智慧財產相關案例分享
▲蘇狀師談娛樂法(專屬及非專屬經紀契約)

Acting Agents – Exclusive and non-exclusive contracts 當職經紀人–專屬及非專屬契約 Exclusive An Exclusive contract with a talent agent means that your agent represents you for pretty much everything regardless of where the gig is. He represents you in New York, Los Angeles, Wichita…. where ever you go and whatever you do. Most exclusive agreements entitle the agent to their commissions even if they did not get you the gig or have anything to do with it. 專屬經紀契約意指不管你身在何處你的經紀人均係你的代表,不管你身在何處如紐約、洛杉磯、威奇托,亦不管你為何事,經紀人均代表你。絕大部分之經紀契約使經紀人都能獲取傭金,即便他們未能使藝人獲取酬勞或者使藝人後取酬勞而無所作為。 Non-Exclusive非專屬契約 This is the more popular type of contract and it is less restricting than the Exclusive contract. A Non-Exclusive agreement basically states that you can have more than one agent and is a popular choice for actors that work out of different cities. You can have one agent for New York and another for Los Angeles. The agent that gets paid is the one who sent you to the audition. 此種非專屬經紀契約係較受歡迎之契約態樣與專屬經紀契約相比,係較不受限制。非專屬經紀契約基本上規範你可以有一個以上之經紀人,同時此種模式也較受藝人歡迎。 Exclusive An Exclusive contract with a talent agent means that your agent represents you for pretty much everything regardless of where the gig is. He represents you in New York, Los Angeles, Wichita…. where ever you go and whatever you do. Most exclusive agreements entitle the agent to their commissions even if they did not get you the gig or have anything to do with it. 專屬經紀契約意指不管你身在何處你的經紀人均係你的代表,不管你身在何處如紐約、洛杉磯、威奇托,亦不管你為何事,經紀人均代表你。絕大部分之經紀契約使經紀人都能獲取傭金,即便他們未能使藝人獲取酬勞或者使藝人獲得酬勞與經紀人所為無因果關係,亦不生影響。   Non-Exclusive非專屬契約 This is the more popular type of contract and it is less restricting than the Exclusive contract. A Non-Exclusive agreement basically states that you can have more than one agent and is a popular choice for actors that work out of different cities. You can have one agent for New York and another for Los Angeles. The agent that gets paid is the one who sent you to the audition. 此種非專屬經紀契約係較受歡迎之契約態樣與專屬經紀契約相比,係較不受限制。非專屬經紀契約基本上規範你可以有一個以上之經紀人,同時此種模式,也較受藝人歡迎,同時提供藝人身處於不同城市一個不錯之選擇。你可以在紐約有個經紀人,同時在洛杉磯也有個經紀人。可獲得報酬之經紀人是可以使你大量曝光的那個推手。 Contract terms契約期限 Contracts are normally signed for period of a year even though sometimes longer terms are used. Many people are afraid of contracts and beginning actors sometimes get the misconception that they are now in someway “owned” by the agent. With most contracts that is not the case and the contract is a way to make sure that you pay the agency if you got the gig they sent you on. 契約正常以1年為期,即使有時會長於1年。許多人懼怕契約同時一些剛起步之藝人有時誤解他們為經紀人“所有”。契約是你獲得報酬將之提付與經紀人酬勞的一種方式。 A contract is nothing to fear. It spells out the agreement between both sides and what each side provides the other.  If you believe your agency is not doing its job you can request to end the agreement in writing. If an agency is unhappy with your performance, they will simply not send you to auditions and you may never get anything in writing from them. 無需懼怕契約,契約是雙方明確規範雙方權利義務之一種書面協議。倘若你認為你的經紀人不能勝任的話,你可以書面終止經紀契約。假如你的經紀人對你的表現不甚滿意,他們將不會為你力爭試鏡機會,同時也不會以書面方式告知你。

▲蘇狀師談娛樂法(名氣權;藝人之知名度於其死後之保護)

ven 50 years after her death, Marilyn Monroe continues to remain relevant.  In a strongly worded Opinion (available here)  last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Estate of Marilyn Monroe does not have the right to stop others from using Marilyn Monroe’s name and likeness.  At issue in the case was whether Monroe’s Estate inherited a right of publicity in Marilyn Monroe’s name and likeness under California law. 在強而有力以文字載述下來的見解,第九巡迴上訴法院上週判決瑪麗蓮夢露遺產管理人無權去禁止他人利用其姓名及樣貌。本件之爭點是,瑪麗蓮夢露遺產管理人依照加州法是否繼承瑪麗蓮夢露之知名度(名氣權)。 Background:  For the past 50 years—since Monroe’s death in August 1962—Monroe’s Estate (and its successor, Monroe, LLC) has been asserting that it inherited Monroe’s right of publicity, claiming to own Monroe’s images, voice, likeness and biographical information—rights that were worth $27 million in 2011. 背景:從夢露1961年去世50年來—夢露之繼承人,夢露股份有限公司主張其繼承夢露之知名度,宣稱其對夢露的圖像、聲音、樣貌、自傳資料擁有權利,這些權利在2011年值2千7百萬美元。 New York or California?  Rights of publicity vary from state to state: though most states recognize the right during a person’s lifetime, only a few states extend those protections after death.  Though in California individuals have a posthumous publicity right, which can be bequeathed, in New York, the right of publicity is extinguished at death.  Monroe died at a house she owned in Brentwood, California, though she also maintained her prior residence in New York City.  Thus, the issue before the court was clear: if Monroe was a California resident at her death, the Monroe Estate would have inherited control of her name and likeness; if she was a New York resident, those rights would have expired when Monroe died. 紐約或加州:知名度這個權利之適用法各州不同,雖然大部分的州承認在人生存期間有知名度這個權利。僅有少許之州擴張至人死後仍擁有該權利。雖然加州人承認死後名氣權,可以繼承;但在紐約州名氣權於人死時消滅。夢露死於其位於加州Brentwood的房子內,雖然她亦主張在紐約市有住所。因此審理法院很明確地了解到本案爭點係,假如夢露死時是加州居民,那麼夢露遺產管理人將取得支配其姓名及樣貌之權,反之,夢露死時若是紐約州居民,上開權利將於其死亡時消滅。 Prior Proceedings.  After her death, Monroe’s lawyer and executor, Aaron Frosch, asserted to both the New York Surrogate’s Court and the California tax authorities that Monroe died a domiciliary of New York.  This allowed the Monroe Estate to avoid substantial California estate, inheritance and income taxes.  And in 1994, the Monroe Estate faced a claim by Monroe’s alleged daughter, Nancy Miracle, who sought 50% of the Estate under a provision of California law, which was not available under New York law.  The Estate defeated that claim by alleging that Monroe died a New York citizen. 於夢露死後,前訴訟程序中,夢露的律師同時亦是遺產執行人Aaron Frosch在紐約Surrogate's Court 和加州稅捐機關皆主張夢露是紐約州居民。這使得夢露的遺產可規避大筆的遺產稅和所得稅。1994年由一位宣稱是夢露女兒者Nancy Miracle依據加州法律對夢露遺產起訴請求50%的遺產,惟該法律為紐約州所無。最終判決認定夢露死時是紐約居民適用紐約州法(種種跡象顯示,夢露之遺囑執行人即其委任之律師,均主張夢露之住所為紐約,故以紐約州法為準據法)。 The Current Lawsuit and the May 2007 Ruling.  目前之訟端及2007年5月之判決 The lawsuit was brought in March 2005, when the Marily Monroe, LLC (the successor to the Estate) sued Milton Greene Archives, Inc., claiming ownership of Monroe’s right of publicity and alleging that the defendant unlawfully used Monroe’s image and likeness. 該訴訟於2005年3月提起,當Marily Monroe, LLC (夢露遺產繼承人) 對Milton Greene Archives, 公司起訴,主張其擁有夢露之名氣權,同時宣稱被告非法利用夢露之圖像及外貌。In May 2007 the district court granted summary judgment, holding that Monroe LLC did not own Monroe’s right of publicity because at the time of Monroe’s death neither New York nor California recognized a descendible, posthumous right of publicity. 2007年5月地區法院裁付即決決判 ,認為Monroe LLC並不擁有夢露之名氣權,因為在夢露身故時,不管是紐約州或加州都未承認死後名氣權。As the District Court explained, the California law that made publicity rights inheritable was only passed in 1984, decades after Monroe’s 1962 death.地區法院解釋道,加州法規定承認死後名氣權係在夢露死後22年即1984年才通過立法。 The California Legislature Overturns the Court.  加州立法部門推翻法院判決。In direct response to the Distict Court’s 2007 ruling, the California legislature passed a bill later that year, which said the publicity rights inheritance law was retroactive and applied to all those who had died prior to 1984.  直接對2007年地區法院之判決做出回應,加州立法部門後來在該年立法通過,名氣權可以繼承並回溯同時適用那些於1984年之前身故之人。The new law made the right of publicity freely transferable, descendible and able to pass through the residual clause in the will of the deceased personality   The law was explicitly designed to abrogate the 2007 ruling.新法使名氣權可任意移轉、繼承,並可藉由身故名人遺囑之殘存條款來過繼。 The District Court’s Second Ruling.  Monroe LLC later sought reconsideration of the district court’s ruling.  Although the district court granted Monroe LLC’s motion for reconsideration, it found that Monroe LLC was “advanc[ing] a position inconsistent with that taken by the estate in the prior proceeding[s].”  The District Court thus ruled that judicial estoppel would preclude Monroe, LLC from now taking an inconsistent position. Ninth Circuit Ruling.  The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court that judicial estoppel prevented Monroe LLC from taking the position that Monroe died domiciled in California when it had prevailed in earlier suits on the premise that Monroe was a domiciliary of New York: “This is a textbook case for applying judicial estoppel. Monroe’s representatives took one position on Monroe’s domicile at death for 40 years, and then changed their position when it was to their great financial advantage,” the appeals court said. Thus photographers, artists, and others will be able to exploit images without authorization from the estate.  As the Ninth Circuit explained: “We observe that the lengthy dispute over the exploitation of Marilyn Monroe’s persona has ended in exactly the way that Monroe herself predicted more than 50 years ago: ‘I knew I belonged to the public and to the world, not because I was talented or even beautiful but because I had never belonged to anything or anyone else.”

經營遊戲店被訴販賣盜版光碟,律師協助獲判無罪

委託人小如民國91年即於台北市開立一間精品店,其時常會有客人或朋友因遊戲主機方面發生一些問題時,會請小如代為修繕或加以測式之。然於民國93年年末時,突然被警方到店表示,該店有提供該店消費之客戶改遊戲機之防盜拷措施之服務,且同時亦於該店內扣押相關電腦主動、遊戲光碟片及空白光碟片等。此外就其所扣押之遊戲光碟片部份,亦被認為有仿冒當時市面上最夯的sony和微軟的Xbox之商標,進而將其相關商品加以出售獲利之情形存在,故檢警就上述之行為對小如提起公訴,認其違反著作權法第80之2條規定及刑法偽造私文書之相關規定........https://www.alicelaw.com.tw/cases_content.html?n=65

知名連鎖服飾遭同行提告違反商標法,律師協助協助獲不起訴處分

知名連鎖服飾遭同行假藉違反商標法提告,經律師協助迅速取回遭查扣數萬件服飾並獲不起訴處分。

▲蘇狀師談娛樂法(名模吉吉哈蒂案深度解析三)

In what the plaintiff called a “nearly identical” case filed at the beginning of 2019, Hadid similarly copied and posted a paparazzi photo of herself, owned by Xclusive-Lee, Inc., to one of her social media accounts without license or permission from the copyright owner. Xclusive-Lee, Inc. v. Hadid, 1:19-cv-00520-PKC-CLP (E.D.N.Y. 2019). 於2019年年初,哈蒂重製一張由狗仔對所攝含有她自己的照片並上傳於其社群網頁,而該照片之著作權人為Xclusive-Lee, Inc.,該公司遂以“幾近相同”為由,對之提起侵害著作財產權訴訟。 Aside from bringing the same claim as Cepeda, Xclusive also notes that Hadid had first-hand knowledge that what she was doing constituted copyright infringement since she had been sued for the same thing just two years prior. The district court dismissed this case due to a lack of a copyright registration, though Hadid’s legal team also raised the defenses of fair use and implied license. The second case may have begun paving the way for future legal challenges to clarify these issues by raising a novel argument—implied license—alongside the more typical defense of fair use. Perhaps the time has come for these arguments to finally be decided by the court since Hadid has been sued yet again—this time for posting a photographer’s copyrighted photo of her former boyfriend and singer/songwriter, Zayn Malik, without license or permission. O’Neil v. Hadid, 1:19-cv-8522 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). An initial pretrial conference is scheduled for January 14, 2020.以上中文譯文,為本人所譯;請尊重著作權,違法利用,本人必究。