Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/146614
|
| Title: | 美國爭議流行音樂抄襲案件研究
Research On Controversial Copyright Infringement Cases of Popular Music in the United States |
| Authors: | 邱柏華
Chiu, Bo-Hua |
| Contributors: | 盧建誌
Lu, Chien-Chih
邱柏華
Chiu, Bo-Hua |
| Keywords: | 著作權
音樂著作侵權
流行音樂
抄襲
實質近似測試
Lay observer
Copyright infringement
Popular music
Substantial similarity |
| Date: | 2023 |
| Issue Date: | 2023-08-02 14:14:13 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 音樂的發展與時代的進步，使得音樂著作權侵權更為頻繁。如何認定著作權侵害成為音樂著作權法案的核心議題。本文以美國流行音樂侵害之實務為研究範圍，期盼能透過分析流行音樂著作權法案中實質近似之判定，提供音樂著作侵權判定程序更公正與適切的途徑。
本研究將音樂侵權判定流程分為兩部分介紹。第一部分為「接觸」的標準與其直接證明和間接證明之要件，包括直接事證證明被告接觸原告之著作、特定事件作為原告作品與被告接觸之連結、原告著作廣泛流通、明顯近似與潛意識模仿理論。
第二部分則以「實質近似測試」為主軸，探討音樂著作侵權之司法判決實務應用在不同測試法與判斷標準所衍生的問題與困境。本文將實質近似認定方法之議題分為五大部分進行研究與分析，包含實質相似之定義、思想與表達之區分原則、一般觀察者之應用、陪審團指示及整體觀念與感覺測試法。
本文發現過度仰賴普通觀察者的主觀意見、整體觀念與感覺測試法和群集理論的不當應用會導致法院將不受保護的音樂元素納入實質近似之判斷，進而與美國著作權法立法之本旨相悖。因此，法院應該要更謹慎地依據不同流行音樂著作侵權案的個別狀況，來判斷該案件是否適用群集理論與整體觀念與感覺測試法。此外，借鑑美國流行音樂實務與學說之經驗與見解，本文認為一般觀察者之標準並不適合應用於音樂著作侵權判決之實質近似判斷，故主張以「意欲閱聽大眾」代替一般觀察者，採取音樂領域專家之觀點較為妥適。期許未來對於音樂著作近似之侵權認定方法能夠在保護著作權與樂曲創作間取得平衡，在保障著作權權益的同時，促進音樂、文化與藝術的發展。
The act of copyright infringement in the field of music has increased with the development of technology and the information age going on today. The determination standard of infringement has become a controversial issue in music copyright infringement cases. This study focuses on analyzing the judgement of substantial similarity test in the popular music copyright cases in America. The aim of the research is to provide a more appropriate strategy for music copyright determination procedures.
This study gives an overall description of “access” by introducing the methods currently applied to prove access in popular music copyright infringement cases, including a particular chain of events, widespread dissemination and striking similarity. This essay centered on “substantial similarity test” and analyzes the five determinative factors in substantial similarity test, including the unclear definition of substantial similarity, idea-expression dichotomy, the adoption of lay observers, jury instruction and total concept and feel test.
This study draws a conclusion that the court should be more cautious when applying constellation theory and total concept and feel test to ensure the methods are applicable based on the individual conditions of different popular music copyright cases. In addition, it was also found that the standard of ordinary observers is not suitable for making judgements of substantial similar test in music copyright cases. Instead, lay observers is suggested to be replace by the intended audiences who own enough musical knowledge and experiences. This study proposes a more comprehensive standard for substantial similarity test for the future infringement determination process. |
| Reference: | References
1. Chinese References
Journal Articles
1. 溫家緯、盧建誌(2023)，音樂創作的實質近似—以美國的關鍵判決為觀察， 月旦法學雜誌 14 期，頁 17-28。
Copyright Acts
1. 著作權法(民 111 年 6 月 15 日)。取自全國法規資料庫 https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=J0070017
2. English References
Books
1. Benedict Atkinson and Brian Fitzgerald, Short History of Copyright (Mexico: Springer, 2016): 1-150.
2. De Leeuw Ton, Music of the twentieth century: a study of its elements and structure (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2005), 224.
3. Eleonora Rosati, Illusions Perdues The Idea/Expression Dichotomy at Crossroads (Saarbrucken: LAP Lambert Academic Publishing, 2020): 1-45.
4. Jason Martineau, Elements of Music: Melody, Rhythm & Harmony (Glasttonbury, UK: Wooden Books, 2021), 64.
5. Thomas Pankhurst, SchenkerGUIDE: a brief handbook and website for Schenkerian analysis (New York: Routledge, 2008), 272.
Journal Ariticles
1. Alfred C. Yen, “A first amendment perspective on the idea/expression dichotomy and copyright in a work`s total concept and feel”, Emory LJ 38, (1989): 394-436.
2. Alison P. Wynn, “Copyright Law-Unique Characteristics of Music Warrant Its Own System: How Adopting the Intended Audience Test Can Save Music Copyright Litigation”, W. New Eng. L. Rev. 39, no.1 (2017): 1-38.
3. Alyse L. Eschbach, “Do You Hear What I Hear?: The Inequities in Substantial Similarity Tests For Musical Copyright Infringement Cases”, Berkeley J. Ent. & Sports L. 11, (2022): 71-93.
4. Amy B. Cohen, “Masking Copyright Decisionmaking: The Meaninglessness of Substantial Similarity”, UC DAViS l. reV. 20, no.4 (1987): 719-742.
5. Anannya S. Adhikari, “Idea – Expression Dichotomy: A Comparative Study of Legal Application In UK, USA And India”, Journal of Multi-Disciplinary Legal Research 2, no.1 (2022): 1-15.
6. Anthony R. Reese, “Innocent infringement in US copyright law: A history”, Colum. JL & Arts 30, no.2 (2007): 133-184.
7. Benjamin W. Rudd, “Notable Dates in American Copyright 1783—1969”, JSTOR 28, no.2 (1971): 137-143.
8. Carys J. Craig, “Transforming `Total Concept and Feel`: Dialogic Creativity and Copyright`s Substantial Similarity Doctrine”, Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 38, (July 8, 2020): 42.
9. Charles Cronin, “I Hear America Suing: Music Copyright Infringement int he Era of Electronic Sound”, Hastings LJ 66, (2015): 1187-1256.
10. Charles Cronin, “Damsels in Distress: Copyright Woes of Katy Perry and Gay`s Polly”, (2020): 1-22.
11. Charlotte Tschider, “Automating Music Similarity Analysis in `Sound-Alike` Copyright Infringement Cases”, Arts and Sports L. J. 25, no.2 (2014): 60-68.
12. Christopher Chiang, “Copyright Protection Designed for Music’s Illusory Innovation Space”, ABA Forum on the Entertainment & Sports Industries 36, no.2 (2020):1-62.
13. Christopher Jon Sprigman, “Copyright and creative incentives: What we know (and don`t)”, Hous. L. REv. 55, (2017): 451.
14. Christopher Jon Sprigman and Samantha Fink Hedrick, “The Filtration Problem in Copyright`s Substantial Similarity Infringement Test”, Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 23, (2019): 571-598.
15. Daniel Su, “Substantial Similarity and Architectural Works: Filtering out Total Concept and Feel”, Nw. UL Rev. 101, no.4 (2007): 1867-1871.
16. David Aronoff, “Exploding the Inverse Ratio Rule”, J. Copyright Soc`y USA 55,
(2008): 125.
17. David Herlihy and Yu Zhang, “Music industry and copyright protection in the
United States and China”, Global Media and China 1, no.4 (2016): 390-400.
18. David Neumeyer, “Guide to Schenkerian Analysis”, UT Faculty/Researcher
Works, (2018): 1-133.
19. Drassinower Abraham, “A rights-based view of the idea/expression dichotomy in copyright law”, Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence 16, no.1 (2003): 3-21.
20. Edward M. Christian, “Copyright Infringement Analysis in Music: Katy Perry a"
Dark Horse" Candidate to Spark Change?”, Rutgers UL Rev. 73, (2020): 265-306.
21. Emily Ranger-Murdock, “‘Blurred Lines’ to ‘Stairway to Heaven’: Applicability of Selection and Arrangement Infringement Actions in Musical Compositions”, UCLA L. Rev. 67, no.4 (2020): 1066-1105.
22. Eric Schwartz, “Session II: The Impact of International Copyright Treaties and Trade Agreements on the Development of Domestic Norms”, The Columbia Journal of Law & The Arts 40, no.3 (2017): 339-344.
23. Eva E. Subotnik and June M. Besek, “Constitutional Obstacles? Reconsidering Copyright Protection for Pre-1972 Sound Recordings”, Colum. JL & Arts 37, (2013): 237.
24. Franziska Goltz and Makiko Sadakata, “Do you listen to music while studying? A portrait of how people use music to optimize their cognitive performance”, Acta Psychologica 220, (2021): 1-11.
25. Gabriel Godoy-Dalmau, “Substantial similarity: Kohus got it right”, Mich. Bus. & Entrepreneurial L. Rev. 6, no.2 (2016): 232-233.
26. Georgina Barton, “The relationship between music, culture, and society: meaning in music”, Springer International Publishing, (2018): 23-41.
27. Jamie Lund, “An Empirical Examination of the Lay Listener Test in Music Composition Copyright Infringement”, SSRN Electronic Journal, (2012): 3-42.
28. Jane C. Ginsburg, “The Exclusive Right to Their Writings: Copyright and Control in the Digital Age”, Me. L. Rev. 54, (2002): 196-216.
29. Jarrod M. Mohler, “Toward a better understanding of substantial similarity in copyright infringement cases”, U. Cin. L. Rev. 68, (1999): 971-994.
30. Jason Palmer, “Blurred Lines Means Changing Focus: Juries Composed of Musical Artists Should Decide Music Copyright Infringement Cases, Not Lay Juries”, Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. L. 18, no.4 (2015): 907-934.
31. Joel D. Lieberman and Bruce D. Sales, “What social science teaches us about the jury instruction process”, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 3, no.4 (1997): 590.
32. Johannes Hoffman, “Breaking up Melodic Monopolies: A New Approach to Originality, Substantial Similarity, and Fair Use for Melodies in Pop Music”, JL & Pol`y 28, (2019): 762-796.
33. Joke Bradt and Aaron Teague, “Music interventions for dental anxiety”, Oral diseases 24, no.3 (2018): 300-306.
34. Jonathan R. Sandler, “Idea Theft and Independent Creation: A Recipe for Evading Contractual Obligations”, Loy. LAL Rev. 45, no.4 (2012): 1421-1428.
35. Joseph P. Fishman, “Music as a Matter of Law”, Harvard Law Review, (2018): 1861-1923.
36. Joseph P Fishman and Deepa Varadarajan, “Similar Secrets”, U. Pa. L. Rev. 167, no.5 (2019): 1051-1114.
37. Karen Bevill, “Copyright Infringement and Access: Has the Access Requirement Lost Its Probative Value”, Rutgers L. Rev. 52, (1999): 311-340.
38. Katherine M Leo, “Musical Expertise and the `Ordinary` Listener in Federal Copyright Law”, Music and Politics 13, no.1 (2019): 1-19.
39. Leslie A. Kurtz, “Copyright: The Scenes a Faire Doctrine”, Fla. L. Rev. 41, no.1(1989): 79-114.
40. Margit Livingston and Joseph Urbinato, “Copyright infringement of music: determining whether what sounds alike is alike”, Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. L. 15, no.2 (2013): 227-295.
41. Marisa Schutz, “Is Gray v. Perry the One That Got Away? The Idea-Expression Dichotomy and Music Copyright Infringement”, UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law 20, 3 (2021): 290-306.
42. Matthew E. Sachs and Antonio Damasio and Assal Habibi, “The pleasures of sad music: a systematic review”, Frontiers in human neuroscience 9, (2015): 1-12.
43. Miah Rosenberg, “Do You Hear What I Hear? Expert Testimony in Music Infringement Cases in the Ninth Circuit”, UC Davis L. Rev. 39, (2005): 1670-1690.
44. Michael J. Keyes, “Musical Musings: The Case for Rethinking Music Copyright Protection Keyes”, Mich. Telecomm. & Tech. L. Rev. 10, no.2 (2004): 407-444.
45. Michael L. Sharb, “Getting a Total Concept and Feel of Copyright Infringement”, U. Colo. L. Rev. 64, (1993): 903-930.
46. Nazareth Magarian, “The Proof of Access in Copyright Infringement”, Intramural L. Rev. NYU 10, no.1 (1954): 46-47.
47. Nicholas Booth, “Backing Down: Blurred Lines in the Standards for Analysis of Substantial Similarity in Copyright Infringement for Musical Works”, J. Intell. Prop. L. 24, no.1 (2016): 100-101
48. Nicole K. Roodhuyzen, “Do We Even Need a Test-A Reevaluation of Assessing Substantial Similarity in a Copyright Infringement Case”, JL & Pol`y 15, (2007): 1375-1419.
49. Nicole Lieberman, “Un-Blurring Substantial Similarity: Aesthetic Judgments and Romantic Authorship in Music Copyright Law”, NYU J. Intell. Prop. & Ent. L. 6, no.1 (2016): 91-141.
50. Pallas L. Loren and Anthony Reese, “Proving Infringement: Burdens of Proof in Copyright Infringement Litigation”, Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 23, (2019): 621-680.
51. Patrick E. Savage et al., “Quantitative evaluation of music copyright infringement”, Thessaloniki Greece, (2018): 61-66.
52. Paul M. Grinvalsky, “Idea-Expression in Musical Analysis and the Role of the Intended Audience in Music Copyright Infringement”, California Western Law Review 28, 2 (1992): 395-429.
53. Paulius Jurcys, Mindaugas Beniušis and Justinas Draksas, “‘So You Wanna Play With Magic?’, There Is No Going Back`, says the Californian Court in the Case against Katy Perry for Copyright Infringement”, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 15, no. 8 (2020): 586-589.
54. Paymaneh Parhami, “Williams v. Gaye: Blurring the Lines of Copyright Infringement in Music”, Berkeley Tech. LJ 34, (2019): 1-53.
55. Peter Rybolt, “More Blurred Lines: On Downstream Infringement And The Disgorgement Of Profits”, les Nouvelles-Journal of the Licensing Executives Society 53, no.1 (2018): 11-16.
56. Peter Jaszi, “Toward a theory of copyright: The metamorphoses of ‘authorship’”, Duke Law Journal 1991, no.2 (1991): 468.
57. Richard H. Jones, “The myth of the idea/expression dichotomy in copyright law”, Pace L. Rev. 10, (1990): 551.
58. Robert Rogoyski, “The Melody Machine: How to Kill Copyright, and Other Problems with Protecting Discrete Musical Elements”, J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc`y 88, (2006): 403-425.
59. Robert S. Higgins, “Proving Copyright Infringement: Will Striking Similarity Make Your Case”, Suffolk J. Trial & App. Advoc. 8, no.1 (2003): 158-166.
60. Robin Feldman, “The Role of the Subconscious in Intellectual Property Law”, Hastings Sci. & Tech. LJ 2, no.1 (2010): 1-6.
61. Sankalp Jain, “The Principle of Idea-Expression Dichotomy: A Comparative Study of US, UK & Indian Jurisdictions”, UK & Indian Jurisdictions, (2012): 1- 17.
62. Shine Sean Tu, “Use of Artificial Intelligence to Determine Copyright Liability for Musical Works”, WVU College of Law Research Paper, no. 2020-012 (2021): 1-23.
63. Stephanie J. Jones, “Music Copyright in Theory and Practice: An Improved Approach for Determining Substantial Similarity”, Duq. L. Rev. 31, no.2 (1993): 277-306.
64. Tze Ping Lim, “Beyond Copyright: Applying a Radical Idea-Expression Dichotomy to the Ownership of Fictional Characters”, Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. L. 21, no.1 (2018): 95-144.
65. Yvette Joy Liebesman, “Using innovateive technologies to analyze for similarity between musical works in copyright infringement disputes”, AIPLA QJ 35, no.3 (2007): 331-362.
Law Cases
1. Arnstein v. Porter, 154 F.2d 464, 68 U.S.P.Q. 288 (C.C.A. 2d Cir. 1946)
2. Apps v. Universal Music Group, Inc., 283 F.Supp.3d 946 (D.Nev., 2017)
3. Art Attacks Ink, LLC v. MGA Ent. Inc., 581 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 2009)
4. Atari, Inc. v. N. Am. Philips Consumer Elecs. Corp., 672 F.2d 607 (7th Cir. 1982)
5. Baltimore Orioles, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass`n, 805 F.2d 663 (7th Cir. 1986)
6. Baxter v. MCA, Inc., 812 F.2d 421, 424 n.2 (9th Cir. 1987)
7. Bikram`s Yoga College of India, L.P. v. Evolation Yoga, LLC, 803 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2015)
8. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994)
9. Cavalier v. Random House, Inc., 297 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2002)
10. Clanton v. UMG Recordings, Inc., 556 F. Supp. 3d 322 (S.D. N.Y. 2021)
11. Dawson v. Hinshaw Music Inc., 905 F.2d 731 (4th Cir. 1990)
12. D.C. Comics Inc. v. Mini Gift Shop, 912 F.2d 29 (2d Cir. 1990)
13. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340 (U.S.Kan., 1991)
14. Ferguson v. Nat`l Broad. Co., 584 F.2d 111 (5th Cir. 1978)
15. Gable v. National Broadcasting Co., 727 F.Supp.2d 815 (C.D.Cal., 2010)
16. Gaste v. Kaiserman, 863 F.2d 1061 (2d Cir. 1988)
17. Gray v. Hudson, 28 F.4th 87 (9th Cir. 2022)
18. Gray v. Perry, 2019 WL 2992007 (C.D.Cal., 2019)
19. Gray v. Perry, 2020 WL 1275221 (C.D.Cal., 2020)
20. Harper & Row Publishers v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 589 (1985)
21. Hein v. Harris, 175 F. 875 (C.C.S.D.N.Y.), aff`d, 183 F. 107 (2d Cir. 1910)
22. Loomis v. Cornish, 836 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2016)
23. Nichols v. Universal Pictures Co., 45 F.2d 119, 122 (2d Cir. 1930)
24. Peters v. West, 776 F. Supp. 2d 742 (N.D. Ill. 2011), aff`d, 692 F.3d 629 (7th Cir. 2012)
25. Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co., 429 F.2d 1106 (9th Cir. 1970)
26. Satava v. Lowry, 323 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2003)
27. Selle v. Gibb, 741 F.2d 896 (C.A.Ill.,1984)
28. Shaw v. Lindheim, 919 F.2d 1353 (9th Cir. 1990)
29. Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 81 F.2d 49 (2d Cir. 1936)
30. Sid & Marty Krofft TV Productions, Inc. v. McDonald`s Corp., 562 F.2d 1157 (9th
Cir. 1977)
31. Skidmore as Trustee for Randy Craig Wolfe Trust v. Led Zeppelin, 952 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2020)
32. Smith v. Jackson, 84 F.3d 1213, 1218 (9th Cir. 1996)
33. Swirsky v. Carey, 376 F.3d 841 at 849 (9th Cir. 2004)
34. Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton, 212 F.3d 477, 482-84 (9th Cir. 2000)
35. Transgo, Inc. v. Ajac Transmission Parts Corp., 768 F.2d 1001 (9th Cir. 1985)
36. White v. Alcon Film Fund, LLC, 52 F.Supp.3d 1308 (N.D.Ga.,2014)
37. Williams v. Bridgeport Music, Inc., 2015 WL 4479500 (C.D.Cal., 2015)
38. Williams v. Gaye, 885 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2018)
Copyright Acts
1. Copyright Act of Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 320, 35 Stat. 1075, 1078-80 (1909).
2. Copyright Act of 1790, 1 Stat. 124, 125 (1790).
3. U.S Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8.
4. U.S. Congress. United States Code: Copyright Office, 17 U.S.C. §102.
5. U.S. Congress. United States Code: Copyright Office, 17 U.S.C. § 106.
6. U.S. Congress. United States Code: Copyright Office, 17 U.S.C. § 107.
7. U.S. Congress. United States Code: Copyright Office, 17 U.S.C. § 501.
Internet Resources
1. Charlie Harding, “A jury said Katy Perry’s “Dark Horse” copied another song.
The $2.8 million verdict is alarming”, Vox 2 Aug. 2019,
https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/7/30/20747100/katy-perry-dark-horse-joyful-
noise-copyright-2-8-million.
2. IFPI Group, “IFPI Global Music Report: Global Recorded Music Revenues Grew 18.5% In 2021”, IFPI, March 22, 2022, https://www.ifpi.org/ifpi-global-music- report-global-recorded-music-revenues-grew-18-5-in-2021/
3. Mark Savage, “The global music market was worth $26bn in 2021”, BBC, March 22, 2022, https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-60837880
4. U. S. Copyright Office, “Copyright Basics”, U. S. Copyright Office, Washington, DC, n.p., 2021, 10, https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf
5. U. S. Copyright Office, “Duration of Copyright”, U. S. Copyright Office, Washington, DC, U.S. Government Publishing Office, 2022, 4, https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
國際傳播英語碩士學位學程(IMICS)
109461005 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109461005 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [國際傳播英語碩士學程] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 100501.pdf | | 1873Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 0 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
