著作權
著作權最新諮詢
不知道把網路上抓的圖做成貼紙賣會違法而上法院
使用電影中人物對話內容來製作音樂
Youtuber戴面具進行拍攝，是否侵犯著作權？
徵件活動相關侵權事宜責任歸屬釐清
徵件活動相關侵權事宜責任歸屬
創作音樂中有卡通對話會侵權嗎？
客戶提供圖片讓我製作客製化商品是否侵權
私下請人翻譯文章算違法嗎
本人攝影照片，被模特兒作公開使用+商業行為+改圖，求助處理。
下載未經授權的影片而被提告，會處何種罰則？能私下和解嗎？
作品相似
平面設計作品在未取得同意下被竄改使用
網路著作權
因為某家侵權別國教育某校的著作權而導致另一家的補習班經營不順
部落格是否需要「隱私權政策」頁面？
講義內容的著作權(圖示法講義內容)
被告著作權
智慧財產相關案例分享
蘇思鴻律師
▲蘇狀師談娛樂法(棒球篇)
assumption of risk 自承風險 assumption of risk 自承風險 風險承擔（assumption of risk、自承風險）屬於英美侵權法中的一種抗辯，如果被告能夠證明原告自願且明知地承擔了他所處的危險活動中所受的損害之固有的風險，則法律就會限制或減少原告對過失侵權行為人(被告)的追償權（故意侵權沒有適用）。 Attending baseball games and other sporting events is a quintessential American pastime. However, it is not uncommon that an accident can result in the injury of a fan. 參加棒球賽及其他運動賽事在美國是典型的消遣。然而，球迷在球賽中被球擊中卻是普遍現象。 Hit by a foul ball:被界外球擊中 In July 2015, a fan attending a Brewers/Braves baseball game at Milwaukee’s Miller Park was struck in the face by a foul ball. The fan sustained near-fatal injuries that have resulted in over $200,000 in medical bills and will require lifelong care. In August 2016, another fan was struck by a line-drive at Miller Park. 2015年，一位球迷在密爾瓦基觀看釀酒人與勇士兩隊的大聯盟賽事被界外球擊中臉部。該名球迷遭受到幾近致命之傷害，進而支出超過20萬美元之醫療費用，同時需要終身醫療。2016年8月另一名球迷在同場地被平飛球擊中。 Unfortunately, Miller Park isn't alone when it comes to spectator injuries. A 2014 study by Bloomberg News found 1,750 fans per year were injured by foul balls at Major League games. In 2018, A woman died after being hit in the head with a foul ball at Dodgers Stadium, making her the first foul-ball fatality in nearly 50 years. Spectators of hockey and NASCAR are also at risk of potentially hazardous projectiles at games and races as well. But if you are injured by a foul ball or stray hockey puck that flies into the stands, who is responsible for your medical bills, or possible lost time at work? 當談到觀眾受傷，米勒棒球場（密爾瓦基釀酒人之主場）並不是唯一。2014年彭博新聞指出大聯盟賽事每年有1750名球迷被界外球擊中。2018年在道奇隊球場，一名婦人在被界外球擊中頭部後死亡，離之前首位被擊中身亡者將近50年。職業冰球的冰球及全國運動汽車競賽協會舉行的賽事裏的賽車在比賽中係極具淺在危險性之拋射體。假如你在觀眾席被界外球擊中或冰上曲棍球的冰球擊中，誰要負擔你的醫療費及工作能力之損失？ The answer, unfortunately, is you.很不幸，答案是你（亦即你自己要負擔醫療費用及所受的傷害、損害） “Assumed Risk” and your ticket:自承風險及你的賽票 Assumed risk falls into the category of liability that applies to the so-called “baseball rule,” that is implemented in both professional and amateur leagues. If you read the fine print on the back of your ticket to a sporting event, it usually outlines refund policies and rules regarding flash photography. This is also where you will find that statement of assumed risk, which is why the venue isn’t liable for your injuries. 「自承風險」落入適用所謂“棒球法則”責任歸屬之範疇，其在職業及業餘賽事都有適用。假如你閱讀你賽票背面小號字體印刷品，其通常會將補償方案及法則用以凸顯方式概略出來，你將會發現自承風險的聲明，這也是為何賽事場地對你所受之傷毋庸負責之理。 It is assumed, that when choosing to attend a sporting event, the spectator understands that flying objects may enter the seats. And it is the spectator’s responsibility to avoid them. 其已被自我承擔，當選擇觀看賽事時，觀眾意識到飛來物會進入觀眾席，同時觀眾有責任去迴避牠。 The exception:自承風險之例外： While most risks at sporting events are considered "inherent to the game," there are situations in which negligent circumstances would hold the stadium/venue liable for injuries. For example: 然而，在運動賽事裏大部分的風險被認為是“比賽中所固有的”，有些情況被認為是運動場/賽場對該傷害有過失，例如： If you were to fall due to a broken handrail or other forms of facility disrepair such as a damaged net or partition, one could find the ballpark negligent for improper maintenance of the grounds. 假如你摔倒係因扶手損壞或是其他設施維護失當，例如護網毀損或被劃開，會認為球場基於不當維護而有過失為由。 In other cases, dram shop laws (like “social host” law) can be applied if a patron is over-served alcohol by stadium concessions and causes an accident of some sort while intoxicated.在其他情形，適用酒類供應商責任法，假如球場攤商過度供酒予顧客，造成其酒醉時的一些意外。 Unfortunately for many, this baseball rule was adopted when the game was quite different. Things happen a lot faster on the field these days and the entertaining nature of the sport often creates more “sideshows” that distract fans from what is happening on the field. We are forced to assume a certain level of risk any time we attend a spectator sport. So even with nets and barriers to protect fans, the most you can do is to always be alert while watching a game.
▲蘇狀師談娛樂法(著作權法篇)
Kardashian West is suing an Alabama doctor for using her name and likeness without permission to promote the procedure. 金、卡黛珊偉斯特對一名阿拉巴馬州的醫師未經其允許使用她的姓名和樣貌去為之行銷而提起民事訴訟 Kim Kardashian West is no stranger to making headlines, but about seven years ago the headlines themselves were stranger than usual thanks to a "vampire facial" the reality star turned entrepreneur underwent while filming Kourtney and Kim Take Miami. 金卡黛珊偉斯特成為頭條新聞已見怪不怪 Last year, Kardashian West divulged that she regretted the procedure and likely would have backed out if she hadn't been filming the show because she recently learned she was pregnant and couldn't use any pain mitigating products — and now she's suing because her name and image are being used to sell the service without her permission. Kardashian West on Monday sued an Alabama doctor for using her likeness to promote a similar procedure. In the complaint filed in California federal court, she alleges Charles Runels has been using her name, face — and even an Instagram pic (see below) — to boost his licensing business.
▲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(著作權法篇)
我國著作權法上之權利耗盡原則 權利耗盡原則可分為國內耗盡與國際耗盡，我國著作權法採國內耗盡原則，此可觀著作權法第59條之1，在中華民國管轄區域內取得著作原件或其合法重製物所有權之人，得以移轉所有權之方式散布之可明。 何謂權利耗盡原則，用淺顯的話來說，亦即「一條牛不可剝兩次皮」，例如你買到一輛車子，你取得車子的所有權，原則上你可以將之再售予他人。但你買到一本小說，並不當然可以將之再轉售甚至出租予他人。小說和車子並不同，小說本質上係原創作人創作之結晶，你取得小說的本體，但小說裏的內容屬於原創作人智慧財產的成果，你未必可以將內容影印下來（重製）或是大聲把內容向公眾唸出來（公開口述），同樣地你將之轉售，此行為屬於著作權法的「散布」，而散布屬於著作財產權，原則上要得到原著作人之同意。 「散布權」屬於著作財產權，如無例外，屬於原著作人所有，ˊ而「散布」在著作權法第3條第1項第12款被定義為，散布：指不問有償或無償，將著作之原件或重製物提供公眾交易或流通。你將購得的小說再轉售他人，屬於以移轉所有權的方式散布之，侵害了原著作人之「散布權」（著作財產權），但著作權法第59條之1設有合理使用之規定，亦即權利耗盡原則，立法者認為你取得小說的所有權，再將之轉售他人，屬於合理使用範疇，原著作人（推定此人擁有完整著作財產權，亦即未將散布權轉讓或授權或同意他人利用）對你再主張享有散布權並不合理，所以在此不構成著作財產權之侵害，但要注意的是依據著作權法第59條之1的規定，只限於在中華民國管轄區域內取得著作原件或其合法重製物所有權之人，才得以移轉所有權之方式散布之，在中華民國管轄區域外取得著作原件或其合法重製物所有權之人，即不得以移轉所有權之方式散布之（無償贈與可以，有償的銷售不可以）。違反者，著作權法有規範民、刑事責任。
▲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。
