Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/119799
|
| Title: | 「文字劇本」與「連續系列影像」之抄襲認定 ──以美國電影爭議案件為核心
Infringement of Screenplays: Dispute in the American Film Industry |
| Authors: | 蔡宗豪
Tsai, Tsung-Hao |
| Contributors: | 李治安
Lee, Jyh-An
蔡宗豪
Tsai, Tsung-Hao |
| Keywords: | 劇本
電影
語文著作
視聽著作
思想與表達區分原則
必要場景原則
抄襲
改作權
實質相似性
選擇與安排法則
Screenplay/script
Motion picture
Oral and literary works
Audiovisual works
Idea/expression dichotomy
Scenes a faire
Copyright plagiarism
Adaptation right
Substantial similarity
Selection and arrangement test |
| Date: | 2018 |
| Issue Date: | 2018-08-29 16:04:03 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 近年來電影侵害劇本之著作權案件頻傳，面對編劇之抄襲指控，法院如何判斷表現於不同媒材之兩著作「改作權」侵害，比起單純再製的「重製權」侵害認定是要具挑戰性。判斷權利侵害與否，首要確立出權利的大小範圍。本文針對劇本之權利範圍及其具體保護元素進行介紹外，並且會就長期被忽略但對於劇本權利範疇影響甚為關鍵的「必要場景原則」進行詳細說明。藉由「必要場景原則」的歷史起源、演變發展、定位等梳理，重新思索與理解該原則的意義與適用。
由於我國涉及電影侵害劇本之實務案例並不多，學術上也鮮少有人討論此議題，為了能更深入理解此爭議審酌時之考量因素與實際操作面，因此，選定具有大量豐富案件的美國法做為比較法上之參考。本文一共蒐集了61則美國法院判決，藉由判決觀察及分析，整理出美國法院在面對此爭議時，是藉由什麼標準、方法來予以判定兩著作有無構成「實質相似性」，而當中之考量因素以及缺失問題又為何。期望藉由本文之整理與介紹，能給予我國實務法院一些參考指引和建議，讓審判實務能有更細緻化之思考與判斷。
In recent years, there have been many legal cases in which adapted cinema films infringe scriptwriters’ copyrights of their screenplays. Compared with cases of the infringement of the right to reproduce, it is more challenging for the court to determine when and how an adaptation constitutes an infringement because such a case relates to two different mediums. To say whether or not a right is infringed, the scope a right covers needs defining in the first place. This article introduces the scope of rights related to a screenplay as well as its protected elements, and in detail discusses “Scenes a faire,” which, neglected for a long time, is a key concept to defining the scope of the rights. By studying the origins and development of “Scenes a faire,” I am able to rethink and comprehend its significance and application.
Cases of the infringement of the right to adapt are not common in Taiwan. Few in academia talked about it. To go deeper into the core of controversy and to see how such a case is considered and judged, I chose the American Laws, with its abundant relevant cases, as my frame of reference. I collected 61 verdicts affirmed by the U.S. courts. By empirical observation and analysis, I sorted out a set of standards and means by which the U.S. courts determine whether or not that two works reach “substantial similarity.” Also, I discussed their concerns and possible problems. It is hoped that this article serves as a reference guide for our practical courts to make a more informed judgment. |
| Reference: | 一、 中文文獻
書籍
王國臣，影視文學腳本創作，2009年10月。
宋海燕，娛樂法，2017年6月，3版。
林洲富，著作權法案例式，2016年3月，3版。
高戡，影視娛樂法，2017年4月。
楊智傑，美國著作權法──理論與重要判決，2018年5月。
盧非易，台灣電影: 政治、經濟、美學，1998年12月。
蕭雄淋，著作權法實務問題研析，2013年7月。
蕭雄淋，著作權法論，2010年8月，7版。
謝銘洋，智慧財產權法，2016年9月，7版
簡啟煜，著作權法案例解析，2014年9月，3版。
羅明通，著作權法論I，2014年5月，8版。
羅明通，著作權法論II，2014年5月，8版。
Joseph A, Maxwell著，高熏芳、林盈助、王向葵譯，質化研究設計──一種互動取向的方法，2004年9月。
法院判決
最高法院104年度台上字第2980號刑事判決
最高法院103年度台上字第1544號民事判決
最高法院99年度台上字第3777號刑事判決
最高法院99年度台上字第2314號民事判決
最高法院99年度台上字第2109號民事判決
最高法院99年度台上字第225號民事判決
最高法院97年度台上字第6499號刑事判決
最高法院97年度台上字第3914號刑事判決
最高法院97年度台上字第1214號民事判決
最高法院97年度台上字第1671號民事判決
最高法院97年度台上字第3121號刑事判決
最高法院96年度台上字第529號刑事判決
最高法院94年度台上字第1530號刑事判決
最高法院92年度台上字第1664號民事判決
最高法院81年度台上字第3063號民事判決
台灣高等法院96年度上易字第2841號刑事判決
台灣高等法院93年度上訴字第766號刑事判決
台灣高等法院90年度上字第1252號民事判決
台北地方法院99年度智易字第17號刑事判決
台北地方法院93自字第238號刑事判決
台北地方法院93自字第90刑事判決
台北地方法院89年度訴字第4859號民事判決
智慧財產法院106年度刑智上易字第73號刑事判決
智慧財產法院106年度刑智上訴字第33號刑事判決
智慧財產法院106年度民著訴字第4號民事判決
智慧財產法院106年度民著訴字第17號民事判決
智慧財產法院106年度民著訴字第7號民事判決
智慧財產法院106年度民著訴字第6號民事判決
智慧財產法院106年度刑智上訴字第5號刑事判決
智慧財產法院106年度刑智上訴字第2號刑事判決
智慧財產法院105年度刑智上易字第5號刑事判決
智慧財產法院105年度刑智上訴字第41號刑事判決
智慧財產法院105年度民著上字第4號民事判決
智慧財產法院104年度刑智上易字第29號刑事判決
智慧財產法院104年度民著上易字第7號民事判決
智慧財產法院104年度刑智上易字第102號刑事判決
智慧財產法院104年民著上易字第11號民事判決
智慧財產法院104年度民著訴字第55號民事判決等
智慧財產法院104年度刑智上訴字第5號刑事判決
智慧財產法院104年度刑智上易字第61號刑事判決
智慧財產法院104年度民著上易字第3號民事判決
智慧財產法院104年度刑智上易字第29號刑事判決
智慧財產法院103年度刑智上訴字第39號刑事判決
智慧財產法院103年度刑智上易字第47號刑事判
智慧財產法院103年度刑智上訴字第54號刑事判決
智慧財產法院103年度民著上字第27號民事判
智慧財產法院103年度民著訴字第84號民事判決
智慧財產法院102年民著訴14號民事判決
智慧財產法院102年民著上字第1號民事判決
智慧財產法院102年度民著訴字第39號民事判決
智慧財產法院102年度民著上字第7號民事判決
智慧財產法院102年度民著上易字第5號民事判決
智慧財產法院101年度民公上字第6號民事判決
智慧財產法院101年度民著上字第21號民事判決
智慧財產法院101年度刑智上訴字第68號刑事判決
智慧財產法院100年度民著訴字第49號民事判決
智慧財產法院100年度民公訴字第5號民事判決
智慧財產法院100年度刑智上訴字第39號刑事判決
智慧財產法院99年度民著訴字第36號民事判決
智慧財產法院99年度民著上字第1號民事判決
智慧財產法院97年度刑智上易字第27號刑事判決
北京市高級人民法院（2015）高民（知）終字第1039號民事判決
北京市第二中級人民法院（2014）二中民終字第01669號民事判決
北京市第二中級人民法院（2006）二中民初字第7909號民事判決
北京市第一中级人民法院（2009）一中民初字第1936號民事判決
上海市高级人民法院(2012)滬高民三(知)終字第67號民事判決
上海市第二中级人民法院(2011)滬二中民五(知)終字第62號民事判決
上海市浦東新區人民法院(2015)浦民三(知)初字第1896號民事判決
深圳市龍崗區人民法院（2012）深龍法知民初字第382號民事判決
山東省高級人民法院（2009）魯民三終字第108號民事判決
行政函釋
內政部(81)內著字第八一八四○○二號
期刊文章
王玉瓊，美國法上關於營業秘密之民事救濟——以法院判決之解析為中心，智慧財產權月刊，214期，頁32-56，2016年10月。
王靚穎，從「梅花烙」與「宮鎖連城」著作權侵權糾紛案看劇本實質近似之判斷方式，科技法律透析，28卷8期，頁6-14，2016年8月。
何偉傑，反映在運動電影中的虛構與真實─洛基四（Rocky IV）為例，競技運動，15卷2期，頁24-33，2013年12月。
李治安，故事角色的第二人生 : 論著作權法對故事角色之保護，智慧財產月刊，169期，頁104-127，2013年1月。
周小舟，論接觸要件在剽竊案中的程序和實質意義──從《小站》案切入，華東政法大學學報，2期，頁108-118，2016年。
張瑞星，後UCITA 時代美國電腦資訊交易法制及其適用，台灣科技法律與政策論叢，2卷4期，頁105-168，2005年12月。
張瑞星，論影視製作創意提案之法律保護（上），智慧財產權，172期，頁81-105，2013年4月。
張瑞星，論影視製作創意提案之法律保護（下），智慧財產權，173期，頁57-81，2013年5月。
章忠信，著作權侵害之鑑定，月旦法學雜誌，190期，頁47-60，2011年3月。
黃秀蘭，影像與繪本侵權案例淺析—以幾米繪本《向左走‧向右走》與江蕙專輯MTV 侵權判決為例，法學新論，21 期，頁79-110，2010 年4 月。
蔡明誠，論著作之原創性與創作性要件，台大法學論叢，26卷1期，頁177 - 194，1996年10月。
羅明通，著作權潔淨室之組成及訴訟上功能－自新著作權法思想與表達之區分與合併談起，全國律師，3卷2期，頁21-27，1999年2月。
學位論文
何孟儒，從好萊塢類型電影論台灣類型電影之調查研究，輔仁大學大眾傳播學研究所碩士論文學位，2011年。
林佳誼，青春系列──從類型觀點看2002-2008台灣同志電影，國立政治大學新聞研究所碩士學位論文，2009年7月。
黃柏諺，電視產業發展與智慧財產權之互動──以節目版式為中心，國立政治大學科技管理與智慧財產研究所碩士論文，2015年7月。
劉芊影，著作權侵害認定之研究──以整體觀念與感覺測試法為中心，國立政治大學法律研究所碩士論文，2015年7月。
戴士捷，虛擬角色的智慧財產權保護──以著作權法與商標法為核心，國立政治大學科技管理與智慧財產研究所碩士論文，2013年9月。
網路資料
張懿云、李治安、吳宗樺，著作權侵害認定要件之研究-接觸與實質近似，經濟部智慧財產局，資料來源: https://www.tipo.gov.tw/public/Attachment/51617203146.pdf (最後瀏覽日: 2018/3/3 )。
林正二，提振台灣電影產業建言https://tw.appledaily.com/new/realtime/20161018/970045/(最後瀏覽日:2018/3/20)。
楊軼然，2015年度人民法院十大民事行政案件，人民法院報第一版、第四版，2016/1/7，網址: http://rmfyb.chinacourt.org/paper/html/2016-01/07/content_106712.htm?div=-1 (最後瀏覽日: 2018/4/2)。
趙岩、周波，北京高院發布知識產權十大案例，2016/4/4，網址: http://bjgy.chinacourt.org/article/detail/2016/04/id/1839979.shtml (最後瀏覽日: 2018/4/2)。
余惠如，著作「實質近似」之侵權分析─以美術著作為中心，頁1，網址: http://www.saint-island.com.tw/news/ShowNewsB.asp?seq=582 (最後瀏覽日: 2017/9/8)。
廖嘉成，從若干判決簡析電影著作常見之侵害爭議，聖島國際智慧財產權實務報導，網址: http://www.saint-island.com.tw/report/data/IPR_201309.htm#a01 (最後瀏覽日:2018/3/5)。
台北市電影委員會，2017年台北電影學院「法律與電影開發講座」資訊，網址: http://www.filmcommission.taipei/tw/AboutFilmCommission/TaipeiFilmInstituteDet/a59e6570-5f8a-4991-a25a-1f4f4bba9337 (最後瀏覽日: 2018/4/22)。
東默農編劇實戰教室，【結構問題】鬆散？緊湊？弄懂故事的結構與節奏，2018年5月28日，網址: https://www.domorenovel.com/2018/05/about-tight.html (最後瀏覽日: 2018/6/8)。
程偉豪導演聲明稿，網址: https://www.facebook.com/notes/%E7%9B%AE%E6%93%8A%E8%80%85-who-killed-cock-robin/0411-%E7%A8%8B%E5%81%89%E8%B1%AA%E5%B0%8E%E6%BC%94-%E8%81%B2%E6%98%8E%E7%A8%BF/1595208497173979/ (最後瀏覽日: 2017/10/21)。
陳玉珊編劇聲明稿，網址: https://goo.gl/NZFDK0(最後瀏覽日: 2017/10/21)
文化部網站，網址: https://www.moc.gov.tw/ (最後瀏覽日: 2018/3/22 )。
台灣文化法學會 網址: https://tclatw.org/ (最後瀏覽日: 2018/5/13)。
晚婚MTV，網址: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkUGRgPlsrE。
二、外文文獻
專書
CHRISTOPHER KEANE, HOW TO WRITE A SELLING SCREENPLAY (1998).
HENRY CAMPBELL BLACK, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (10th ed. 2014).
JAMES G. SAMMATARO, FILM AND MULTIMEDIA AND THE LAW (2014).
MARK S. LEE, ENTERTAINMENT AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW (2017).
MARK TRAPHAGEN, 3 COPYRIGHT THROUGHOUT THE WORLD (2017).
MELVILLE B. NIMMER AND DAVID NIMMER, NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT (2007).
PERRY Z. BINDER, 18 AM. JUR. PROOF OF FACTS 3D (1992).
ROBERT C. LIND et. al., 3 ENTERTAINMENT LAW 3D: LEGAL CONCEPTS AND BUSINESS PRACTICES (2017).
ROBERT C. OSTERBERG & ERIC C. OSTERBERG, SUBSTANTIAL SIMILARITY IN COPYRIGHT LAW (2010).
SCOTT BEATTY et. al., THE DC COMICS ENCYCLOPEDIA: THE DEFINITIVE GUIDE TO THE CHARACTERS OF THE DC UNIVERSE (2008).
STEPHEN NEALE, GENRE AND HOLLYWOOD (2000).
WILLIAM F. PATRY, PATRY ON COPYRIGHT (2018).
法院判決
Accord La Resolana Architects, PA v. Reno, Inc., 555 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir. 2009).
Alexander v. Haley, 460 F. Supp. 40 (S.D.N.Y. 1978).
Anderson v. Stallone, No. 87-0592 WDKGX, 1989 WL 206431 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 1989).
Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994).
Arden v. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc., 908 F. Supp. 1248 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).
Arnstein v. Porter, 154 F.2d 464 (2d Cir. 1946).
Arthur Rutenberg Homes, Inc. v. Berger, 910 F. Supp. 603 (M.D. Fla. 1995).
Atari, Inc. v. North Am. Philips Consumer Elecs. Corp., 672 F.2d 607 (7th Cir. 1982).
Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1879).
Barris/Fraser Enters. v. Goodson-Todman Enters., 5 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1887 (S.D.N.Y. 1988).
Basile v. Warner Bros. Entm`t Inc., 678 F. App`x 604 (9th Cir. 2017).
Beal v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 20 F.3d 454 (11th Cir. 1994).
Benay v. Warner Bros. Entm`t, 607 F.3d 620 (9th Cir. 2010).
Berkic v. Crichton, 761 F.2d 1289 (9th Cir. 1985).
Bernal v. Paradigm Talent & Literary Agency, 788 F. Supp. 2d 1043 (C.D. Cal. 2010).
Bethea v. Burnett, No. CV04-7690JFWPLAX, 2005 WL 1720631 (C.D. Cal. June 28, 2005).
Bevan v. Columbia Broadcasting Sys., 329 F. Supp. 601 (S.D.N.Y. 1971).
Braddock v. Jolie, No. CV1205883DMGVBKX, 2013 WL 12125754 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2013).
Briggs v. Blomkamp, 70 F. Supp. 3d 1155 (N.D. Cal. 2014).
Brown v. Twentieth Century Fox Home Entm`t, No. 6:14-CV-147-KKC, 2015 WL 5081125 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 27, 2015).
Buchwald v. Paramount Pictures Corp., No. C706083, 1990 WL 357611 (Cal. App. Dep`t. Super. Ct. 1990).
Bucklew v. Hawkins, Ash, Baptie & Co., LLP., 329 F.3d 923 (7th Cir. 2003).
Cain v. Universal Pictures Co., 47 F. Supp. 1013 (S.D. Cal. 1942).
Campbell v. Walt Disney Co., 718 F. Supp. 2d 1108 (N.D. Cal. 2010).
Capcom Co. v. MKR Grp., Inc., No. C 08-0904 RS, 2008 WL 4661479, (N.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2008).
Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group, Inc., 150 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1998).
Cavalier v. Random House, Inc., 297 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2002).
CBS Broad. Inc., v. ABC, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20258 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
Clark v. Dashner, No. CV 14-00965 KG-KK, 2016 WL 3621274 (D.N.M. June 30, 2016).
Clements v. Screen Gems, Inc., No. CV10-220-R JEMX, 2010 WL 5174376 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2010).
Coble v. Renfroe, No. C11-0498 RSM, 2012 WL 503860(W.D. Wash. Feb. 15, 2012).
Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Miramax Films Corp., 11 F. Supp. 2d 1179 (C.D. Cal. 1998).
Comins v. Discovery Commc`ns, Inc., 200 F. Supp. 2d 512 (D. Md. 2002).
Cosgrove v. Warner Bros., No. CV 88-0999, 1989 WL 35942 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 1989).
Country Kids ’N City Slicks, Inc. v. Sheen, 77 F.3d 1280 (10th Cir. 1996).
Counts v. Meriwether, No. 2:14-CV-00396-SVW-CW, 2015 WL 9594469 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2015).
Danjaq, LLC v. Universal City Studios, LLC, No. CV 14-02527 SJO EX, 2014 WL 7882071 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2014).
Davis v. United Artists, Inc., 547 F. Supp. 722 (S.D.N.Y. 1982).
Dean v. Cameron, 53 F. Supp. 3d 641 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).
DeStefano v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 100 F.3d 943 (2d Cir. 1996).
Detective Comics v. Bruns Publications, 111 F.2d 432 (2d Cir. 1940).
Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc., 225 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2000).
Faulkner Literary Rights LLC v. Sony Pictures Classics Inc., 3-12-CV-00100- MPM-MJV (N.D. Miss. Jul. 18, 2013).
Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 345(1991).
Frybarger v. Int`l Bus. Machines Corp., 812 F.2d 525 (9th Cir. 1987).
Funkhouser v. Loew`s, Inc., 208 F.2d 185 (8th Cir. 1953).
Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entm`t Co., L.P., 462 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2006).
Gable v. Nat`l Broad. Co., 727 F. Supp. 2d 815 (C.D. Cal. 2010), aff`d sub nom. Gable v. Nat`l Broad. Co., 438 F. App`x 587 (9th Cir. 2011).
Gallagher v. Lions Gate Entm`t Inc., No. 215CV02739ODWEX, 2015 WL 12481504, (C.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2015).
Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando Chem. Indus., Ltd., 9 F.3d 823 (10th Cir. 1993).
Giangrasso v. Columbia Broadcasting Sys., 534 F. Supp. 472 (E.D.N.Y. 1982).
Gilbert v. New Line Prods., Inc., No. CV 09-02231 RGK, 2009 WL 7422458 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2009), on reconsideration in part, No. CV 09-02231 RGK RZX, 2010 WL 891333 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2010), aff`d, 490 F. App`x 34 (9th Cir. 2012).
Gold Glove Prods., LLC v. Handfield, 648 F. App`x 679 (9th Cir. 2016).
Goldberg v. Cameron, 787 F. Supp. 2d 1013 (N.D. Cal. 2011).
Grosso v. Miramax Film Corp., 383 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2004), opinion amended on denial of reh`g, 400 F.3d 658 (9th Cir. 2005).
Hartman v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 639 F. Supp. 816 (W.D. Mo. 1986).
Herzog v. Castle Rock Entm`t, 193 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 1999).
Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 618 F.2d 972 (2d Cir. 1980).
Kohus v. Mariol, 328 F.3d 848 (6th Cir. 2003).
Kouf v. Walt Disney Pictures & Television, 16 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 1994).
Kretschmer v. Warner Bros., No. 93 CIV. 1730 (CSH), 1994 WL 259814 (S.D.N.Y. June 8, 1994).
Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Seattle Lighting Fixture Company 345 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2003).
Landsberg v. Scrabble Crossword Game Players, Inc., 736 F.2d 485(9th Cir. 1984).
Lassiter v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 238 F. App`x 194 (9th Cir. 2007).
Latimer v. Roaring Toyz, Inc., 601 F.3d 1224 (11th Cir. 2010).
Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 948 F. Supp. 1214 (S.D.N.Y.1996).
Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. 387 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2004).
Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir.1984).
London v. Biograph Co., 231 F. 696 (2d Cir. 1916).
Mena v. Fox Entm`t Grp., Inc., No. 11 CIV. 5501 BSJ RLE, 2012 WL 4741389, (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2012).
Meta-Film Assocs., Inc. v. MCA, Inc., 586 F. Supp. 1346 (C.D. Cal. 1984).
Metcalf v. Bochco, 294 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2002).
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 900 F. Supp. 1287 (C.D. Cal. 1995).
Mitel, Inc. v. Iqtel, Inc., 124 F.3d 1366, 1371 (10th Cir. 1997).
Moore v. Lightstorm Entm`t, 992 F. Supp. 2d 543 (D. Md.), aff`d sub nom. Moore v. Lightstorm Entm`t, Inc., 586 F. App`x 143 (4th Cir. 2014).
Muller v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 794 F. Supp. 2d 429 (S.D.N.Y. 2011), aff`d sub nom. Muller v. Anderson, 501 F. App`x 81 (2d Cir. 2012).
Murray Hill Publications, Inc. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 361 F.3d 312 (6th Cir. 2004).
Narell v. Freeman, 872 F.2d 907 (9th Cir. 1989).
Nat`l Comics Publ`n v. Fawcett Publications, 191 F.2d 594 (2d Cir. 1951), supplemented sub nom. Nat`l Comics Publications v. Fawcett Publications, 198 F.2d 927 (2d Cir. 1952).
Newt v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., No. 15-CV-02778-CBM-JPRX, 2016 WL 4059691 (C.D. Cal. July 27, 2016), judgment entered, No. 15-CV-02778-CBM-JPRX, 2016 WL 4059619 (C.D. Cal. July 27, 2016), and appeal dismissed sub nom. RON NEWT v. LEE DANIELS, ET AL (Aug. 31, 2016).
Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930).
Nobile v. Watts, No. 17-CV-597 (KBF), 2017 WL 4679464 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2017).
Olson v. Nat`l Broad. Co., 855 F.2d 1446 (9th Cir. 1988).
Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc. 750 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 2887 (2015).
Ornstein v. Paramount Prods., 9 F. Supp.896 (S.D.N.Y. 1935).
Pelt v. CBS, No. CV-92-6532, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20464 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 1993).
Peter F. Gaito Architecture, LLC v. Simone Dev. Corp., 602 F.3d 57, 63 (2d Cir. 2010).
Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Martin Weiner Corp., 274 F.2d 487, 489 (2d Cir. 1960).
Repp v. Webber, 132 F.3d 882 (2d Cir. 1997).
Reyher v. Children`s Television Workshop, 533 F.2d 87 (2d Cir. 1976).
Rice v. Fox Broad. Co., 330 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2003).
Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, Inc., 126 F.3d 70 (2d Cir.1997).
Robinson v. New Line Cinema Corp., 42 F. Supp. 2d 578 (D. Md. 1999) rev`d, 211 F.3d 1265 (4th Cir. 2000).
Robinson v. Random House, Inc., 877 F. Supp. 830 (S.D.N.Y.1995).
Rosen v. Loew`s, Inc., 162 F.2d 785 (2d Cir. 1947).
Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co., 429 F.2d 1106 (9th Cir. 1970).
Satava v. Lowry 323 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2003).
Schwarz v. Universal Pictures Co., 85 F. Supp. 270 (S.D. Cal. 1945).
Seale v. Gramercy Pictures, 949 F. Supp. 331 (E.D. Pa. 1996).
Segal v. Paramount Pictures, 841 F. Supp. 146, 149 (E.D. Pa. 1993), aff`d, 37 F.3d 1488 (3d Cir. 1994).
Shame on You Prods., Inc. v. Banks, 690 F. App`x 519 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 323, 199 L. Ed. 2d 211 (2017).
Shaw v. Lindheim, 919 F.2d 1353 (9th Cir. 1990).
Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 81 F.2d 49 (2d Cir. 1936).
Shipman v. R.K.O. Radio Pictures, 100 F.2d 533(2d Cir. 1916).
Sid & Marty Krofft Television Prods., Inc. v. McDonald`s Corp., 562 F.2d 1157 (9th Cir. 1977).
Simonton v. Gordon, 297 F. 625 (S.D.N.Y. 1924).
Sinicola v. Warner Bros., 948 F. Supp. 1176 (E.D.N.Y. 1996).
Smith v. Montoro, 648 F.2d 602 (9th Cir. 1981).
Smith v. Weinstein, 578 F. Supp. 1297 (S.D.N.Y.).
Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries, 663 F. Supp. 706 (S.D.N.Y.1987).
Stromback v. New Line Cinema, 384 F.3d 283 (6th Cir. 2004).
Swirsky v. Carey, 376 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2004).
Tanikumi v. Walt Disney Co., No. CIV. 14-5877, 2015 WL 716429, (D.N.J. Feb. 19, 2015), aff`d, 616 F. App`x 515 (3d Cir. 2015).
T-Peg, Inc. v. Vermont Timber Works, Inc., 459 F.3d 97, 112 (1st Cir. 2006).
Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Dieckhaus, 153 F.2d 893 (8th Cir. 1946).
Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. MCA, Inc., 715 F.2d 1327 (9th Cir.1983).
Universal Athletic Sales Co. v. Salkeld, 511 F.2d 904 (3d Cir. 1975).
Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Film Ventures Int`l, Inc., 543 F. Supp. 1134 (C.D. Cal. 1982).
Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., 615 F. Supp. 838 (S.D.N.Y. 1985).
Universal Pictures Co. v. Harold Lloyd Corp., 162 F. 2d 354 (9th Cir. 1947).
Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc., 615 F. Supp. 430 (S.D.N.Y. 1985), aff`d, 784 F.2d 44 (2d Cir. 1986).
Walt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates, 581 F.2d 751 (9th Cir, 1978).
Warner bros Pictures Inc. v. Columbia Broad Sys, Inc., 216 F.2d 945 (9th Cir. 1954).
Warner Bros. Inc. v. Am. Broad. Companies, Inc., 654 F.2d 204 (2d Cir. 1981).
Warner Bros. Inc. v. Am. Broad. Companies, Inc., 720 F.2d 231 (2d Cir. 1983).
Wavelength Film Co. v. Columbia Pictures Indus., 631 F. Supp. 305 (N.D. Ill. 1986).
Wavelength Film Co. v. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc., 631 F. Supp. 305 (N.D. Ill. 1986).
Webb v. Stallone, 910 F. Supp. 2d 681 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), aff`d on other grounds, 555 F. App`x 31 (2d Cir. 2014).
Wendt v. Host Int`l, Inc. 197 F.3d 1284 (9th Cir. 1999).
White v. Alcon Film Fund, LLC, 52 F. Supp. 3d 1308 (N.D. Ga. 2014).
White v. Samsung Electronics Am., Inc., 989 F. 2d 1512 (9th Cir. 2003).
White v. Twentieth Century Fox Corp., No. 12-55920, 2014 WL 1724371 (9th Cir. May 2, 2014).
Wild v. NBC Universal, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 2d 1083 (C.D. Cal. 2011), aff`d sub nom. Wild v. NBC Universal, 513 F. App`x 640 (9th Cir. 2013).
Williams v. Crichton, 84 F.3d 581 (2d Cir. 1996).
Wilson v. Walt Disney Co., No. 14-CV-01441-VC, 2014 WL 4477391 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2014).
Yurman Studio, Inc. v. Castaneda, 591 F. Supp. 2d 471 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
Zambito v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 613 F. Supp. 1107 (E.D.N.Y.), aff`d, 788 F.2d 2 (2d Cir. 1985).
Zella v. E.W. Scripps Co., 529 F. Supp. 2d 1124 (C.D. Cal. 2007).
期刊文章
Aaron M. Broaddus, Eliminating the Confusion: A Restatement of the Test for Copyright Infringement, 5 DEPAUL-LCA J. ART & ENT. L. 43 (1995).
Alan Latman, "Probative Similarity" as Proof of Copying: Toward Dispelling Some Myths in Copyright Infringement, 90 COLUM. L. REW. 1187 (1990).
Amos Tversky, Features of Similarity, 84 PSYCHOL. REV. 327 (1977).
Amy B. Cohen, Masking Copyright Decisionmaking: The Meaninglessness of Substantial Similarity, 20 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 719 (1987).
Andrew M. White & Lee S. Brenner, Reality TV Shows Difficult Concepts to Protect, ENT. L. & FIN. 1 (Nov. 2004).
Brian Casido, Benay v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc.: New Standard Needed for Determining Actual Use, 41 GOLDEN GATE U. L. REV. 327 (2011).
Claudia Hong, New Yorkers Have Got It Right: A Call for a Uniform Standard to Copyright Infringement Analysis, 27 LOY. L.A. ENT. L. REV. 33 (2006).
Daniel Fox, Harsh Realities: Substantial Similarity in the Reality Television Context, 13 UCLA ENT. L. REV. 223 (2006).
Douglas Y`Barbo, On the Legal Standard for Copyright Infringement, 1999 UCLA J.L. & TECH. 3 (1999).
Edward C. Wilde, Replacing the Idea/Expression Metaphor with a Market-Based Analysis in Copyright Infringement Actions, 16 WHITTIER L. REV. 793 (1995).
Eric Rogers, Substantially Unfair: An Empirical Examination of Copyright Substantial Similarity Analysis Among the Federal Circuits, 2013 MICH. ST. L. REV. 893 (2013).
Hon. Leon R. Yankwich, Originality in the Law of Intellectual Property (Its Meaning from A Legal and Literary Standpoint), 11 F.R.D. 457 (1952).
Jamie Lund, Copyright Genericide, 42 CREIGHTON L. REV. 131 (2009).
Jarrod M. Mohler, Toward A Better Understanding of Substantial Similarity in Copyright Infringement Cases, 68 U. CIN. L. REV. 971 (2000).
Jeannette Rene Busek, Copyright Infringement: A Proposal for A New Standard for Substantial Similarity Based on the Degree of Possible Expressive Variation, 45 UCLA L. REV. 1777 (1998).
Joshua M. Dalton, Sara Cable, The Copyright Defendant`s Guide to Disproving Substantial Similarity on Summary Judgment, 3 LANDSLIDE 26 (2011).
K.J. Greene, Motion Picture Copyright Infringement and the Presumption of Irreparable Harm: Toward A Reevaluation of the Standard for Preliminary Injunctive Relief, 31 RUTGERS L.J. 173 (1999).
Katherine Lippman, The Beginning of the End: Preliminary Results of an Empirical Study of Copyright Substantial Similarity Opinions in the U.S. Circuit Courts, 2013 MICH. ST. L. REV. 513 (2013).
Kevin J. Hickey, Reframing Similarity Analysis in Copyright, 93 WASH. U.L. REV. 681 (2016).
Leslie A. Kurtz, Copyright: The Scenes A Faire Doctrine, 41 FLA. L. REW. 79 (1989).
Mark A. Lemley, Our Bizarre System for Proving Copyright Infringement, 57 J. COPYRIGHT SOC`Y U.S.A. 719 (2010).
Matt Kellogg, The Problem of Fictional Facts: Idea, Expression, and Copyright`s Balance Between Author Incentive and Public Interest, 58 J. COPYRIGHT SOC`Y U.S.A. 549 (2011)
Michael James Arrett, Adverse Possession of Copyright: A Proposal to Complete Copyright`s Unification with Property Law, 31 J. CORP. L. 187 (2005).
Michael L. Sharb, Getting A “Total Concept and Feel” of Copyright Infringement, 64 U. COLO. L. REV. 903 (1993).
Michael Landau & Donald E. Biederman, The Case for a Specialized Copyright Court: Eliminating the Jurisdictional Advantage, 21 HASTINGD COMM. & ENT. L. J. 717 (1999).
Nick Gladden, When California Dreamin` Becomes A Hollywood Nightmare; Copyright Infringement and the Motion Picture Screenplay: Toward an Improved Framework, 10 J. INTELL. PROP. L. 359 (2003).
Nicole K. Roodhuyzen, Do We Even Need A Test? A Reevaluation of Assessing Substantial Similarity in A Copyright Infringement Case, 15 J.L. & POL`Y 1375 (2007).
Rachael Wallace, Framing the issue: avoiding a substantial similarity finding in reproduced visual art,10 WASH. J.L. TECH. & ARTS 95 (2014).
Richard W. Stim, E.T. Phone Home: The Protection of Literary Phrases, 7 U. MIAMI ENT. & SPORTS L. REV. 65 (1989).
Robert F. Helfing, Substantial Similarity in Literary Infringement Cases: A Chart for Turbid Waters, 21 UCLA ENT. L. REV. 1 (2014).
Robert H. Rotstein, Beyond Metaphor: Copyright Infringement and the Fiction of the Work, 68 CHI.-KENT L. REV. 725 (1993).
Seagull Haiyan Song, Chinese Entertainment Law Year in Review, 2015: Is It Converging with the U.S. Practice?, 49 GEO. WASH. INT`L L. REW. 259 (2016).
Shyamkrishna Balganesh et. al., Judging Similarity, 100 IOWA L. REV. 267 (2014).
Shyamkrishna Balganesh, The Questionable Origins of the Copyright Infringement Analysis, 68 STAN. L. REV. 791 (2016).
Steven Lowe & Daniel Lifschitz, Death of Copyright, the Sequel, 29 THE COMPUTER & INTERNET LAW 1 (Sep.2012).
Steven T. Lowe, Death of Copyright Copyright Infringement May Be the Only Remaining Area of Law in Which Courts Seem Increasingly Willing to Decide Material Facts on Summary Judgment, 33 L.A. LAW. 32 (Nov. 2010).
Todd Marabella, Elemental Copyright: The Complexity of Ideas and the Alchemy of Mind-Share, 90 B.U. L. REV. 2149 (2010).
Yoichiro Hamabe, Functions of Rule 12(b)(6) in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: A Categorization Approach, 15 CAMPBELL L. REV. 119 (1993).
Zechariah Chaffee, Reflections on the Law of Copyright, 45 COLUM. L. REV. 503 (1945).
網路資料
David Ng, Meg James & Ryan Faughnder, They avoided a strike, but negotiations between writers and studios were a true Hollywood thriller, L.A. TIMES (May 2, 2017), at http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-writers-guild-no-strike-20170501-story.html (last visited Apr. 3, 2018).
Emma Dibdin, Hollywood Will Not Be Going On Strike Today, ESQUIRE (May 2, 2017), at https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/tv/a54442/hollywood-writers-guild-of-america-strike-2017/ (last visited Apr. 3, 2018)
Garson O’Toole, Writers Are Just Schmucks with Underwoods, QUOTE INVESTIGATOR (Apr. 2, 2014), https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/04/02/schmuck/ (last visited Apr. 3, 2018).
Jed C. Jones, What is Mindshare ?, EZINEARTICLES (Aug. 27, 2007) , at http://ezinearticles.com/?What-is-Mind-share?&id=706088 (last visited Nov. 10, 2017).
Nash Information Services, Domestic Movie Theatrical Market Summary 1995 to 2018, THE NUMBERS, at https://www.the-numbers.com/market/sources (last visited May 10, 2018).
Screenplay Copyright Infringement, California Society of Entertainment Lawyers (CSEL) MCLE special event in Los Angeles, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Emg9UknVUg&list=PLxDp2FhuE9kaWDDCT81QTfccd5wNreTq9 (last visited Mar. 20, 2018). |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
科技管理與智慧財產研究所
103364217 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1033642171 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| DOI: | 10.6814/THE.NCCU.TIIPM.024.2018.F08 |
| Appears in Collections: | [科技管理與智慧財產研究所] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 217101.pdf | 4960Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 874 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
