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(搖頭公仔之保護)

搖頭公仔可受那些智慧財產權的保護                                                         我國旅美知名的棒球投手甲在大聯盟屢創佳績,某乙看準當下商機,竟未得其同意,仿效該投手之身形樣貌,製作成造型可愛的搖頭公仔〈娃娃〉,並將該球員投球的英姿縮小成一吋相片大小,使用於其發行筆記本、拖鞋等商品,以增加商品的買氣,某乙的行為可能涉及那些智慧財產權? 爭點解析 名人的身形樣貌受智慧財產保護否?搖頭公仔受何種智慧財產權保障?將名人身形樣貌予以縮小,使用於商品上涉及那些智慧財產權? 結論 首先知名度〈名氣〉是那一種權利?我國有無保護名氣?是否名人才享有名氣的保護?簡單的說,名氣就是個人姓名財產化的保護,姓名在我國是人格權非財產權,而在美國名氣不僅是一種財產權,更是一種智慧財產權,其是由隱私權演化而來,而此種權利並非僅存在於名人,而係人人都有,只是通常名人才會去主張,一般人比較不會主張;試想一個默默無名的人,廠商會否將其姓名或樣貌使用於其商品或服務來做廣告行銷之用,以提升其買氣?即使廠商如此為之,若他人未得該人同意,將其姓名或樣貌使用於商品或服務上,係增加該人的名氣,即使有所侵害,該人亦不會因之興訟。美國之所以將名氣認定為財產權,主要是因為財產權可以讓與或繼承,一旦認定為人格權,在權利的行使上就受到限縮,而不可否認的是,肖像或姓名這些屬於人格權範疇的權利,在利用上不可諱言地產生財產上利益,已非僅具人格權性質乃是不爭的事實,然在我國因受限於歐陸法系框架,仍堅守樣貌或姓名屬於人格權,對人民權利的保護實屬不周。據此;本題乙將甲的樣貌身形製作成搖頭公仔,可解釋成侵害甲的肖像權,但限於甲生存時才可以依民法相關規定主張財產上和非財產上損害而獲賠,至於搖頭公仔依著作權法第五條第一項各款著作內容例示〈行政命令〉,其中第二條〈四〉美術著作:包括繪畫…美術工藝品及其他之美術著作,可認定為美術工藝品而受著作權法保障。本題的乙雖有可能侵害甲的肖像權,但並不當然代表侵害著作權,端視該搖頭公仔是否為乙自行創作而定,畢竟侵害肖像權和著作權係兩碼子事,這點要特別分清楚。〈其餘部分待續〉 參拙著美國名人權法制研究

▲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)

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(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。