剝奪著作權公共領域之言論自由審查－以美國聯邦最高法院Golan案為中心

Depriving the Copyright Public Domain and Free Speech Review

楊智傑(Chih-Chieh Yang)

公共領域 ； 言論自由 ； 傳統輪廓 ； 著作權期間延長法 ； 烏拉圭回合協議法第514條 ； Public Domain ； Free Speech ； Traditional Contour ； Copyright Term Extension Act ； Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994

東海大學法學研究

40期（2013 / 08 / 01）

63 - 127

繁體中文

美國近年來有兩個法案，剝奪了原本著作權公共領域的部分內容，而受到質疑。一個是1998年美國的著作權期間延長法，另一個則是1994年的烏拉圭回合協議法第514條。而這兩個案例，都有人從憲法的角度，來質疑國會立法的合憲性。但是，美國聯邦最高法院在2003年的Eldred v. Ashcroft案，判決認為，著作權保護期間之延長，並沒有違反美國憲法的智慧財產權條款中「有限期間」之規定，也沒有侵害言論自由問題。在該案中，最高法院提及，只有在修法時改變著作權的傳統輪廓，才需進行言論自由審查。而從2007年開始的Golan案，爭執的關鍵，就在於1994年的烏拉圭回合協議法第514條，被認為改變了著作權法的傳統輪廓，而需進行言論自由審查。但該案上訴到最高法院，2012年最高法院作出判決，仍認為其未改變傳統輪廓，不需進行言論自由審查。本文將詳細研究美國相關爭議，並以2007年起至2012年的Golan案為中心，詳細研究法院對於剝奪公共領域是否需進行言論自由審查，採取的觀點。最後，本文也將學理分析的角度，探討剝奪著作權公共領域，應進行何種言論自由審查。

In recent years, there were two congressional legislation about copyright in the United States be discussed from the point of free speech. The two legislations were said to deprive the copyright public domain. First is 1998 U.S. Copyright Term Extension Act, another is section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act 1994. There were people using the constitutional point of view to question the constitutionality of the two congressional legislations. However, in 2003 the United States Supreme Court in Eldred v Ashcroft case held that the extension of the duration of copyright doesn't against the ”limited period” of intellectual property provisions in U.S. Constitution, and not invasion the freedom of expression. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the legislation would be receiving free speech review only if it changed the traditional contours of copyright. From 2007 on, the Golan case began to litigate because section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994 is considered to change the traditional contours of copyright law, so have to be receiving free speech review. The Golan cases was appealed to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court ruling in 2012, but still think it did not change the traditional contours, and there is no need to do free Speech review. This article will research related controversies in the United States, especially the Golan case from 2007 until 2012. Finally, we will also learn the academic point of view, and find what kind of free speech review should be carried out.

1. 陳新民(2008)。著作權的社會義務─由德國憲法學的角度檢驗智慧財產權的保障及限制屬性談起。台大法學論叢，37(4)，115-178。
   連結：
2. 黃居正、邱盈翠(2011)。公共領域的結構轉型：以美國著作權法的理論變遷與實務觀點為中心。歐美研究，41(4)，1023-1097。
   連結：
3. 吳尚昆，「美國著作權期間延長法案爭議評析」，發表於法律、教育與生活網，2007年1月，http://www.wretch.cc/blog/vwu21&article_id=4030382
4. 莊庭瑞，CC專題：“The Public Domain”怎麼說？，創用CC電子 報 第 64 期 ， 2011 年 8 月 5 日 ， 網 址 ：http://creativecommons.tw/newsletter/ep64
5. Ackerman, Bruce(1993).We the People: Foundation.Harvard University Press.
6. Balkin, Jack M.(2004).Digital Speech and Democratic Culture: A Theory of Freedom of Expression for the Information Society.N.Y.U. L. Rev.,79,1.
7. Benkler, Yochai(1999).Free as the Air to Common Use: First Amendment Constraints on Enclosure of the Public Domain.N.Y.U.L. Rev.,74,354.
8. Claiborne, Carrie(2009).Golan v. Gonzales and the Changing Balance Between the First Amendment, Copyright Protection, and the Rest of the World.Denv. U.L. Rev.,86,1113.
9. Edwin, Baker, C.(2002).First Amendment Limits on Copyright.Vand. L. Rev.,55,891.
10. Farber, Daniel A.(2005).Conflicting Visions and Contested Baselines: Intellectual Property and Free Speech in the " Digital Millennium".Minn. L. Rev.,89,1318.
11. Fong, Claire(2011).Golan v. Holder: Congressional Power under the Copyright Clause and the First Amendmet.Duke J. Const. Law & PP Sidebar,7,1.
12. Gallagher, Krystal Joy(2009).Golan v. Gonzales: An Opportunity to Reexamine the Relationship Between First Amendment Rights and Copyright Protection.Nev. L.J.,9,453.
13. Gervais, Daniel(2011).Golan v. Holder: A Look at the Constraints Imposed by the Berne Convention.Vand. L. Rev. En Banc,64,147.
14. Ginsburg, Jane C.(2000).Recorded Remarks in Panel Discussion: The Constitutionality of Copyright Term Extension: How Long is Too Long?.Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J.,18,651.
15. Heins, Marijorie(2003).,未出版
16. Howard, Robert M.,Segal, Jeffrey A.(2002).An Original Look at Originalism.L. & Soc. Rev.,36,113.
17. Lemley, Mark A.,Volokh, Eugene(1998).Freedom of Speech and Injunctions in Intellectual Property Cases.Duke L.J.,48,147.
18. Lessig, Lawrence(2004).Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity.Penguin Press.
19. Litman, Jessica(1990).The Public Domain.Emory L.J.,39,965.
20. Maciejunes, Nicole(2011).Golan V. Holder: A Step in the International Direction for United States Copyright Law.J. Int'l Bus. & L.,10,369.
21. Netanel, Neil Weinstock(2008).Copyright's Paradox.Oxford University Press.
22. Netanel, Neil Weinstock(2001).Locating Copyright within the First Amendment Skein.Stan. L. Rev.,54,1.
23. Nodzon, Bernard E., Jr(2002).Free Speech in a Digital Economy: An Analysis of How Intellectual Property Rights Have Been Elevated at the Expense of Free Speech.J. Marshall L. Rev.,36,109.
24. Ochoa, Tyler T.(2011).Is the Copyright Public Domain Irrevocable? An Introduction to Golan v. Holder.Vand. L. Rev. En Banc,64,123.
25. Patterson, L. Ray,Lindberg, Stanley W.(1991).The Nature of Copyright: A Law of Users' Rights.
26. Pelanda, Brian Lee(2010).Copyright's "Traditional Contours" and "Bedrock Principles": Golan's Potential to Secure First Amendment Protection over the Public Domain.Whittier L. Rev.,31,547.
27. Rubenfeld, Jed(2002).The Freedom of Imagination: Copyright's Constitutionality.Yale L. J.,112,1.
28. Segal, Jeffrey A.,Spaeth, Harold J.(2002).The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited.Cambridge University Press.
29. Sieber, Albert(2003).Constitutionality of the DMCA Explored: Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley & (and) United States v. Elcom Ltd..Berkeley Tech. L.J.,18,7.
30. Tushnet, Rebecca(2004).Copy This Essay: How Fair Use Doctrine Harms Free Speech and How Copying Serves It.Yale L.J.,114,535.
31. Wang, Edmund T.(2011).The Line Between Copyright and the First Amendment and Why Its Vagueness May Further Free Speech Interests.U. Pa. J. Const. L.,13,1471.
32. 林子儀(1993)。言論自由的限制與雙軌理論。言論自由與新聞自由
33. 林子儀(2002)。言論自由導論。台灣憲法之縱剖橫切
34. 許炳華(2010)。著作權衡永久？著作權存序期間延展之憲法爭議─以美國聯邦最高法院 Eldred v. Ashcroft 案為探討核心，兼論我國可能之思維。世新法學，4(1)，140-193。
35. 章忠信(2009)。著作權法逐條釋義。五南=Wunan。
36. 楊智傑(2008)。智慧財產權的憲法基礎：兼論智財權與言論自由的衝突。財產暨經濟法，16，1-40。
37. 趙伯雄(2005)。東吳大學法律學系=Institute of Law, Soochow university。
38. 劉孔中(2007)。智慧財產權法制的關鍵革新。元照=Angle。
39. 劉靜怡(2011)。從創用 CC 運動看數位時代的公共領域─財產權觀點的初步考察。中研院法學期刊，8，113-184。
40. 謝銘洋(2008)。智慧財產權法。元照=Angle。
41. 羅明通(2005)。著作權法論。作者自版=Luo, Min-Tong。

1. (2017)。博物館圖像授權政策中著作權公共領域之研究。國立歷史博物館，55，161-180。
2. (2017)。論公共領域於著作權法之界限。中正財經法學，14，165-222。