3D列印及掃描對著作權法保護客體之挑戰

Challenges to the Protection of Copyright Subject Matter after 3D Printing and Scanning Technology

周芳竹(Fang-Ju Jou)

指導教授 ： 楊千旻

國立清華大學/科技管理學院/科技法律研究所/碩士(2014年)

摘要

近年來由於3D列印及掃描逐漸走入家庭，個人化製造業已對著作權法造成威脅。是以，本文將從3D列印及掃描之應用出發，回頭重新檢視個人應用此科技過程當中所涉及之標的物：3D數位設計圖、3D列印產出物，以及3D掃描標的物三者在現行著作權法討論當中具有之客體地位。以過去我國對於空間轉換及工業美術是否應給予保護二大主題做為討論之主軸，並以3D列印及掃描之觀點加入思考。本文以為，3D列印數位設計圖倘若依其色彩、線條及構圖等特質，易被認為係美術著作。惟因其為3D列印必備之媒介，故此實用性於廣義解釋下可能會落入應用美術的範疇。我國實務及學說對於兼具實用性與藝術性之標的物是否應與給予著作權及專利權重疊保護之問題，目前仍存有疑問。因此，不論將3D列印數位設計圖解釋為美術著作或圖形著作，皆有可能因為解釋方法不同而使其脫逸著作權法的保護。是以，建議與建築設計為相類似之立法設計，將3D列印數位設計圖特別定義，使其成為獨立的著作類型之一，並將3D列印及掃描空間轉換需受規範之態樣於著作權法重製或改作之定義當中做調整。以避免按圖施工即為實施之操作使原應受著作權法保障之類型最終無法獲得應有的保護。此外，為因應3D列印走入家庭做為個人藝術創作媒介之潮流，本文承認3D列印物亦有可能成為著作權法所保護之客體。惟因3D列印及掃描可能易使著作物與不受不著作權法保障之工業產品間的界限更為模糊，故基於著作權法與專利法立法目的並不相同之理，應該肯認給予3D列印產出物著作權及專利權等多重保護。

關鍵字

3D列印 ； 3D掃描 ； 重製 ； 改作 ； 實施 ； 圖形著作 ； 美術著作 ； 空間轉換 ； 設計專利

並列摘要

Because domestic and low-cost 3D printers and 3D scanners have gradually increased in recent years, the purpose of using these machines has transferred from previous "industrial production" to current "personal-use creation", as do-it-yourself recently. This trend may make an influence on our Copyright Act. Therefore, base on the traditional concept of reproduction, adaptation and exploitation, we aim to discuss this issue with the appearance of domestic 3D printer and 3D scanner, attempting to figure out the obstacles to the use of Taiwan's Copyright Act. In our discussion, we try to see if a "CAD design" could be regarded as "artistic works", or should be deemed as "pictorial and graphical works" just as IPO used to stand in its opinion with regard to the 2D-3D conversion issue. In which the conversion was also be considered as an conduct out of the scope of Copyright Act just because the conversion was conducted through a "machine". Accordingly, due to the complicated opinions on this kind of works as well as the trait of CAD design, which is indispensable to 3D printing so as to be explained as an "applied art", we suggest that we add new provisions to our current Copyright Act. That is, adding "CAD Design"or "3D Printing Works" as an individual just as "architectural works" did. Besides, giving the conduct of 3D printing and 3D scanning a more specific definition separately, no matter it should be seemed as reproduction or adaptation. Especially in the situation of 3D printing, we should take the "art creation" purpose into consideration in order to protect the works through 3D printing. On the other hand, we try to discuss another issue regarding 3D printing and 3D scanning in the other part. That is, due to the trend of using 3D printer and 3D scanner as a " personal-use art creation " method, the traditional classification on "pure arts", "works of artistic craftsmanship" and "products which are not protected by Copyright Act" has to be revised. As above mentioned, the key point of "machine made" might deprive the 3D works of the protection of Copyright Act. For this reason, we will view this issue from another point of view, trying to see if the creator's subject manner could be taken into account. In addition, for there is no denying that the line between "artistic works" and "industrial products" will be blurred with the domestic use of 3D printer and scanner, we reaffirm to give a subject matter copyright and patent right at the same time.

並列關鍵字

3D printing ； 3D scanning ； reproduction ； adaptation ； exploitation ； pictorial and graphical works ； artistic works ； 2D-3D conversion ； design patent

參考文獻

02.古松展，《論建築設計圖在我國著作權法上之定位》，中原大學財經法律學系，碩士論文，2012年。

06.張佩娟，《造型設計之概念與法律保護》，中原大學財經法律研究所，碩士論文，95年7月。

14.蔡瑞森，著作權侵權應考量實質類似及接觸兩個要件，理律雙月刊，3月號，理律法律事務所，2008年。

18.丁靜玟，平面美術或圖形著作轉至為立體物之爭議，理律法律雜誌雙月刊，2006年11月。

19.丁靜玟，衣服之著作權爭議，理律雙月刊，5月號，2008年。