著作權
著作權最新諮詢
因職務設計的APP使用介面、圖稿，是否可放社群平台作為展示？
製作的名片被隨意竄改以及上面的圖示被私自註冊商標可以提告嗎
我在網路上抓圖片 且刊登在蝦皮
抄襲作品又不承認，提醒了卻不道歉撤銷
設計被其他業者拿來當範本在網路上販售 這樣算侵權嗎？
Instagram照片遭網路媒體未通知使用
使用網路爬蟲獲取網路新聞文章，將其資料整理後，製成APP公開
置入卡通人物或遊戲畫面於自製影片中並用於商業行為算合理使用嗎
英文單字通用名詞在這些情況下有侵權嗎?
二次創作問題(拿原創的文字下去做修改，並【以為】是自己的)
著作權有半年追訴期的限制嗎
收到違反著作權通知單
販售直銷產品用了用了直銷公司的圖片
圖庫侵權問題
繪畫的非商用合同是必要的嗎？
關於音樂再製的部分
盜用網拍商品介紹
被人盜用大頭貼
智慧財產相關案例分享
蘇思鴻律師
▲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.
葉鞠萱律師
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(名氣權；藝人之知名度於其死後之保護)
She Belongs to the Public: Court Rules that Marilyn Monroe Estate has no Rights of Publicity 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：自從瑪麗蓮夢露1962死亡至今已50年，其繼承人夢露有限責任公司持續主張其擁有瑪麗蓮夢露的名氣權，包括圖像、聲音、樣貌和傳記資料，這些在2011年總價值2千7百萬美元。 New York or California? 該繼承人主張其擁有瑪麗蓮夢露知名氣權，準據法究竟係依紐約州法抑或是加州法？ 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. 美國各州對知名度之保護，採取不同的保護強度，雖然大多數的州承認人於其生存其間可主張知名度，僅有少不分的州承認死後名人權。Though in California individuals have a posthumous publicity right, which can be bequeathed, in New York, the right of publicity is extinguished at death. 在加州承認死後名人權，有可被繼承人所繼承，但在紐約知名度在人死後即消滅。Monroe died at a house she owned in Brentwood, California, though she also maintained her prior residence in New York City. 瑪麗蓮夢露於其加州Brentwood自宅內死亡，雖然其住所設在紐約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.所以，於訴訟時爭點非常明確，假如瑪麗蓮夢露死時，是加州居民，其繼承人人可繼承並得支配其姓名與樣貌，假使她是紐約居民，上開權利於其死亡時即消滅。（待續）
▲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. 傑克遜最初於2019年9月在美國洛杉磯起訴，主張“惡靈古堡”導演Paul W. Anderson及其長期合作夥伴Jeremy Bolt要對其受傷負責，同時要求未定額的損害賠償金。 “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. “該訴訟無透過和解或給付任何金額而撤回，包括導演及製片和他們各自的製作公司” 代表被告的Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz律師事務所之 Joseph R. Taylor這樣說道。 Jackson’s attorneys didn’t respond to requests for comment. 傑克遜的律師對該上開陳述未做任何回應及評論。
▲蘇狀師談娛樂法(商標爭議篇)
Central Manufacturing, Inc. v. Brett et al. 492 F. 3d 876 (7th Cir. 2007) Central Manufacturing, Inc. (“Central”), the registrar of the “Stealth” trademark for baseballs, brought a Lanham Act and state law infringement action against Brett Brothers Sports (“Brett Bros.”), a baseball bat manufacturer that produced a bat of the same name. Brett Bros. is owned in part by Baseball Hall of Famer George Brett. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment which Central subsequently appealed. The issues on appeal are whether the evidence presented by Central was sufficient for a finding of infringement, whether the district court abused its discretion by ordering cancellation of the registration, and whether the granting of attorney’s fees to Brett Bros. was warranted. The district court’s judgment was affirmed. Central製造公司是有關棒球相關製品“Stealth”商標之所有人，其對Brett Brothers Sports公司，該公司係由棒球名人堂成員George Brett部分持股，提起聯邦商標和州法商標侵權訴訟。美國伊利諾州北區地方法院准予即決判決，Central製造公司隨後提起上訴，上訴的爭點在於，Central所提呈的證據是否足以認定對造侵權，法院是否濫用裁量為撤銷商標註冊令，是否判決應給付Brett Brothers律師費係有正當理由，二審維持一審之判決。 An action for trademark infringement can only succeed if the plaintiff owns the mark. Registration provides prima facie evidence of ownership that can be rebutted by competent evidence. More importantly, the mark must be used in commerce to ensure that entrepreneurs do not reserve brand names, making their competitors’ products more costly. If a court decision raises doubts about the validity of a trademark registration, a court may cancel the mark, so long as there is no abuse of discretion. Attorney’s fees and other costs may be awarded to the prevailing party “in exceptional circumstances.” 一個商標侵權訴訟，只能在原告擁有該商標時勝訴。商標註冊只是證明商標所有權之初步表面證證，其是可被有利的證據所推翻。更重要的是，商標需確保企業無保留於商業上使用該品牌名稱，使其競爭對手之產品更昂貴。假如法院對商標註冊之有效性生疑。只要無濫用其裁量權，法院可撤銷該商標註冊。在特別的情狀下，律師費及其他費用可判賠給勝訴之一造。 In 1984, Central’s owner and sole shareholder, Leo Stoller registered the Stealth mark for a variety of sporting goods and registered the mark for baseball bats in 2001. Brett Bros. sold its first Stealth bat in 1999 and has sold 25,000 since.Stoller has licensed the mark and sent various cease-and-desist letters to business such as Kmart, Panasonic and even the stealth bomber.Similarly, Stoller sent a letter to Brett Bros. demanding $100,000. Brett Bros. argued that the mark was never used in commerce and requested that Stoller produce evidence to the contrary. The district court found that no valid evidence was produced that the mark was ever used in commerce and the court of appeals agreed. The court of appeals also found that there was no abuse of discretion in cancelling the mark as the registrant’s asserted rights to the mark were invalid.Finally, the court of appeals determined that under the Lanham Act there was no clear error in awarding attorney’s fees as Central’s actions in bringing the case were oppressive. The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s finding that Central produced no evidence of trademark infringement in that no documents were filed, that Stoller mislead the court with his testimony, and that his documents made a mockery of the proceeding. Therefore, the cancellation of the mark and the grant of attorney’s fees were justified. 1984年Central公司的所有人兼唯一股東Leo Stoller將Stealth標記申請註冊於運動用品，同時於2001年將該標記申請商標註冊於棒球棒。 Brette Bros於1999年售出印有Stealth第一枝棒球棒，從那時起共賣出25,000枝。Stoller有將該商標予以授權，同時發出警告信予諸如像Kmart, Panasonic ，甚至像stealth bomber等廠商。同樣地，Stoller對Brette Bros.發出警告函，要求100,000的賠償金。Brette Bros爭執該標記從未用於商業使用，要求Stoller提出證據。地方法院判決無任何有效證據可證該標記曾用於商業，上訴審亦同此見解。終審法院亦認定撤銷商標註冊無濫用裁量，商標權人主張就該標記有商標權，是無效的。最終，終審法院認定Central's提起本件訴訟判予律師費係苛刻的，在藍能法下並無明顯錯誤。 終審法院確認地院判決Central公司提不出商標侵害之證據，而Stoller用其證詞誤導法院，同時其文件對訴訟程序無助。是故，撤銷該商標及判賠律師費予以判決確定。
