智慧財產相關案例分享
▲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

'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。

電商沒做好這件事竟可能遭裁罰?!律師教你兩步驟防踩雷

若你是自己架網站從事交易的業者,不管你賣的是保養品、衣服或日常用品等等,請特別小心,因為在法律上你將可能被認定為是透過網路方式對消費者進行交易的零售業者,你與消費者間的交易條款,可不能隨便想怎麼寫就怎麼寫,必須符合法規,否則將有可能被主管機關裁罰,這邊提供兩步驟教你防踩雷: Step1 基本上,網站上的條款必須符合「零售業等網路交易定型化契約應記載及不得記載事項」(https://www.ey.gov.tw/…/cfed6708-23de-47a0-a828-0548d8004515),裡面的應記載事項必須在網站上記入,不得記載事項則不能出現在網站上,故請先將上面應記載事項移入你的網站中。 Step2 「零售業等網路交易定型化契約應記載及不得記載事項」是法定範本,當然不能完全照抄,所以移入網站後,請在法定的架構下逐一審閱每筆條款,依照自己經營的實際需求做調整。 舉個常見的問題,法定的範本是規定必須要記載消費者有權七天鑑賞期內退貨。看到這邊,一定很多店家想問,我賣的商品都客製化(例如西裝訂做),或是屬於個人衛生用品(例如刮鬍刀),這樣如果可以七天內退貨,我還怎麼做生意?!所以,在這種情況下,其實另外有「通訊交易解除權合理例外情事適用準則」這樣的法規去規定不適用七天鑑賞期的情形,所以範本請不要一字不漏的照抄,一定要在法定架構下依照實際需求做調整,才不會衍生額外消費糾紛,如果有問題請洽律師尋求協助。

▲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