合理使用判決們(一)

97年智上字第8號
審酌被上訴人利用系爭圖片之目的及性質，係為提升設計、編輯效能及雜誌品質，而非為商業目的所使用；而系爭圖片乃雜誌封面，被上訴人利用之質量占雜誌之比例尚低，且其利用結果對該雜誌潛在市場與現在價值並無影響等情，應認被上訴人前開重製行為屬合理使用之範圍...

95年國字第5號
而著作權法第 52 條規定：「為報導、評論、教學、研究或其他正當目的之必要，在合理範圍內，得引用已公開發表之著作。」所謂「引用」係指利用他人著作，供自己創作之參考或論證、註釋或評註而言。換言之，必須被引用之他人著作內容，僅係自己著作之附屬部分而已...

93年自更（一）字第2號
著作權法第二十四條第一項明文規定在案，此「著作人」並未限定係何種「著作」之「著作人」，足見詞曲「音樂著作」及「錄音著作」均有「公開播送權」...

台北地院92年易字1969號


[智慧局]
電子郵件970821

電子郵件970319

電子郵件970121

電子郵件970116
另外有關合理使用的標準，本法並未規定規定重製多少比例或是多少數量才構成侵權行為，而應就具體個案審酌利用著作之質量及其在整個著作所占之比例，以及利用結果對著作潛在市場與現在價值之影響等為綜合判斷...

must be more...

Patent Infringement (I)

Literal Infringement:

1. determining the meaning and scope of the patent claims asserted to be infringed
2. comparing the properly construed claims to the device accused of infringing

(Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.)

Doctrine of equivalents:

A product or process that does not literally infringe upon the express terms of a patent claim may nonetheless be found to infringe if there is 'equivalence' between of the elements of the accused product or process and the claimed element of the patented invention.

(Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co.)

Limit of equivalence:

Each element contained in a patent claim is deemed material to defining the scope of the patented invention, and thus the doctrine of equivalents must be applied to individual element of the claim, not to the invention as a whole. It is important to ensure that the application of the doctrine, even as to an individual element, is not allowed such broad play as to effectively eliminate that element in its entirety.

Ref.
::Johnson & Johnson Assocs. Inc. v. R.E. Serv. Co.::

10 Things I Hate About Commandments

(10 Things I Hate About Commandments)

為了未完成的論文，一起來溫習這些有趣的混搭影片吧。這支影片結合了"對面的惡女看過來"(10 Things I Hate About You)(中文片名還真奇怪~"~) 以及很久很久以前的"十誡"(The Ten Commandments)(Sorry，如此經典的電影我竟然沒看過="=)。


---
要我加圖我就加。

Brokeback To The Future

(Brokeback To The Future)

另一個有趣的混搭影片，結合了"斷背山"(Brokeback Mountain)與"回到未來"(Back to the Future trilogy)兩部著名電影，將原本的劇情改編，描述"回到未來"裡 Dr.布朗(Doc Brown)與 Marty(Marty McFly)間的一段同志情誼。

昂貴的著作權

根據American University社會媒體中心(Center for Social Media, CSM)於九月底的報告 "The Cost of Copyright Confusion for Media Literacy" 指出，對於著作權合理使用概念之混淆與模糊不清(copyright confusion)造成了媒體素養(media literacy)養成方面之不合理成本。

該報告指出，許多不必要之著作權限制以及對於著作權法之誤解與陌生等，對於媒體素養教育 (to cultivate critical thinking about media and its role in culture and society and to strengthen creative communication skills) 造成相當大之傷害。摘要如下:

• Too many teachers fear they will misinterpret fair use or are simply unaware of its expansive nature.
• Fair use creates a kind of situational public domain.
• Teachers resolve cognitive dissonance with studied ignorance, quiet transgression,
  and hyper-compliance. (面對著作權之混淆，教育者多採取有意忽略、低調違背或者高調妥協之態度)
• It is time for media literacy education to move beyond outworn “guidelines” and dubious “rules of thumb.”

(該份報告經由與數十位老師、教育者之訪談而作成。)



[相關報導]

::Fair Use and Mashups::
::Report Describes High Cost of Copyright Confusion for Media Literacy::