April 10, 2017  2017年4月10日報導
Last week, in Maloney v. T3 Media, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that claims under state right-of-publicity law are preempted by the Copyright Act “when a likeness has been captured in a copyrighted artistic visual work and the work itself is being distributed for personal use.” Case No. 15-55630 (9th Cir. April 5, 2017). This decision offers
significant protection to creators depicting or otherwise incorporating real individuals into their work and clarifies that, for purposes of determining copyright preemption of a right of publicity claim, it is the way in which the name or likeness is used, rather than the type of copyrightable work at issue, that is relevant.
上週於Maloney v. T3 Media, Inc.,乙案，美國上訴法院第九巡迴法院認為，當一個人之樣貌在一個有著作權之藝術視覺著作所攫取，同時該著作本身係以個人使用來散布，此時，著作權優先於知名度而被認為係構成侵害著作權。該判決就創作者將真人描畫於或以其他方式併入他們的著作中，提供重要的保護。同時該判決澄清這就是姓名或樣貌被利用之方式，判決的目的係為了決定著作權優先於知名度，而不在探究於著作本身是否有著作權，不過兩者是有相關的。
其實答案很簡單，保護之知名度的法律不是習慣法就是州的制定法，屬州法位階，而著作權法係聯邦法，依法律階層理論（美國法下），聯邦法優先州之習慣法（或稱普通法）或州之制定法適用。

The Right of Publicity and Copyright Act Preemption

All states have common-law doctrines and/or statutes prohibiting the commercial exploitation of a person’s name or likeness without their consent. Although these so-called “right-of-publicity” laws vary from state to state, generally they provide an individual with the ability to sue to prevent the use of their name, picture, or other aspect of their persona on or in connection with a product or service, without his or her consent.
所有州有其習慣法及（或）制定法規範，禁止未得其同意，商業利用他人之姓名或樣貌。雖然這些所謂“知名度”的法律，因各州而不同，，通常他們提供人可對非法利用者提起訴訟，藉此禁止他們利用本人的姓名、照片或其他與其人身相關的因子或未經本人之同意將上開所用用在商品或服務上。

Often, the likeness at issue in a right-of-publicity claim is embodied in a copyrighted work, such as a book, work of art, film, or photograph. The Copyright Act provides the creator of a work, not its “subject,” with certain exclusive rights to exploit that copyrighted work. Thus, at times, an individual’s right to control the use of his or her likeness under state right-of-publicity laws can clash with a copyright owner’s exclusive rights in a copyrighted work. Section 301 of the Copyright Act expressly provides that, in those instances, the copyright takes precedence, and any “rights under the common law or statutes of a State that are equivalent to copyright” are preempted. As a result, some uses of a person’s likeness that might otherwise be covered by the right of publicity may instead lie within the ambit of the Copyright Act.
系爭知名度經常體現於著作裏，諸如書籍，藝術作品、電影或照片。著作權法所要規範的是創作者的著作，有著足以排除她人利用其著作的權利，而非保護作品本體。著作權法第301項明白規定，，在上開情事下，著作權優先適用，任何在習慣法或州制定法下之權利與著作權係平等的，因此，某些人利用他人之樣貌，落入知名度之層次，取而代之亦落入著作權法規範的範圍，其有重疊之情狀。

Courts must determine when a right-of-publicity claim is preempted and when it is not. The Ninth Circuit applies a two-part test to evaluate when a state law claim, such as the right of publicity, will be preempted by copyright: The court must decide (1) whether the state law’s subject matter falls within the scope of copyright, and (2) whether the rights asserted under state law are equivalent to the rights granted by the Copyright Act. While this test seems straightforward, its application in right-of-publicity cases has not always seemed consistent or sufficiently clear. In Maloney, the Ninth Circuit clarified prior decisions and provided a clearer roadmap for applying the preemption doctrine in right-of-publicity cases
法院必須決定知名度何時優先適用，何時不優先適用。第九巡迴法院應用一個二階檢驗標準去評估州法下之知名度何時係由著作權取得優先。法院必須決定（1）是否州法的標的落入著作權的範圍。（2）是否依州法主張的權利與著作權法授與之權利相等。該檢測法似乎直白的，但是用起來必非如此相合或充分明確的。