純公益性目的合理使用條款之研究

A Study of Fair Use Provisions with Pure Public Good Purposes in Copyright Law

趙質堅(Chih-Chien Chao)

指導教授 ： 黃銘傑

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2012年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2012.02597

摘要

關於合理使用原則之討論，一向是我國著作權法上的熱門議題。細究其緣由，乃肇因於我國合理使用條文數量之眾多、規範適用機會之廣闊、以及解釋判斷上之不確定性等因素。過往對於合理使用之分析，多著重於合理使用概括條款之規定，連帶溯源自美國著作權法上相關規定一併為探討，是以我國學說在概括規定之研究上已累積有豐碩之成果；然而在其餘各別具體合理使用規定上，相對於概括條款之蓬勃論述，卻未見有大量深入之研究。因此本文欲跳脫傳統主要針對合理使用概括規定之分析途徑，於回顧過往文獻並參閱外國比較法資料後，試圖自合理使用之具體規定著手，希望能在個別規定之分析上得出有別於以往之成果與貢獻。
為求對合理使用制度有全面性的理解，本文之論述遂起於著作權保護制度之目的與意義探討。在比較國內外不同著作權制度與立法例後，將從著作權制度此上位概念切入，逐漸限縮至著作權限制制度之探究。在著作權限制制度之研究過程中，除對其意義、目的與存在價值有所解析外，更將重點放在不同著作權限制制度彼此間所追求目標之異同判斷上，以歸納出具有對既存著作權保護範圍再施以限制效力之「狹義著作權限制制度」。而後再對該等狹義著作權限制制度所包含之「法定授權制度」、「強制授權制度」與「合理使用原則」相互比較，便可得出合理使用原則，乃著作權限制制度之核心代表性機制結論。
於確立合理使用原則為著作權限制制度之核心制度後，本文便嘗試以不同之分類標準切入，對我國著作權法上眾多合理使用條款進行分類。除傳統概括與具體規定之分類、以及依合理使用條款之規範目的進行歸納外，另有從各條款所具建設性與是否損及經濟利益加以著手者，亦有由各條款所具憲法上價值之高低予以區別者。惟除此之外，本文將另依「是否具營利目的」以及「係供個人或須公開於公眾使用」此二分類標準，以交叉得出所謂不具營利目的、且須公開於公眾使用之「純公益性目的合理使用條款」－著作權法第48條第2款、第48條第3款、第53條第2項與第55條。純公益性目的合理使用條款因能表現出著作權限制制度壓制私益、追求公益，以求取公私益衝突間平衡之特性，可謂最具代表性之著作權限制制度，有其重要之區別實益與存在價值。
於篩選出所謂純公益性目的合理使用條款後，本文便從立法歷程開始、接著由立法目的、比較法介紹、要件剖析與爭議點釋疑一步步對該等條文進行深入完整之分析，以徹底理解純公益性目的合理使用條款之意義與其不足之處為何。經過分析後，可明顯得出其共同之爭議點與規範缺失之處－並無任何對於著作權人之損失給予填補之規定。是故最後即針對此項缺失，試著提出可能的補充與替代性解決方案。其中包括國家責任體系中「特別犧牲理論」之援引、利用媒合與補償金制度下「著作權利管理系統」、「著作權集體管理團體」以及「法定授權制度」之引進，希望在克服原先合理使用制度之先天缺陷與後天操作疑義後，使原為具有瑕疵之純公益性目的合理使用條款所規範之事件，能在新制度之引入下逐步獲得改善，最終並能為一妥善完整之制度體系所規範。

關鍵字

合理使用原則 ； 法定授權制度 ； 著作權保護制度 ； 著作權限制制度 ； 特別犧牲補償理論 ； 公益維護 ； 著作權集體管理團體

並列摘要

Discussions concerning the concept of “Fair Use” have been a popular issue in Taiwan Copyright Law for a long time. It is because of the numerous related regulations, the extensive fields being applied to and the ambiguity in legal exercise as well as applications that make fair use an important topic. The studies on fair use have been mainly focused on the general clauses together with similar ones in the U.S. However, in contrast with abundant academic productions of general clauses accumulated in these years, other specific regulations of fair use have long been neglected. Therefore, I decided to conduct my research from a different point of view. Starting from the review of related domestic and abroad materials, I would like to concentrate my study on specific fair use clauses, in order to make a contribution to the progress of Copyright Law in Taiwan.
With a view to having a complete understanding of the concept of fair use, this research will begin with analyses on the meaning and purposes of copyright. After comparisons of different global copyright systems, I would then focus my research on the “Copyright Limitation Systems”. In the discussion of copyright limitation systems, not only its meaning, definition as well as purposes were reviewed, the contrasts of different systems were also made. By contrasting all kinds of copyright limitation systems, I have find out different objects of each concept and summed up a group of copyright limitation systems possess the core idea of copyright limitation systems. After that, I would narrow my scope of study on to the analysis of the special copyright limitation systems with core elements, including” Compulsory license”, “Regulatory license” and “Fair use”, and come up with the conclusion that fair use is the core system among all copyright limitation systems.
Since that the core position of fair use is confirmed, the following passage will put a stress on the discussion of numerous fair use clauses from different standards of classifications. Traditional classifying methods of fair use clauses contain “General clauses and specific clauses” as well as “Different objects of each regulation”. Some studies also suggest that we can classify fair use clauses by “A clause is constructive or not” and “Does that clause harm the economic interests of the copyright owners”. Others think that fair use clauses can be classified by different constitutional purposes.
Apart from all these classifications methods, I would try to bring up a whole new aspect of categorizing fair use clauses. The newly-created categorizing principle is sorting fair use clauses by “Does a clause contain profit-making characteristics” or “Is the way of utilization set in a clause for personal or public usage”. By applying those two essential factors, we can come up with a category of clauses which are for public use only and without profit-making purposes. These kind of fair use clauses, including paragraph 2 and 3 of article 48, article 53 and article 55, are called “Fair use provisions with pure public interest purposes”. Because fair use provisions with pure public interest purposes could harmonize conflicts between public and personal interests properly, it is considered the most representative stipulations among all copyright limitation systems.
After classifying fair use clauses into pure public interest fair use clauses, the following passage will focus on the discussion of history developments, the main purposes as well as related foreign regulations of these provisions. Through those discussions, disputes and shortcomings of present provisions will be discovered. Their common drawback is that copyright owners have never been compensated for their economic losses to the pursuit of public goods. This research will step deep into these defeats with complete analyses, especially the common drawback mentioned, and come up with applicable replenishment and replacement systems. The substitutive systems includes “The special sacrifice theory” (The sonderopfer theory), “The copyright management system”, “The collective management of copyright” and “The regulatory license system”. These systems could not only compensate the losses originally endured by copyright owners alone, but also maintain the public- for trait of pure public good fair use clauses. In other words, by the instruction of the reforming systems, pure public interest fair use clauses would become a complete and proper system in striking a balance between public and personal interests.

並列關鍵字

Fair Use ； Regulatory License ； Copyright system ； Copyright Limitation System ； The Special Sacrifice Theory(The sonderopfer theory) ； Protection of Public interest ； Collective Management of Copyright

參考文獻

12. 陳曉慧（2011）。《網際網路與著作權》。台北：經濟部智慧財產局。

19. 經濟部智慧財產局（2002）。《認識著作權》。台北：經濟部智慧財產局。

1. 尤英夫（2000）。〈論接近使用媒體權〉，《法令月刊》，第51卷第6期，頁440-446。

22. 張世柱（2002）。〈著作權法反規避條款與言論自由〉，《法令月刊》，第55卷第10期，頁26-43。

28. 章忠信（2008）。〈著作權集體管理制度新發展〉，《智慧財產權月刊》，第114期，頁5-38。