在數位內容下載市場蓬勃發展的同時，非法傳輸的流量亦不惶多讓，是以DRM機制成為了著作權利人進入網路世界的絕佳後盾，以DRM提高複製的門檻，並據以實施其商業模式，故於各數位內容核心產業皆可見DRM應用之蹤跡，卻同時引發了究竟DRM是Digital “Rights” Management 亦或Digital “Restriction” Management的爭議。是天使？或是惡魔？便形成了人們對於DRM的不同觀感。 本研究係從技術、法律以及管理三個面向分別切入，由技術面看DRM保護著作物之極限何在，由法律面看相關科技保護措施之立法造成何種影響，合理使用的空間是否因DRM之實施而造成限縮，接著由管理面向看DRM在數位內容產業價值鏈中所扮演之角色及其與價值鏈上各端權力角力衝突之關係，最後由標準面看目前DRM相關標準的運作以及互通性標準的發展趨勢。並從個案研究觀察DRM在不同產業情境中的應用。 本研究認為，DRM技術本身是中性的，其關鍵在於商業設計運用。而在盜版問題無法完全根絕之情況下，以DRM作為因應之道將使得受限內容之經濟價值不若自由流通之內容，因為內容產業的發展關鍵在於「人氣」，而盜版永遠無法取代創意與使用者對於內容之需求。因此，既然無法防堵非法傳輸之現象，則不妨與之直接面對面進行作戰，權利人既掌握了關鍵的內容，則可以針對盜版的弱點提供更優質的服務。就我國目前數位內容產業發展之情境來看，現階段或許有採取DRM進行保護的必要性，以便在推動合法消費市場之際，平衡兼顧保護著作權人以及著作利用人之權益。然而，在虛擬世界中欲全面防堵非法散佈有其技術上之侷限性，消費者亦多半養成了免費取得之使用模式與心態，因此長期而言，或許應設法從創新的商業模式來扭轉此態勢。 / Though the use of digital rights management (DRM) has been controversial, it is still widely used in the digital world. Advocates think of DRM as an indispensable way to prevent unauthorized duplication and dissemination of copyrighted works while opponents often suggest that the term “rights” should be replaced by “restriction” to best describe how DRM works. This thesis aims to analyze the issues of DRM from three perspectives. First starting with the technical point of view to see how DRM works and found out that DRM technology does have its limitation for copyright protection. That’s the reason why treaties and legislations such as the WCT, WPPT, and DMCA are needed to build the last ditch in the war with piracy. However, the attempt backfired as companies other than rights holders used it as a way to prevent market competition. As the rights holders can effectively control the access of their work with DRM, there comes another dispute about the “Paracopyright” effect. Most important of all, the use of DRM divests the users of the rights they had in the analog world, such as simply lending a book to a friend. From the perspective of management, a cost benefit analysis indicates that the benefit of using DRM to prevent unauthorized duplication obviously overwhelms by its cost and risk. In the context where the content providers, service providers, and device manufacturers all attempt to dominate the whole value chain, DRM also became one of the most powerful instruments for that purpose. Closed ecosystems are built one after another especially in the online music industry in order to bundle the consumers with specific players and music services and thus caused the antitrust issue. The online music industry and the e-book industry were chosen as case studies in the fourth chapter of the thesis. Based on different industry context, DRM strategy and its impact would differ and therefore results in a variety of business models. For example, the consumers in the US are relatively more aware of the use of DRM and are more willing to pay for authorized content. In contrast, the awareness of DRM of consumers in Taiwan is much lower and the price they are willing to pay is also far lower than what the music labels can accept. As a result, the streaming model prevails over pay-per-download model in the online music market of Taiwan. And the feasibility and necessity of DRM also varies in different industries. Before the digitalization of books, authors already had libraries providing free copies as piracy do today, and the prevalence of scanning machines and copy machines makes it even harder to prevent illegal file sharing. Accordingly, there is far less reason to use DRM in the e-book industry than in the online music industry. DRM technology is neutral in itself, and the key point is how it is designed based on different business models. The defect of DRM is neither a technical nor a legal issue, but rather a business issue. As piracy can never be eradicated, coping it with DRM would only make the value of restricted contents much less than freely distributed contents. Popularity is what really matters in the content industry. DRM has its technical limit and causes so many legal issues accompanied with the cost and risk of maintaining such fragile systems. What rights holders have in hand are the creativity and the market’s need for new content, which could never be replaced by piracy. So why not fight it face to face? Digital content industry is considered one of the most promising industries in Taiwan. However, local consumers have entrenched mindset of “free” contents. In present context, DRM is somehow needed while promoting the growth of legal market, in order to provide sufficient incentive to enrich the society with more and more creativity, and fairly protect both the rights of content providers and content users. But in the long run, a more creative or even subversive business model should be the solution to meet the trend of digital convergence.

摘要 觀察著作權法的演進，可說是一部為因應新興科技帶來著作利用型態改變，所造成衝擊的歷史。而現今著作權法面對資訊科技進步，所造成的法制衝擊時，卻因採取反規避措施等激烈的因應手段，造成著作權法制針對數位著作保護之爭議，出現了原先為平衡權利人利益與促進文化創作發展之兩大目的，發生了失衡的現象。該現象的發生，似乎於某種層度上，驗證了德國學者哈伯瑪斯（Jürgen Habermas）於觀察資本主義社會演進的歷史脈絡後，結合馬克斯的社會進化觀點與盧曼的系統論，所主張的晚期資本主義下的四重危機。 而隨著國際間有關數位著作保護的立法趨勢，無形中賦予了著作權人擁有對於他人接近其著作，幾乎完全的管制權利；而合理使用原則之適用卻遭受科技管制的嚴重限縮，使得著作權的保護對象，究竟是表達方式或是無形的概念，產生了保護界限的模糊，著作權法制似乎已轉往著作權利人之一方傾斜。如此的法制發展，將可能造成法律系統的內在衝突與矛盾，危及系統存在的正當性，進而產生數位著作權法制上的合法性危機。 本文試圖依循哈伯瑪斯有關溝通理性與擴大參與以型塑公共領域的主張，尋求爭議解決的可能途徑。並試圖藉由新興之創作共享授權機制（Creative Commons），結合網際網路之互動特性，嘗試探討網路中出現創作之公共領域（Public Sphere）的可能性。並期待開啟以強化社會對話與互動的溝通模式，來尋求爭議問題解決的討論開端。 / Abstract The evolution of Copyright Act reflects the change of publication displaying methods due to technology. Legislators create Anti-Circumvention Provision in reaction to the shock of technology progression on Copyright Act. However, these provision triggers the debate on the purpose of Copyright Act on publication protection, whether it is to protect the obligees or to enhance publication development. This phenomenon verifies Jürgen Habermas’s argument on the four crises under advanced capitalism, which combines Marx’s evolution of society, Luhmann’s system theory, and Habermas’s own observation on the transformation of Capitalism. The legislative trend on digital copyright protection gives the obligees almost complete control over their writings. However,“fair use” is limited by technology restrain. As a result, the Copyright Act seems to be tilted towards obligees. Such development may create inner conflict and endanger the legitimation of the law system. Moreover, the legitimation crisis on Copyright Act may be aroused. This thesis is aimed to solve the debate based on Harbemas’s claim on creating public sphere through rational communication and enlarging participation. For example, the writer combines creative commons and the interactive feature of the Internet to explore the possibility of public sphere on the Internet. In sum, this thesis is intended to resolve the Copyright Act problem.

交易標的物，可分為物、勞務、權利。在過去，智慧財產等權利的價值，往往透過物或勞務之交易才能間接地展現。如今在智慧財產日益重要之知識經濟中，以智慧財產直接作為交易標的物的商業模式，愈趨頻繁。此一直接智財交易之相關會計及租稅問題，值得進行體系化研究。本研究旨在分析直接智財交易可能產生的營利事業所得稅問題。本研究將直接智財交易分為權利買賣讓與（所有權移轉）、權利的融資擔保（價值權）及權利的使用收益(用益權)，針對各項爭點，分析問題形成的原因及可能造成的影響，並提出解決之道。 本研究分析後發現，目前稅法體系僅能掌握間接智財交易，因此未來修法時應將直接智財交易明文納入所得稅法體系之中。其次，智財交易多為跨國交易，但因與台灣訂有租稅協定的國家為數不多，為避免重複課稅，本研究建議對於來源地認定，應採取「經濟關聯」的認定標準。再者，針對著作權設質融資，由於著作權欠缺公示制度，本研究認為可能造成誤將讓與擔保當成買賣讓與而不公平地課徵所得稅，因此建議將讓與擔保分別處理。最後，對於智財作價入股之課稅時點，本研究認為，應依新創事業創立與為犒賞員工之目的分別處理，並依本研究所提出之指標個案認定。 / Objects of transactions can be tangible property, labor service, and rights. Intellectual property (IP) as right used to manifest its value most indirectly through transactions of tangible property and labor service. In a knowledge-based economy where IP becomes more important than ever before, business models based on direct transactions of IP have gained more popularity. As a result, a systematic research on accounting and taxation issues of IP transactions is urgent. This study aims to examine corporate income tax issues related to sales, collateral-based financing, and usufructs in direct IP transactions. After analyzing potential controversies and their causes and effects, the study proposes some feasible solutions to such disputes. The analysis shows that the existing income tax system does not apply well to direct IP transactions, and such transactions should be considered in future amendments of the Income Tax Act. Next, as IP transactions are usually involved in cross-border transactions and potentially subject to double taxation, given the fact that Taiwan has tax treaties only with a few countries, this study suggests identification of income origin be based on the economic connection so as to avoid unfair double taxation. Thirdly, as copyright lacks a public disclosure system and hence a copyright-backed financing deal may be mistakenly treated as sales rather than transfer guaranty and be unfairly taxed, this study suggests a separate treatment for such transactions. Finally, regarding taxation on stocks exchanged for IP, this study suggests differentiating the timing of taxation for encouraging new venture formation from that for rewarding employees, based on certain proposed criteria.

本研究從探討台灣及韓國兩國目前為扶植文化創意、數位內容產業所推動之發展政策比較，介紹兩國目前的推動政策內容以及發展狀態，並探討為振興整體產業，如何運用相關政策而帶動產業發展，且從中國家力量在推動產業時所扮演的角色及力量。透過台灣、韓國對文化創意、數位內容產業之相關推動政策比較，試圖探討執行政策之優缺點，再進一步比較截至目前為止的發展成果。此外，本研究介紹了台灣、韓國兩國近期在相關產業發展過程中所引發爭論的智財議題，在比較分析兩國文化創意、數位內容產業所面臨的智慧財產議題後，探討兩國在知識經濟時代如何保護運用相關智慧財產，及其與產業發展的關聯。為了解台灣、韓國文化創意、數位內容產業界實際現況及對於政府輔助政策的意見，並探討相關推動政策的實效等，本研究在訪談兩國相關企業後，找出目前產業實際問題所在且蒐集來自產業界的意見，最終導出本研究結果，並依據韓國文化創意、數位內容產業發展的歷程，對台灣文化創意、數位內容產業發展提出本研究的建議。 / This study started from the comparison of the Taiwanese and Korean government policies that are intended cultivate the development of culture creative and digital content industry. By introducing the measures and activities taken officially, we can clearly see how each government acts in the development of their culture creative and digital content Industry, following by discussing the pros and cons of the policies and further comparison of the achievements until now in Taiwan and Korea. On top of the background analysis of the culture creative and digital content industry in Taiwan and Korea, this study introduced the intellectual property related issues that were raised during the development, and discussed how they manage to protect and commercialize their intangible assets and how this effects to the industry. Interviews of local companies were conducted in order to evaluate how the Taiwanese and Korean policies work and see if that really meet the demands of the industry. The conclusion of this comparative study comes from the opinions of the industry, and since the Korean had gone further in the development of culture creative and digital content field, the study came out a few suggestions for Taiwan for their future development in these industries.

Michael Walzer美國當代社群主義的代表人物，同時也是一位出名的公共知識分子，其哲學思想與政治理念均有其獨到之處，而其中Walzer特別強調社會才是作為個人權利與自由實踐的場所，而擺脫了傳統自由主義理論下，只存在國家與個人的關係。而其最著名的正義的諸領域(Spheres of Justice)，更是在研究近代關於自由主義與社群主義正義論的一本經典，而Walzer正義論中最吸引我的地方在於其放棄像是John Rawls等正義理論的無知之幕，反而主張在討論正義的時候，應該以每個不同社會和社群之間的文化與歷史的發展為基礎，因此Walzer的正義理論強調各種不同的特殊性，而維護正義是國家所必須要出面來作的一件事情，但如何維護多元、自由的社會諸領域中的不同正義原則，Walzer提出一套「複雜平等概念」的哲學思考模式，以及從「公眾利益」為出發點的利益衡量原則。 因此結合Walzer的複雜平等概念與公眾利益的衡量原則，本文提出一套「權利實踐理論」，在這個理論架構之下將會注意到其實法律上所謂的權利僅是作為一種象徵法律權威的意義而已，真正個人想要落實權利實踐必須要集合足夠的政治權力才能夠獲得一個社會實踐的空間與可能性，而這往往與個人在詮釋法律的方式與態度有關，也就是說只有個人提供一個好的詮釋之理由，才能夠獲得足夠的政治權力的協助來個人權利的實踐。 但是法律中往往存在許多「不確定法律概念」，這是為了在特殊的情況時，來能夠實踐個別正義的設計，而法官所負擔的工作，就是透過詮釋，在個案中確立法律概念與原則，有時候會發覺法官並沒有再進行法律的詮釋工作，而也許只是單純的「依法判決」重新確認權利人行使權利之資格而以，但為何有時卻會有限縮或是擴張解釋法律的情況出現，而這背後的判斷標準和原則到底又是什麼，法官這樣做是否合法？是否由於法官是詮釋行為中的最高權威，就代表法官擁有自由的詮釋法律的空間？ 但從Walzer的思考脈絡中，我們可以知道最高的權威者，還是有一定的責任與必須遵守地義務，但其同時也有一定程度的自由和自主決定的空間，依照Walzer的說法，國家也就是站在是最高權威者角色上，維護個人和社會自主性是其必須地義務，並且要防範任何形式的暴力破壞個人和社會的自主性，包含國家自身，而這時候衡量與判斷的標準往往就是所謂地「公共利益」或是「公眾利益」因此公眾利益是判斷國家行為合法性的依據。 而本文就嘗試以美國著作權法中，合理使用原則的公眾利益衡量標準，觀察法官是如何「公共利益」型塑某些原則的重要性，而且也同時還能保留有一定的開放性空間，以處理個案中截然不同地主張與原則的空間。

我國著作權集體管理團體發展至今，僅存五家集管團體，無論是會員數或業務總額皆與國外規模相距甚遠，難以有效達成降低授權成本、使著作充分流通利用與保障著作權的功用。追根究柢原因在於：無法從使用報酬費率的制訂過程中，取得利用人與集管團體間的共識。 隨著數位技術的演進，著作權利用方式與型態日趨多元，立法者的觀點卻趕不上時代的變化，倘若爭議處理方式仍僅限於規範的抽象內容探討與適用，往往難以得到當事人欲求的結果。Teubner認為現今複雜分歧的社會需要一個去中心化的社會整合機制，將傳統法律的管制負擔轉移至其他社會體系；法律只有在為其他社會次級體系的反思過程提供結構性前提時，才能實現其自身的反思取向，發揮反思法的社會整合功能。因此，若能開展調解、仲裁等訴訟外爭議解決機制，除了即時有效解決紛爭，避免法院訟累，並能於協調過程中充分揭露資訊，使當事人間贏得互信，不失為一種發展反思性程序的可能。 本文從Teubner反思法的角度觀察，輔以中國、日本、美國、德國的著作權集體管理制度之立法例與實踐概況，作整體歸納分析，從中擷取出具有反思理性特徵做比較評析。最後，透過反思法理論所提出當今法律演化的特徵，對於我國將來建構良善的集體管理團體制度，提供一些不同的思考觀點。 / In the diversity of social economics activities, recent developments in the evolution of neighboring rightsand reflects the change of publication displaying methods due to technology.Such development may create inner conflict and endanger the law system. If people explore the reason of conflict and disposal process just at the point of normative abstract content and applicable, it will always be unable to gain the ideal result. Collective management organizations(CMOs) is an important indicator of copyright protection. CMOs’ operation reduces the licensing costs, promotes the legal exploitation of works, achieves broad public access of copyrighted works, and protects the benefits of copyright owners. Indeed, a reasonable royalty rate is the core for the successful operation of CMOs. Thisstudy isfrom the view ofTeubner's Theory of Reflexive Law, to observe the substantial social effectiveness of copyright collective management under the control of law and providing the structural premises for reflexive processes in other social subsystems.According to the characteristic of reflexive law,this thesis aimed to introducea new tendency to settle collective management of copyright.

著作肩負著人類對文化傳承、藝術發揚及知識分享的重責大任，影響深遠，自應創造因誘因加以鼓勵並給予適當的法律保障；惟現代著作權法保護創作人的思維均藉由「創作完成自動保護」的途徑，賦予創作人各種著作人格權及著作財產權，一改往昔仍須藉由註冊審查或登記列冊方能享有著作權的傳統作法。然而,任何偉大的著作,其價值乃貴在廣為利用方能源遠流傳，前述各類創作人是否分享或放棄著作權之意願，由法律自動保留全部權利（all rights reserved）的預設（default）立場，使得利用人在利用著作或接續創作的平台受到重重的限制，除了能符合較抽象的「合理使用」範疇以外，利用著作前均須依法取得權利人之同意或授權方能免除因此所生侵權責任。 對於一向主張著作應視為公共財的自由派學者，前述加諸廣大利用人動輒得咎的法律限制，顯然會認為對於知識分享擴散造成阻礙的結果無法忍受，於是美國史丹福大學Lawrence Lessig教授即於2002年間號召有識之士，倡導「Creative Commons」（本研究稱為「創作共享」）之運動，藉由「保留部分著作權」（some rights reserved）的理念，設計鬆綁著作權法以釋出著作權的機制，現正積極在世界各國間推廣中。 本研究即針對上述理念之興起，思考此一創新機制與知識分享擴散及著作權保護間有無相關，並試圖找出可能直接影響機制之關鍵因素提供建言。在第一章部分，除敍明研究動機、目的、範圍、限制外，更直指本研究之問題所在及預期之貢獻；第二章即針對研究主題，包括過去對著作權保護、創作共享機制、知識分享擴散及制度創新的研究進行文獻探討，第三章則對研究核心創作共享機制具體實踐之契約條款予以法律剖析檢驗，並釋疑部分易為外界混淆或誤解之觀念；第四章則詳細闡明研究方法後，設定各個命題及假設，並各賦予操作化定義，落實為問卷調查之問題及選項，第五章則以立意取向調查方式發放及回收共547份有效問卷，並以11.0版SPSS軟體執行問卷數據分析並進而出各項判讀，印證前述命題及假設相關程度，另從管理意涵賦予各項解讀之詮釋；第六章則藉由坊間已先後運行的四個類似創作共享機制的個案，將前述檢驗的內外因素、體質因素、驅動因素等研究構面逐一比較，第七章即就研究成果列出結論並提出後續研究之建議以供來者繼續接棒發揚。 / Creative work carries the responsibilities of cultural inheritance, artistic manifestation, and knowledge sharing; its influences are far reaching and the work ought to be encouraged and properly protected by law. In contrast to traditional copyright laws, whereby protection was given only after registration or examination, current copyright laws give protection to creative work upon its completion, and provide the creator with all kinds of moral integrity rights and copyrights. However, the value of a masterpiece lies in its widespread use, and the current legal system gives the creator, by default, all rights to reserve their intention to share or forfeit their copyrights. From the user’s standpoint, this protective system means limitations and restrictions in using creative work or in continuing creative platform—requiring the user to obtain agreement or license from the rights owner for any use of the work outside the scope of “fair use.” Liberal scholars who believe creative work ought to be public property find these legal restrictions on users and limitations on the proliferation of knowledge sharing intolerable. In 2002, under the appeal of Stanford’s Professor Lawrence Lessig, the movement for Creative Commons was begun. Under this model, relaxation of copyrights with some rights reserved is called for, and this idea is being widely promoted throughout the world. This study focuses on the development of this new ideology and examines its relationship with the proliferation of knowledge sharing and copyrights protection, and further inspects the key factors that may directly influence this new mechanism as well as provides necessary suggestions. Chapter One explains the motivation, purpose, scope, and limitation of this study as well as pointing out the problems and expectations of this study. Chapter Two focuses on the main theme of this study, including empirical studies on past copyright protections, creative commons mechanism, proliferation of knowledge sharing and innovation of its system. Chapter Three examines the legal aspects of the creative commons licensing agreement and clarifies the parts that are confusing or can be easily misunderstood. Chapter Four explains the research approach and sets up theories for each topic, and defines the procedures for selecting questions for the survey. Chapter Five analyzes the 547 valid surveys, which were distributed using the conceptual approach, using v.11.0 of SPSS against the topic and theories set forth in the previous chapter, and interpret each item in the survey via management connotation. Chapter Six compares four existing mechanisms similar to the creative commons model in terms internal and external factors, physical factors, and driving factors. Chapter Seven discusses the results of this study and states suggestions for subsequent research.

本研究將從法律及管理觀點，分析博物館文物典藏品影像檔案的法律性質，介紹大英博物館及法國羅浮宮的藏品影像授權商品業務的經營經驗，並以國立故宮博物院為例，說明博物館數位文物圖檔授權對於文化創意產業所發展發揮之效益，也透過廠商訪談獲得對於其現行授權業務營運之意見。本研究最後也對於現行典藏機構之藏品影像管理及授權業務提出幾點建議：針對不當使用行為主張法律上權利予以制止、創設特別權利保護資料庫、權利管理電子資訊及防盜拷措施保護條款之準用、積極開發潛在智慧財產，以獲得法律保護、公正、公開、公平地經營藏品影像授權業務、鬆綁或彈性適用法令程序，設計多元且適合的商業模式、平等、互惠、雙贏的合作條件、創造衍生著作、創造附加價值、確認藏品影像品質並因應不同用途進行標準化、及透過網路、集中管理典藏產出之影像檔案等建議。 / Technology of Digitalization has improved the enforcement of National Digital Archives Program. The outcomes of NDAP bridged the conserving authorities and the industries and inspired their commercial interactions. Domestic conserving authorities, which are usually museums or galleries, should promote and manage the outcomes in a positive way for the industries to make use of. This paper explains the legal protection, especially intellectual property laws, of the image of the painting, calligraphy, antique or other historical artwork. The experiences of operating commercial business of the British Museum and the Louvre Museum are introduced. Then, this paper takes National Palace Museum as an example, to investigate its commercial business related to the licensing of artworks images, and to gather the opinions from its cooperating enterprises. In the end, the paper submits several suggestions on legal and managing point of view about the operation of art images to the conserving authorities.

3D列印技術最早可以被追溯到18世紀，直到2012年英國經濟學人期刊表示3D列印技術將引爆第三次工業革命後，全球各國與產業界更加投入於此。直至今日，世界智慧財產權組織(WIPO)於2015年公布的《世界智慧財產報告》仍將3D列印列為三大前鋒技術之一，Gartner在2016年所提出之年度預測中，亦表示3D列印在2017年仍是最重要之技術之一，本文研究發現其具備設計靈活、材料多樣、一體成型、以及材料節省等特性，在技術與設備逐漸成熟、價格降低等因素下，業界已將其運用在產品製造的各個階段－設計、製造、銷售、與維修階段，且根據研究許多企業亦對於3D列印抱持正面、積極之態度，可見3D列印技術之價值。本文因此以3D列印技術為對象討論，並討論所涉及之著作權議題。 本文觀察到在3D列印中有兩個值得關注的部分，首先，由於其可使用多種材料製作多樣列印成品，當中包括了實用性物品之設計，即兼具藝術性與實用性之創作，會產生是否可受著作權保護之疑問，以及不同於純藝術之創作，為避免給予保護後將逾越著作權之立法精神，是否需要適用額外之著作權保護要件之問題；其次，由於3D列印在製造過程中，可分為建模階段、列印階段，當中涉及空間轉換之情形，因此會產生我國著作權法上如何評價此議題之疑問，本文針對以上兩部分進行研究，透過我國與美國實務與學說見解，分析與提出建議。 根據我國著作權法之規範，本文認為我國著作權法在圖形著作與美術著作中係有兼具實用性與藝術性之創作類型存在，惟過去我國實務在美術著作僅以「手工」、「一品製作」之「美術工藝品」，本文認為專利法與著作權法並非互斥，有雙重保護之可能下，應揚棄「手工」、「一品製作」要件，縱使獲得設計專利保護、或屬於「機械」、「大量製造」之工業設計，亦可獲得著作權保護，因此本文建議修正「美術工藝品」用語為「應用美術」。接著是否需額外著作權保護要件上，本文發現我國判決曾引用美國著作權法之實用性原則之內涵，同時研究後認為在美國Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc.案後，統一適用步驟與標準，解決以往美國實務與學說所產生之矛盾與爭議，建議我國可以修法引進實用性原則，便於實務操作、判斷。 在著作空間轉換議題，主要爭議是來自於立法沿革，目前實務、主管機關與學說見解共識在於著作於平面轉立體時，並非一概屬於實施行為，而不受著作權規範。實務、主管機關表示需視「立體物實際展現之內容」判斷為重製、改作、或實施，對此學說有不同意見，主要爭議在於考量因素與實施意義認定之差異，本文研究後提出著作空間轉換模型，以利實務判斷，並認為立體轉為平面亦可以同理判斷。 最後，在3D列印之CAD檔案與列印成品可著作性上，本文認為最主要的問題除了實用性原則外，尚包括原創性部分，原創性之判斷會受到不同創作方式影響，但仍有受到著作權保護之可能。在實用性原則部分，Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc.案最高法院所提出標準相較以往更為寬鬆，本文認為若採取此見解，將會更容易取得著作權保護，對於3D列印創作人較為有利。 / 3D printing can be traced back to the 18th century at the earliest time. After The Economist Journal said 3D printing is one of important breakthroughs leading to the factory of the future and digital manufacturing, amount to the third industrial revolution in 2012, countries and industries around the world paid more attention on it. Until now, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) published new WIPO report in 2015 and shows three frontier technologies that hold the potential to boost future economic growth are 3D printing, nanotechnology and robotics. In Gartner’s 2017 annual predictions about the future of 3D printing, Gartner also said that 3D printing is still one of the most important technologies. This thesis finds that 3D printing has the characteristics of flexible design, diversified materials, production in one-step and products without cost penalties in manufacturing, and so on. As the technology and equipment gradually mature and price decreases, the industry has applied 3D printing to various stages of producing- design, manufacturing, distribution, and after-sale service. According to the studies that many companies also have a positive attitude towards 3D printing. For the above reasons, this thesis therefore discusses 3D printing technology, and focuses on the copyright issues of it. This thesis discovers that there are two questions worthy of attention in 3D printing. First of all, because there are many materials used for 3D printing to produce a variety of printed products, including the design of useful articles, which are both artistic and utilitarian products. It will call into questions whether the design of useful articles is copyrightable or not, and if the answer is yes, what is the protection scope? Second, there are two stages in the process of 3D printing- executing Computer-Aided design file (CAD file) stage and printing stage involved in space conversion (2D-3D, 3D-2D) question. This thesis focuses on the above two questions, and refers to the scholars’ and the courts’ opinions of U.S. and R.O.C copyright law to propose some advice and opinions. For the first question, this thesis conclusion is that the design of useful articles is protectable in R.O.C copyright law, which might be pictorial and graphical works or artistic works. Besides, it is not reasonable to add two elements of applied arts- craftsman and only one production. After the Supreme Court held in Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc. that it proposed unified and appropriate test for implementing the useful article doctrine, the useful article doctrine becomes easier to apply. Therefore it might be a good solution to decide whether the design of useful articles is copyrightable or not, and if the answer is yes, what is the protection scope? For the second question, it happened because of amendment of R.O.C copyright law, and this thesis proposes a model to assist judgment. Last but not least, this thesis shows that the most two important elements determine whether the design of useful articles is copyrightable or not are originality and the useful article doctrine. According the opinions about Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, the unified test for implementing the useful article doctrine becomes easily accessible and will beneficial for creators to be protected by U.S. copyright law.

快速時尚為目前服飾零售業的主流經營理念，快速時尚服飾零售業者自時裝週伸展台上的華服汲取靈感，透過對供應鏈的設計與改良，縮短產品自設計、生產到上架的時間，販售高度客製化的流行服飾產品。同時，隨著網路購物市場持續膨脹發展，網路購物模式不斷新生，如團體合購與代買、代下標、連線等突破跨國購物障礙的中介服務。快速時尚的即時生產概念與暢通的網路通路，彷彿仿製時裝的雙翼，使之如蒲公英的種子般輕盈地飄落全球、遍地開花。 　　在仿製時裝的態樣及規模皆與過往顯著不同的當下，智慧財產權相關法律制度是否賦予原創時裝設計師保障？在專利權與商標權方面，由於時裝設計的流行性本質與新式樣專利之創作性要件有所矛盾，亦不易符合立體商標之識別性要件，且專利權與商標權須申請註冊獲核准始受保護，設計師得花費大量時間、費用及作業勞力成本，所費不貲，設計師與欲藉該二種智慧財產權維護其權益，既有難度也不適合。而在著作權方面，本研究一一檢視著作權取得要件後，則認為時裝設計為得受現行著作權法保護之客體，且不限於平面形式之時裝設計圖，立體形式同受保護，原創時裝設計師得依該法主張權利。 　　我國司法實務見解及近期行政函示亦肯定時裝設計受著作權法之保護，認定抄襲改作屬侵害他人時裝設計作品著作權之行為，就此本研究擇我國時裝設計侵權訴訟中的代表性案例，分析法院判決理由。本研究另挑選美國最新時裝設計侵權訴訟二案，進行個案分析，自該二案例顯見於法律並未明文保護時裝設計之情況下，訴訟並非有效對抗仿製時裝之手段。 　　最後，本研究以產業分析、法律分析及個案分析之研究結果為基礎，分別對政府與企業經營者提供建議：政府應釐清時裝設計產業政策走向，選擇較適我國之快速時尚服飾零售業扶植之，繼而朝有利發展快速時尚服飾零售業之方向解釋著作權法；我國快速時尚服飾零售業者應穩固基礎建設、善用網路通路，前進大中華市場；我國原創時裝設計師則應注意各國法制動態，提升商品與服務品質，並把握利用侵權訴訟宣傳行銷品牌之機會。