線上直播健身課程之可能法律議題與因應建議

Advice Regarding Possible Legal Issues of Live Streaming Fitness Classes

10.6162/SRR.202106_(157).0002

陳宏志(Hung-Chih Chen)

法令遵循 ； 著作權法 ； 勞動基準法 ； 原創性 ； legal compliance ； Copyright Act ； Labor Standards Act ； originality

大專體育

157期（2021 / 06 / 30）

13 - 20

繁體中文

數位經濟時代下，相關產業常結合網路或科技應用，運動也不例外。除了討論具體技術，法令遵循議題亦不可忽略。本文目的在於由法令遵循解析美國Peloton公司帶起之線上直播健身課程風潮，聚焦業者聘僱教練製作影片衍生之可能法律議題。透過文獻分析與實務判決摘要，以著作權法與勞動基準法之競業禁止為核心，兼顧消費者保護法部分規範。分析結果發現與以往分別藉由所需軟、硬體，創造運動風氣之作法有異，透過線上直播健身課程之方式，除可形成正向循環，相關營運規劃或權益保護之關鍵，在於該課程之產出能否符合著作權法之原創性，及聘請教練製作影片時，應注意競業禁止與授權約定等。最終，諸如著作權歸屬、授權範圍或相關要項，本文提出因應建議，如契約之具體約定，以供運動產業經營者及從業人員參考。

In the era of the digital economy, use of internet or technology applications is increasingly common within the sports industry. The issue of legal compliance cannot be ignored when discussing specific technologies. Given the trend of live streaming fitness classes (introduced by Peloton, a US company), the purpose of this article is to focus on potential corporate legal compliance issues applicable to hiring a fitness coach to produce videos, rather than issues of personal data protection or technological application. Through literature review and summary of practical judgements, this article would handle the possible legal issues, especially regarding the Copyright Act and after-resignation business strife limitation agreements for work for hire or contract labor under the Labor Standards Act. Results indicate that the key to the operational planning and protection of legal rights and interests of live streaming fitness classes lies in the originality of the output of the class. Originality during live broadcast fosters a positive cycle which could permit the work to be protected by the Copyright Act. This stands in contrast to previous practices of merely creating a sports atmosphere with some required software and hardware. Also, corporations should pay attention to the authorization agreement and the prohibition of competition when hiring a coach to make a film. Finally, for the reference of sports industry operators and practitioners, this article proposes concrete suggestions for the contents of the contract, controlling the ownership of copyright and the scope of authorization.

1. 黃賢哲, H.-C.,康正男, C.-N.(2018)。臺灣運動場地設施研究：回顧與前瞻。大專體育學刊，20(2)，87-111。
   連結：
2. 鄭雨涵, Y.-H.,邵于玲, Y.-L.(2006)。蕃薯藤運動網線上服務品質分析。大專體育學刊，8(3)，39-50。
   連結：
3. 行政院（2019）。網際網路教學服務定型化契約應記載及不得記載事項。資料引自 https://www.ey.gov.tw/Page/DFB720D019CCCB0A/397a2ff8-748a4df1-a52e-860278d0c275[Executive Yuan. (2019). Mandatory provisions to be included in and prohibitory provisions of standard form contract for online learning. Retrieved from https://www.ey.gov.tw/Page/DFB720D019CCCB0A/397a2ff8-748a-4df1-a52e-860278d0c275]
4. 何念修, N.-H.,陳宏志, H.-C.(2021)。運動產業從業人員之法令遵循：以健身中心常見工時爭議為例。國民體育季刊，205，44-47。
5. 吳靜芳（2020）。建攝影棚、幫教練上表演課，臺灣健身器材龍頭喬山為何要搞直播？天下雜誌。資料引自 https://www.cw.com.tw/article/5102711?template=transformers[Wu, J.-F. (2020). By providing photo studio and acting lessons to coaches, why does Johnson Health Tech. Co., Ltd. attach importance to live stream? Common Wealth Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.cw.com.tw/article/5102711?template=transformers]
6. 李展瑋, C.-W.,游振淘, Z.-T.,葉劭緯, S.-W(2017)。以穿戴式科技產品建置民眾運動履歷之可行性分析。運動管理，35，3-11。
7. 陳慶鴻, C.-H.,鄭志富, C.-F.,林安邦, A.-P.(2019)。運動消費行為的個人資料保護議題。運動管理，44，26-40。
8. 章忠信（2019，4 月 14 日）。專業課程的智慧財產權保護。資料引自 http://www.copyrightnote.org/ArticleContent.aspx?ID=9&aid=2894[Chang, C.-H. (2019, April 14). The protection of professional courses by intellectual property rights. Retrieved from http://www.copyrightnote.org/ArticleContent.aspx?ID=9&aid=2894]
9. 曾勝珍, S.-C.(2016)。從美國案例探討營業秘密與競業禁止條款之關係。智慧財產權月刊，212，77-106。
10. 黃銘傑, M.-J.(2014)。「原創性」概念之再建構—從產業發展觀點與競爭理念出發。國際比較下我國著作權法之總檢討，臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:
11. 經濟部智慧財產局（2019）。契約範本：「著作財產權授權契約」及「著作財產權讓與契約」之範例。資料引自 https://topic.tipo.gov.tw/copyright-tw/cp-432-856188-3c975-301.html[Intellectual Property Office, Ministry of Economic Affairs. (2019). Contract samples. A licensing contract sample of E-learning content. Retrieved from https://topic.tipo.gov.tw/copyright-tw/cp-432-856188-3c975-301.html]
12. 經濟部智慧財產局（2017）。原創性函釋。資料引自 https://topic.tipo.gov.tw/copyright-tw/cp-407-854808-501f1-301.html[Intellectual Property Office, Ministry of Economic Affairs. (2017). An administrative interpretation of originality. Retrieved from https://topic.tipo.gov.tw/copyright-tw/cp-407-854808-501f1-301.html]
13. 經濟部智慧財產局, Ministry of Economic Affairs(2018).著作權集管組織對微中小型企業之最佳授權實務指南.臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:作者=Author.
14. 謝銘洋, M.-Y.(2014)。我國著作權法中「創作」概念相關判決之研究。國際比較下我國著作權法之總檢討，臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:
15. 羅明通, M.-T.(1999)。著作權法「原創性」概念之解析。智慧財產權月刊，11，35-45。
16. 経済産業省（2019）。ブロックチェーン技術を活用したコンテンツサービスに関する報告書を公表しました。資料引自 https://www.meti.go.jp/press/2019/04/20190405006/20190405006.html[Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. (2019). Report on content services utilizing blockchain technologies released. Retrieved from https://www.meti.go.jp/press/2019/04/20190405006/20190405006.html]