其他最新諮詢
2020/08/31 08:51
關於拍照的商業行為
2020/07/25 02:28
妨害電腦使用罪
2020/05/23 19:23 有最佳解答
被模仿食品(蛋糕、麵包等)會犯法嗎
2020/05/14 22:31
網路遊戲
智慧財產相關案例分享
▲蘇狀師談娛樂法(名氣權vs著作權)

Right of Publicity v Copyright Infringement 知名度v著作權侵權 There have been instances in which a Right of Publicity claim has been preempted by Plaintiff’s copyright infringement claim.  The Ninth Circuit recently found that a Plaintiff actor’s claim that his Right of Publicity had been violated was preempted by the Copyright Act because the “factual basis of his right of publicity claim was the unauthorized reproduction of his performance on the DVDs.”  Jules Jordan Video, Inc. v. 144942 Canada Inc., 617 F.3d 1146, 1154 (9th Cir. 2010).  Therefore, the “essence” of Plaintiff’s claim was the reproduction and distribution of DVDs without authorization, which fell under Copyright protection.   Explaining the rationale behind this, the Ninth Circuit stated that: “Were we to conclude that [Plaintiff’s] misappropriation claim was not preempted by the Copyright Act, then virtually every use of a copyright[] would infringe upon the original performer’s right of publicity.”  Laws v. Sony Music Entm’t, Inc., 448 F.3d 1134, 1145 (9th Cir. 2006). 最近有一案例,知名度優先著作權而受保護。第九巡迴法院最近認定,原告起訴主張其知名度被侵害優先適用著作權法而受保護;因該知名度訴求之事實上依據係未經其授權重製DVD上 之表演,Jules Jordan Video, Inc. v. 144942 Canada Inc., 617 F.3d 1146, 1154 (9th Cir. 2010).  所以,原告訴求之重製及散布DVDs,其落入著作權之保護。詮釋其背後之理論,第九巡迴法院闡述,我們總結原告起訴主張盜用著作權並不應先適用,實際上每一利用著作權係侵害原創表演者之知名度。Laws v. Sony Music Entm’t, Inc., 448 F.3d 1134, 1145 (9th Cir. 2006).

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

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)

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。