| 關 鍵 詞： |
同一性保持權；接觸自由；著作權；人格權；致毀損名譽 |
| 中文摘要： |
我國著作權法第 17 條，從一開始強調「保護作者」，到發現利用自由的重要性，而參考伯恩公約相關規定進行修正。依照修正理由及學者看法，我國法的修正，是為了配合伯恩公約規定而為。但是從另有看法認為，現行法的修正，可能誤解了伯恩公約為了推廣人格權概念，而作出妥協的事實乙節。現行法是否正確落實了伯恩公約精神，顯然是有所疑問。
表面而言，這似乎是立法者的選擇，但從數個日本及德國法院判決，可以發現即便不同的立法例，均會強調人格利益，一個表面上不甚明確的概念，才是同一性保持權的重心。如此一來，我國現行法的結構，表面上是保護了利用行為，但實際上可能會同時妨礙後人的利用自由，以及無法完整保護著作人之權利。
為了理解此一現象，本文主張在理解同一性保持權的概念時，必須從著作權的哲學基礎出發，去理解到人格權論，所強調的自由的衝突和平衡，才是理解同一性保持權概念的根本方法。為了證明上面的假設，本文預計從哲學思想，先建立起人格和自由間關聯的大架構，再從「解讀伯恩公約立法過程」，說明伯恩公約第 6 條之 2，實際上是為了引進人格權概念，和解決自由間衝突的嘗試。最後再由「日本及德國法院見解」，來說明台灣現行法以「名譽毀損」為要件的設計，不僅不會保護著作人，同時也可能在某些情形下，阻礙了後創作的勃發。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
right of integrity；freedom of access；copyright；right of personality；damaging the author’s reputation |
| 英文摘要： |
Article 17 of Taiwan Copyright Act has undergone a drastic modification starting from “protecting the author” to “maintaining free access to the work.” It is generally believed that such change is influenced by the interpretation of Article 6 bis of Berne Convention. Some scholars, however, pointed out that such implementation might resulted from a misunderstanding that the aforementioned article is actually a outcome of settlement when trying to educate the countries unfamiliar to the right of personality. Hence whether the present article truly adopted Article 6 bis of Berne Convention is doubtful.
On the surface, current approach may only be a choice of legislators. However, base on several verdicts delivered by Japanese and German courts, we can find out that the gravity for the right of integrity shall be the interest of personality, a vague concept mentioned by different jurisdictions. Hence, the current adoption of “damaging the author’s reputation” failed to protect the authors and in some cases interfering the freedom of access of the third party.
To understand this phenomena this article argues that we must start from understanding the philosophy of copyright before the true meaning of the right of integrity. In order to prove the above hypothesis, this article will establish the framework between personality and freedom through philosophical approach firstly. Secondly, through the legislation history, the article will assert that Article 6 bis of the Berne Convention as an attempt to introducing the concept of personality right and balancing the conflict between such and freedom. Finally, by introducing Japanese and German verdicts, we will find out that the current design not only failed to protect the creator but also in some cases obstructed the production of future creations.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、前言
貳、從自由來理解人格權概念
參、智慧財產體系下對自由保護的落實－從伯恩公約第 6 條之 2 談起
一、從法制上的差異來看伯恩公約的演進
二、對於伯恩公約第 6 條之 2 的錯誤理解
三、著作權法第 17 條「名譽」概念的解讀和疑問
肆、外國立法及法院判決之分析檢討
一、法條上的設計
二、日本法院的修正
三、德國法院的落實方式
四、美國法院的認定方式
五、小結
伍、結論
一、保護自由始為著作權法第17條所要追求之目的
二、固定式標準的缺失
三、從自由平衡的角度來說明
四、對於前言所提出的問題之回覆
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|