| 關 鍵 詞： |
美國視覺藝術家權利法；著作人格權；公開發表權；公開展示權；著作權歸屬 |
| 中文摘要： |
本文乃介紹美國視覺藝術家權利法，透過該法之介紹，瞭解美國對於著作人格權之保護範圍，並進而透過重要的爭議案例，瞭解其實際的運作。本文先介紹美國著作權法中人格權之規定，進而介紹幾個重要代表案例，包括Pollara v. Seymour案、NASCAR v. Scharle 案、Martin v. City of Indianapolis 案、Phillips v. Pembroke Real Estate案等。這些案例大多涉及大型藝術品之展示問題。而本文也特別深入介紹美國之Mass. Museum of Contemporary Art Found., Inc. v. Büchel案判決意見，從該案判決中，瞭解藝術館與藝術家在策展時，沒有事先以契約約定好雙方權利義務，可能引發的著作權糾紛。
介紹該等案件後，本文進而討論這些案例對台灣之啓示。本文先比較發現三點：一、我國比美國更加保障著作人格權，此舉是否有利於著作投資人，本文提出質疑。二、美國本來不保障公開發表權，但法院卻透過判決，擴大承認此種著作人格權。相對於美國，台灣也有類似判決。本文也對此種判決論理提出質疑。三、藝術館與藝術家若想避免發生糾紛，則應該在策展前或策展中以契約詳細約定雙方權利義務，而本文也提出六項需要特別約定之內容，包括（一）著作人之約定，（二）著作財產權之約定，（三）裝置過程中之暴露問題，（四）著作原件所有權歸屬，（五）同意因展覽需要修改之約定，（六）展覽完後之處置約定。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
The Visual Artists Rights Act；Copyright Moral Rights；Public Disclosure Right；Public Display Right；Copyright Attribution |
| 英文摘要： |
This article wants to introduce the Visual Artists Rights Act in U.S. Through the introduction, we can understand the protection scope of moral rights in U.S. copyright law. And I will introduce some important cases to let us know it's real practices. The cases I introduce includes Pollara v. Seymour, NASCAR v. Scharle, Martin v. City of Indianapolis, Phil-lips v. Pembroke Real Estate. Most of these cases involved the display issues of big art captures. I also will focus on the federal 1st Circuit Court opinion in Mass. Museum of Contemporary Art Found., Inc. v. Büchel (2010). From the opinion, we can find that if the art museum and the artist didn't agree with their rights and obligations by contract ex ante, the copyright disputes will arise.
After introducing the law and cases in U.S., I will discuss some im-plications for Taiwan. I argue three points. First, the protection of moral rights in Taiwan in more than in U.S., but that will be harmful to creation inventers. Second, there is no public disclosure right in U.S. copyright law, but the court by judgment expand the protection scope to cover the public disclosure right. Like U.S., there is some kind similar case judgment in Taiwan, and I will criticize this situation. Third, if art museum and artist want avoid disputes, they should agree with both rights and obligations in detail by contract before the exhibition playing. I suggest six issues should be agreed with in the contract: 1. Who is the author. 2. Who owns the copyrights. 3. The disclosure problem in the process of installs the creature. 4. Who owns the original creation works. 5. Agreement to modify the creature for the exhibition. 6. How to handle the creature after the exhibition.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、前言
貳、美國著作人格權
一、美國著作人格權的發展
二、美國視覺藝術家權利法
三、排除保護著作
四、避免藝術價值受到肯定之作品被損毁
參、麻州當代藝術館與 Büchel 案
一、麻州當代藝術館
二、Büchel 案一審判決
（一）未完成藝術作品
（二）無侵害著作人格權
（三）無侵害著作財產權
三、第一巡迴上訴法院判決
（一）尚未完成著作仍受保護
（二）美國著作人格權之限制
（三）判決結論
四、分析
肆、比較我國與啟示
一、保護著作人格權對著作投資人之影響
二、法院擴大未保護之著作人格權
三、對藝術館之啟示
（一）著作人之約定
（二）著作財產權之約定
（三）裝置過程中之暴露問題
（四）著作原件所有權歸屬
（五）同意因展覽需要修改之約定
（六）展覽完後之處置約定
伍、結論
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|