論著作權法功能性原則之理論與實踐

Theory and Practice of Functionality Doctrine in Copyright Law

姚信安(Yao, Hsin-An)

功能性原則 ； 功能性 ； 區分原則 ； 思想與表達區分原則 ； 思想與表達合併原則 ； 必要場景原則 ； 實用功能性 ； 抽象－過濾－比較測試法 ； 觀念上區分 ； 想像測試法 ； Functionality Doctrine ； Functionality ； Doctrine of Separability ； Idea/Expression Dichotomy ； Merger Doctrine ； Scenes a Faire ； Intrinsic Utilitarian Function ； Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison ； Conceptual Separability ； Imagination Test

輔仁法學

61期（2021 / 06 / 01）

177 - 263

繁體中文

所謂功能性原則，係指著作權不保護功能性作品之功能性部分，僅保護作品中能與功能性部分區分之非功能性或藝術性表達部分。許多作品於創作當下，除因實用之考量而具有功能性外，創作者同時於作品中投入個人思想與感情，形成具藝術性或非功能性之表達，導致作品內含功能性與非功能性二項特徵。原按著作權法之原理，作品若含原創性之表達，應受著作權之保護。然而，若未界定權利範圍，恐使著作權之保護及於作品中原為著作權所排除，屬於技術思想而歸專利權保護之功能性部分。此時，功能性原則即扮演框限功能性作品中著作權所及之範圍，確保功能性部分不具可著作性之關鍵角色。美國作為功能性原則之源流國，於電腦程式、實用物品以及建築物等功能性作品領域之實務方面已累積相當之經驗，且已建構功能性原則應用之準則。近年我國實務於相應領域明顯有引進美國功能性原則及其應用標準之現象，惟文獻或論述甚少談及功能性原則之相關概念。有鑑於此，本文欲從美國關於功能性原則之基本概念出發，觀察美國實務應用該原則所產生之判準、爭議與值得思考之處，於介紹我國實務相應之進展後，藉由比較之方法探尋我國關於功能性原則之問題，進而提出本文之觀點與建議。

Functionality doctrine, also known as the doctrine of separability, is a principle of copyright law which says the law protects the artistic or nonfunctional features of a functional work which are separable from the functional aspects of the work. The law's notion of functionality, in contrast, precludes the functional features of the work from gaining copyright protection. A functional work would unquestionably have its intrinsic function due to the utilitarian consideration. In the creation of the work, the designer would also put her idea and feelings into the work to form the aesthetic or non-functional expressions. Thus, a functional work would have two major features, functional and non-functional. In accordance with the fundamental of copyright law, a work is copyrightable if original expressions contained. If the extent of copyright has not been firstly defined, however, there will be a risk that the copyright protection will extend to the functional aspect of the work which should be secured by patent. In this case the functionality doctrine will play a crucial role to limit the scope of copyright protection, and ensure the functional features of a functional work stay uncopyrighted. The U.S., as the origin of the functionality doctrine, has accumulated considerable experience in applying the doctrine to the judicial cases on copyrightability of varied functional works, such as computer program, useful article, and architecture. Taiwanese courts have adopted the functionality doctrine for deciding copyrightability of computer program and useful article in recent years. Treatises and literatures in Taiwan, nevertheless, have rarely discussed or even mentioned the concept of the functionality doctrine. In the light of this, the article will review the judicial application of the functionality doctrine in the U.S. after a thorough introduction to the basic concept of the doctrine. Following the observation of Taiwanese courts' reaction on the functionality doctrine, this article will try to provide some useful comments and workable suggestions by making a comparative study on the U.S. legal experience.

1. A Guide To Filing A Design Patent Application, at https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/patent-basics/types-patent-applications/design-patent-application-guide (last visited 05/10/2021).
2. Abrams, Howard B.,Ochoa, Tyler T..The Law of Copyright.
3. Ambrose, Jonathan(2012).Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc.: The Only Nonliteral Aspects of Java APIS Protected under Copyright Law are the Ones Nobody Wants to Copy.N.C. J.L. & Tech. On.,14,1.
4. Bocchino, Robert L., Jr.(1996).Computers, Copyright, and Functionality: The First Circuit's Decision in Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International, Inc..Harv. J. Law & Tec,9,467.
5. Bradberry, Lauren Jean(2015).Putting the House Back Together Again: The Scope of Copyright Protection for Architectural Works.La. L. Rev.,76,267.
6. Brown, Ralph S.,Denicola, Robert C.(2009).Copyright – Unfair Competition, and Related Topics Bearing on the Protection of Works of Authorship.
7. Buccafusco, Christopher,Lemlay, Mark A.(2017).Functionality Screens.Va. L. Rev.,103,1293.
8. Carroll, Terrence J.(1994).Protection for Typeface Designs: A Copyright Proposal.Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J.,10,139.
9. Collins, Kevin Emerson(2017).Patent Law's Authorship Screen.U. Chi. L. Rev.,84,1603.
10. Denicola, Robert C.(1983).Applied Art and Industrial Design: A Suggested Approach to Copyright in Useful Articles.Minn L. Rev.,67,707.
11. Determann, Lothar(2006).Dangerous Liaisons -- Software Combinations as Derivative Works? Distribution, Installation, and Execution of Linked Programs Under Copyright Law, Commercial Licenses, and the GPL.Berkeley Tech. L.J.,21,1421.
12. Dobalian, Aram(1994).Copyright Protection for the Non-Literal Elements of Computer Programs: The Need for Compulsory Licensing.Whittier L. Rev.,15,1019.
13. Dogan, Stacey L.,Liu, Joseph P.(2005).Copyright Law and Subject Matter Specificity: The Case of Computer Software.N.Y.U. Ann. Surv. Am. L.,61,203.
14. Eland, Stephen H.(1994).The Abstraction-Filtration Test: Determining Non-Literal Copyright Protection for Software.Vill. L. Rev.,39,665.
15. Englund, Steven R.(1990).Idea, Process, or Protected Expression?: Determining the Scope of Copyright Protection of the Structure of Computer Programs.Mich. L. Rev.,88,866.
16. Gage, Thomas M.(1987).Whelan Associates v. Jaslow Dental Laboratories: Copyright Protection for Computer Software Structure--What's the Purpose?.Wis. L. Rev.,1987,859.
17. Garrett, W.H. Baird(1993).Toward A Restrictive View of Copyright Protection for Nonliteral Elements of Computer Programs: Recent Developments in The Federal Courts.Va. L. Rev.,79,2091.
18. Ginsburg, Jane C.(2017).The Sum is More Public Domain than its Parts?: US Copyright Protection for Works of Applied Art Under Star Athletica’s Imagination Test.U. Pa. L. Rev. Online,166,83.
19. Goldstein, Paul(2014).Goldstein on Copyright.
20. Goldstein, Paul(2003).Copyright’s Highway: From Gutenberg to the Celestial Jukebox.
21. Goudreault, Jessica(2017).Copyrighting the Quotidian: An Analysis of Copyright Law for Postmodern Choreographers.Cardozo L. Rev.,39,751.
22. Hancks, Gregory B.(1996).Copyright Protection for Architectural Design: A Conceptual and Practical Criticism.Wash. L. Rev.,71,177.
23. Harrington, Andrew J.(2017).Drawing the Line Between Idea and Expression in Oracle v. Google: Questioning the Copyrightability of Java's Application Programming Interface.Lewis & Clark L. Rev.,21,813.
24. Jesien, Karolina(2007).Don't Sweat It: Copyright Protection for Yoga ... Are Exercise Routines Next?.Cardozo Pub. L. Pol'y & Ethics J.,5,623.
25. Karjala, Dennis S.(2003).Distinguishing Patent and Copyright Subject Matter.Conn. L. Rev.,35,439.
26. Karjala, Dennis S.(1998).The Relative Roles of Patent and Copyright in the Protection of Computer Programs.J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L.,17,41.
27. Keyes, Barton R.(2008).Alive and Well: The (Still) Ongoing Debate Surrounding Conceptual Separability in American Copyright Law.Ohio St. L.J.,69,109.
28. Kretschmer, Mark T.(1988).Copyright Protection For Software Architecture: Just Say No!.Colum. Bus. L. Rev.,1988,823.
29. Leaffer, Marshall A.(2019).Understanding Copyright Law.
30. Lefebvre, Jacqueline(2016).The Need for “Supreme” Clarity: Clothing, Copyright, and Conceptual Separability.Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J.,27,143.
31. Lemley, Mark A.(1995).Convergence in the Law of Software Copyright?.High Tech. L.J.,10,1.
32. Linder, David M.(1993).A Recommended Copyright Test for Computer Program User Interfaces.Temp. L. Rev.,66,969.
33. Mathis, Melissa M.(2001).Function, Nonfunction, and Monumental Works of Architecture: An Interpretive Lens in Copyright Law.Cardozo L. Rev.,22,595.
34. McJohn, Stephen M.(2006).Copyright: Examples and Explanations.
35. Menell, Peter S.(2016).API Copyrightability Bleak House: Unraveling and Repairing the Oracle v. Google Jurisdictional Mess.Berkeley Tech. L.J.,31,1515.
36. Menell, Peter S.(1987).Tailoring Legal Protection for Computer Software.Stan. L. Rev.,39,1329.
37. Menell, Peter S.(1994).The Challenges of Reforming Intellectual Property Protection for Computer Software.Colum. L. Rev.,94,2644.
38. Menell, Peter S.(1989).An Analysis of the Scope of Copyright Protection for Application Programs.Stan. L. Rev.,41,1045.
39. Menell, Peter S.(2018).Rise of the API Copyright Dead?: An Updated Epitaph for Copyright Protection of Network and Functional Features of Computer Software.Harv. J. Law & Tec,31,305.
40. Menell, Peter S.,Yablon, Daniel(2017).Star Athletica's Fissure in The Intellectual Property Functionality Landscape.U. Pa. L. Rev. Online,166,137.
41. Miller, Arthur R.(1993).Copyright Protection for Computer Programs, Databases, and Computer-Generated Works: Is Anything New Since CONTU?.Harv. L. Rev.,106,977.
42. Moffat, Viva R.(2014).The Copyright/Patent Boundary.U. Rich. L. Rev.,48,611.
43. Murray, Michael D.(2006).Copyright, Originality, and the End of the Scenes a Faire and Merger Doctrines for Visual Works.Baylor L. Rev.,58,779.
44. Nimmer, Melville,Nimmer, David.Nimmer on Copyright.
45. Patry, William F..Patry on Copyright.
46. Samuelson, Pamela(2016).Reconceptualizing Copyright's Merger Doctrine.J. Copyright Soc'y,63,417.
47. Samuelson, Pamela(1994).The Nature of Copyright Analysis for Computer Programs: Copyright Law Professors' Brief Amicus Curiae in Lotus v. Borland.Hastings Comm. & Ent. L.J.,16,657.
48. Samuelson, Pamela(2017).Negotiating IP’s Boundaries in an Evolving World: Strategies for Discerning the Boundaries of Copyright and Patent Protections.Notre Dame L. Rev.,92,1493.
49. Samuelson, Pamela(2016).Functionality and Expression in Computer Programs: Refining the Tests for Software Copyright Infringement.Berkeley Tech. L.J.,31,1215.
50. Samuelson, Pamela(2016).Evolving Conceptions of Copyright Subject Matter.U. Pitt. L. Rev.,78,17.
51. Samuelson, Pamela(2007).Frontiers of Intellectual Property: Why Copyright Law Excludes Systems and Processes from the Scope of Its Protection.Tex. L. Rev.,85,1921.
52. Schechter, Roger E.,Thomas, John R.(2003).Intellectual Property: The Law of Copyrights, Patents and Trademarks.
53. Schroeder, Jared(2019).Give Me A (c): Refashioning the Supreme Court's Decision in Star Athletica v. Varsity into an Art-First Approach to Copyright Protection for Fashion Designers.UCLA Ent. L. Rev.,26,19.
54. Setliff, Eric(2006).Copyright and Industrial Design.Colum. L.J. & Arts,30,49.
55. Shipley, David E.(1986).Copyright Protection for Architectural Works.S.C. L. Rev.,37,393.
56. Shipley, David E.(2018).All for Copyright Stand up and Holler! Three Cheers for Star Athletica and the U.S. Supreme Court's Perceived and Imagined Separately Test.Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J.,36,149.
57. Shurn, Peter J., III(2008).Potential Pitfalls in High-Tech Copyright Litigation.J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L.,25,513.
58. Spivack(1988).Does Form Follow Function? The Idea/Expression Dichotomy in Copyright Protection of Computer Software.U.C.L.A. L. Rev.,35,723.
59. Sprigman, Christopher Jon,Hedrick, Samanthat Fink(2019).The Filtration Problem in Copyright’s “Substantial Similarity” Infringement Test.Lewis & Clark L. Rev.,23,571.
60. Tushnet, Rebecca(2019).Shoveling a Path after Star Athletica.UCLA L. Rev.,66,1216.
61. U.S. Copyright Office(2014).U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices III (2014)..
62. Vasilescu-Palermo, Daria(2016).APIS and Copyright Protection: The Potential Impact on Software Compatibility in The Programming Industry.J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L.,16,153.
63. Velasco, Julian(1994).The Copyrightability of Nonliteral Elements of Computer Programs.Colum. L. Rev.,94,242.
64. Weber, Loren J.(2000).Something in the Way She Moves: The Case for Applying Copyright Protection to Sports Moves.Colum.-VLA J.L. & Arts,23,317.
65. Winick, Raphael(1992).Copyright Protection for Architecture after the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act of 1990.Duke L.J.,41,1598.
66. Yen, Alfred C.,Liu, Joseph P.(2008).Copyright Law – Essential Cases and Materials.
67. 王世仁(2002)。美國專利。智慧財產權月刊，43
68. 李秋峰，＜淺談設計專利與著作權於美術工藝品之競合關係＞，載於 ： https://www.zoomlaw.net/files/14-1138-43608,r261-1.php （最後瀏覽日：2021.05.10）。
69. 林佳瑩(2012).設計產品的智慧財產權保護.台北:元照.
70. 姚信安(2015)。重看不重用？！--從美國經驗論我國應用美術作品可著作性之判斷。中正財經法學，10
71. 胡心蘭(2019)。功能性原則之功能--論美國智慧財產權法下功能性原則之發展與交錯。成大法學，37
72. 張俊宏(2016)。從美國 Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc.案探討電腦程式著作之爭議。智慧財產權月刊，209
73. 張懿云(1996)。德國與美國著作權法關於"應用美術著作"的保護--兼論我國之保護制度。輔仁法學，15
74. 楊崇森(2014).專利法理論與應用.台北:三民.
75. 經濟部智慧財產局(2006).著作權案例彙編—美術著作篇.台北:自版.
76. 謝銘洋(2019).智慧財產權法.台北:元照.
77. 羅明通(2014).著作權法論 II.台北:台英國際商務法律事務所.