩士(2013年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2013.10924

摘要

傳統法學基於人格權為一身專屬之權利，而不得讓與及繼承；著作人格權為人格權之一，在我國著作權法亦規定，著作人格權不得讓與及繼承。然當今社會，商業活動發達，人格權及著作人格權產生經濟利益；就法律經濟學分析，著作人格權不能讓與及繼承，會造成無效率之現象，尤其是我國著作人格權以永久保護為原則，本文探討著作人格權讓與及繼承之可能性。

考察德國法，人格權之經濟利益以及繼承已獲得承認；人格權之經濟利益遭受侵害，亦得主張損害賠償，但人格權之轉讓尚未突破，學者提出「限制性讓與」理論試圖為人格權之讓與解套，而此理論卻是從著作權而來。

就比較法學觀點，世界各主要國家中，德國、英國及法國，允許其著作人格權繼承；在著作人格權讓與部分，德國實務上發展出得以契約約定讓與，並且於著作權法第31條第1項規範，得以利用權之方式授權他人使用著作之人格利益，並且發展出核心理論，即涉及著作人格利益之核心部分，約定予他人利用認定為無效。

關於著作人格權之保護年限，與著作財產權相同，才有意義並符合效率觀點；而伯恩公約亦僅規定不少於著作財產權即可。

本文結論建議修正我國著作權法第18條：著作人格權存續期間與著作財產權相同。以及修正我國著作權法第21條：著作人格權應繼承，其中公開發表權及姓名表示權得隨著作財產權，依利用目的讓與著作財產權人。

本文並以我國智慧財產法院自民國97年7月1日成立以來，至102年6月30日止，5年期間著作人格權相關判決之評析，期能了解實務界法官見解，以提供關心著作人格權議題人士參考。

關鍵字

著作人格權 ； 人格權 ； 讓與 ； 繼承 ； 著作權

並列摘要

Personality rights are regarded by practitioners of conventional jurisprudence to be exclusive to certain individuals and therefore cannot be transferred or inherited. The moral right is a personality right; the copyright law of Taiwan stipulates that the moral right cannot be transferred or inherited. In today's society, where there are huge volumes of business activity, personality rights and moral rights create economic benefits. Judging from the perspective of the economics of law, the inability of the moral right to be transferred or inherited is inefficient, particularly in Taiwan, where the moral right is, in principle, permanently protected. This paper explores the possibility of transferring or inheriting the moral right.

German law recognizes the economic benefits and inheritance of personality rights. In cases where economic benefits of the personality rights are infringed upon, the victims have the right to claim damages. However, no breakthroughs have been made in the transfer of personality rights. Some scholars propose a "Limited Transfer" theory, which attempts to make possible the transfer of personality rights. This theory was originally directed at copyright law.

From the perspective of comparative jurisprudence, industrialized nations, such as Germany, the UK, and France, permit the inheritance of the moral right. Germany permits the transfer of the moral right so long as the transfer is stipulated in a contract. In addition, article 31-1 of its copyright law stipulates that people other than the creator of the moral right may be authorized to use the personality benefits of works via the right to use. Moreover, a core theory has been developed that stipulates that any transfer of the core parts involving the personality benefits of a work shall be deemed invalid.

The number of years for which the moral right is protected should be the same as that of the property right for a work. This allows such protection to be meaningful and efficient. The Berne Convention only stipulates that the number of years of protection should be no less than that of the property rights for a work.

In the conclusion of this paper, I recommend amending Article 18 of Taiwan's Copyright Law so that it reads as follows: The duration of the moral right shall be the same as that of the property right for a work. I also suggest amending Article 21 of the same law so that it reads as follows: The moral right shall be inheritable. Of which, the right of publication and the right of attribution shall be transferrable to the copyright owner, along with the property right for a work, based on the purpose of utilization and property rights.

This paper also provides an analysis of the moral rights-related rulings from Taiwan's Intellectual Property Court, issued between July 1, 2008—the date on which it was established—to June 30, 2013, in hopes of understanding the views of its judges and providing a reference to those people concerned with moral rights-related issues.

並列關鍵字

Moral Rights ； Personality Rights ； Transfer ； Inheritance ； Copyright

參考文獻

洪鎌德，1999年，《21世紀的社會學》，臺北，揚智文化事業股份有限公司。

賴文智，2008年，《政府機關(含國營事業)辦公室涉及著作權疑義解析》，臺北：經濟部智慧財產局。

羅明通，2009年，《著作權法論》﹝I﹞，七版，臺北：台英國際商務法律。

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〉，收錄於臺大法學論叢》，2008年12月。陳耀祥，〈論廣播電視中犯罪事實之報導與人格權保障之衝突〉─以德國聯邦憲法法院之雷巴赫裁判為討論核心〉。

張嘉尹，〈論「價值秩序」作為憲法學的基本概念〉，收錄於《國立臺灣大學法 學論叢》，第30卷第5期