智慧財產相關案例分享
▲蘇狀師談娛樂法

'Resident Evil' Stunt Performer Drops Injury Lawsuit in L.A. 惡靈古堡的特技演員撤回在洛杉磯的訴訟 Its possible, however, that Olivia Jackson may pursue the case elsewhere. Attorneys for British stunt performer Olivia Jackson have dropped a Los Angeles-based lawsuit against the makers of Resident Evil: The Final Chapter.  英國特技演員奧利佛傑克森的律師撤回對“惡靈古堡:最終章”之製作公司在洛杉磯的訴訟。 The defendant argued in the motion to dismiss that Jackson's stunt performer contract specifically includes a provision requiring dispute resolution in South Africa. So it's possible that Jackson may pursue the case elsewhere.  被告爭執到該特技演員契約內容明確規定,本契約如發生爭議其訴訟管轄地為南非,因此該特技演員可能在他地另行起訴。 In September 2016, during the filming of Resident Evil: The Final Chapter, in Cape Town, South Africa, Jackson was badly injured during a stunt. While riding a motorcycle at a high speed, the 34-year-old veteran stunt performer collided with a crane-mounted camera that was traveling in the opposite direction. Her left arm was amputated above the elbow and she suffered lasting nerve damage and facial scarring. 2016年9月,在南非開普敦拍攝上開影片期間,34歲特技演員傑可森在為特技時受了很重的傷。事發時以高速騎著摩托車與反向行進之吊掛攝影機相撞。左手臂手肘以下截肢,同時受有持續性神經損害及面部傷疤。 Jackson’s initial U.S lawsuit, filed in September 2019 in Los Angeles, alleged that Resident Evil director Paul W. Anderson and his longtime producing partner, Jeremy Bolt, were responsible, and requested unspecified damages.   “The dismissal of the lawsuit included no settlement or payment of any kind,” said Joseph R. Taylor, an attorney with Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, the firm representing the defendants, which included director Anderson and producer Bolt, along with their respective production companies. Jackson’s attorneys didn’t respond to requests for comment. 

▲蘇狀師談娛樂法(藝術工作者作品之轉讓及授權)

Assignments and Licensing Overview  As an artist, one of the best ways to make money is to license or assign your work. Although many people use the terms interchangeably, there is a tremendous difference between licensing and assigning your art. 身為藝人,其中一種最棒的賺錢途徑,即是將自己的作品授權或讓與他人。雖然很多人互換其契約條款,但是授權與讓與著作兩者是有很大之差異。 Assignments: An assignment is basically handing your art over -- for good. Assigning your art to someone else gives them full ownership of the art, to do with as they please. There are plenty of good reasons to do this, but if you're going to give your art away for good, you should pay very close attention to what you're actually giving away. Licenses: A license is more like renting your art out. It gives someone the rights to use your art for a limited time and for limited purposes while you, the artist, retain ultimate ownership of your art. Once the license expires, the licensee can no longer use your art. Unfortunately, many companies use terms like "exclusive licenses" for agreements that are actually assignments. Read the fine print carefully, and make sure you know exactly what you are, and aren't, giving away. Reversions A reversion is when something happens that causes the rights to your artwork to spring back to you. Knowing the difference between assignments and licenses, it should be apparent that most reversions should occur in licensing agreements. You grant a company a license to use your artwork for awhile, and then when some predetermined event or events happen, those rights terminate and flow back to you.

被前公司起訴侵害著作權,律師協助取得勝訴

【 起訴事實 】 委任人甲原本於乙公司任職,離職後自行創業,不久乙公司竟稱甲所出版的教材,侵害乙公司專有之改作權、重製權、公開口述權及散布權,起訴請求甲應賠償500 萬元,並應將判決書以半版之篇幅(寬26公分、長35.5公分),刊登於中國時報、聯合報及自由時報之全國版頭版各一天,並應將本判決書全文以一頁之篇幅,刊登於商業週刊、天下雜誌及遠見雜誌各一期。........https://www.alicelaw.com.tw/cases_content.html?n=64

▲蘇狀師談娛樂法(著作權法篇)

蘇狀師談娛樂法 一、問題 甲經營服飾店,為了增加買氣,遂以店內的音響播放時下最流行的歌曲(CD),以招攬客源,問甲的行為有無侵害著作權? 二、解析 首先,CD屬於何種著作?或者一張CD包含了那些著作?我們假設本題CD裏只有一首單曲。(避免問題太過複雜) CD在著作權法屬於錄音著作,歌曲本身屬於音樂著作,還有歌者本身的演出(歌者詮釋該歌曲的表達,唱法、高低音的技巧、換氣、節奏的掌握),屬於著作權法所要保護的表演。(著作權法第7-1條) 接下來要探究,播放CD涉及了那些著作財產權?甲的行為係公開演出(著作權法第3條第1項第9款)他人的音樂著作(著作權法第5條第1項第8款),而錄音著作無公開演出權(同法第26條第1項),至於表演性質上屬於著作鄰接權,其保護程度較(一般著作)低,此見著作權法第26條第2項但書可知。(表演人專有以擴音器或其他器材公開演出其表演之權利。但將表演重製後或公開播送後再以擴音器或其他器材公開演出者,不在此限) 三、結論 甲的行為係公開演出他人的音樂著作,需得原詞、曲創作人的同意或授權;至於公開演出原歌者的表演,依上述的論述(經重製於CD後)不受著作權法保護。就錄音著作部分,因錄音著作無公開演出權,這時著作權法第26條第3項規定,錄音著作權經公開演出者,著作人得請求公開演出之人支付使用報酬,亦即本題製作該CD者(可能是唱片公司或專業的錄音室或者職業配樂編曲者)得向甲請求支付使用報酬。 各位經營不論是賣場、服飾店、美容美髮店的朋友們,要注意未得原創作者同意播放CD,會涉及上述著作(財產)權,(暫不論著作人格權)千萬要小心不要踩線了。

▲蘇狀師談娛樂法(名人授權)

CELEBRITY LICENSING 名人授權 In the licensing business, celebrity licensing refers to granting the right to a third party to use the name, image, brand, or likeness of a celebrity. By acquiring these rights under license, the third party can utilize them in the promotion or sale of their goods or services.  於授權實務,名人之授權指,授權第三人得利用其姓名、圖像、品牌或樣貌。藉由授權,第三人可於促銷或銷售其產品或服務下,利用上開標的。 A celebrity who licenses intellectual property (IP) related to their image, name, or likeness is allowing a third party (usually a group or business) to use those assets for the benefit of the third party’s business interests. In exchange for granting the licensing rights, the celebrity receives financial compensation, typically in the form of royalties. Depending upon the nature of the licensing contract, there may be limitations to what the third party can do with the intellectual property of the celebrity. They may only be able to utilize the property in certain markets, or for a specific period of time. In addition, there may be terms limiting the types of services or goods in connection with which the celebrity’s IP can be used. 名人授與有關其圖像、姓名、樣貌等智慧財產權與第三人時,該人可為其商業利益而利用之。名人可因上開權利之授與而取得酬償,通常以取得權利金方式作為授權之對價。基於授權契約之內容,對第三人得利用上開智慧財產權,得加以限制。諸如限制第三人只能在特定市場或特定期間利用上開智慧財產權。此外,還可限制上開智慧財產權只能用於某類型之服務或商品。 ※尊重著作權;違法利用,本人必究。