由著作權法探討口譯服務之權利義務關係

Legal Issues in Interpretation Services: A Copyright Act Perspective

范家銘(Damien Fan) ； 陳子瑋(Tze-Wei Chen)

《翻譯學研究集刊》 10輯 (2007/12) Pp. 131-161

https://doi.org/10.29786/STI.200712.0004

摘要

自由口譯員常因委託口譯服務之客戶欲將其口譯內容錄音，而與客戶之間發生爭議。口譯員認為口譯乃特定情境下的溝通模式，口譯內容在該情境之下才能發揮最佳 溝通效果，因此不希望客戶將其口譯內容錄音做為其他用途。另外口譯員認為其口譯內容是其著作，主張錄音有侵犯著作權之虞。然而客戶因各種因素與需求，仍希望將口譯內容錄音，且認為其應有權利錄音並利用之。本研究從我國著作權法之規定分析口譯服務中講者、口譯員及客戶之法律關係與定位，並針對口譯員與客戶之間的爭議提出解決之道。本研究顯示，口譯員之口譯內容為衍生著作，受著作權法保護，與客戶之間的關係以著作權法第十二條出資聘人解釋。口譯員與客戶應在服務契約中約定著作人之身分、著作財產權之歸屬、著作人格權之行使、出資目的及利用範圍，以避免事後發生糾紛、保障雙方權益。

並列摘要

Freelance interpreters often find themselves in disputes with clients who wish to record the interpreters' works. Interpreters consider interpreting to be a mode of communication occurring within a specific context, which optimises the effectiveness of the interpretation only when used in that certain context. Therefore interpreters hope that clients will not use their interpretation in any other forms and contexts. In addition, interpreters see their works as intellectual properties protected by copyright laws, and consider recording as infringement of their copyrights. However, some clients still insist on recording, and claim that they have the right to do so, in addition to using the recordings. This research analyses the legal relationships among and the speaker, the interpreter, and the client from the perspective of the Copyright Act. The research indicates that the interpreter's work is a derivative work, protected as an independent work. The relationship between the interpreter and the client should be governed by Article XXII, i.e. the commissioning party and the commissioned person. In order to avoid disputes and protect the rights of both parties, the interpreter and client should stipulate in a contractual form the assignment of authorship and economic rights, the reservation of moral rights, the purpose of commission, and the scope of use.

參考文獻

台灣翻譯產業現況調查研究總結分析報告

楊承淑(2000)。亞洲翻譯傳統與現代動向。

經濟部智慧財產局編(2004)。著作權法。台北:經濟部智慧財產局。

蔡明誠(1997)。結合著作與契約目的讓與理論－評最高法院八＋六年度台上字第七六三號民事判決。資訊法務透析。21-22。

蕭雄淋(1998)。新著作權法逐條釋義（一）。台北:五南。