抄襲與引用—學術倫理與著作權之交錯領域

Plagiarism and Quotation-The Intersection between Academic Ethics and Copyright

10.29887/NUKLJ.201209.0003

陳月端(Evelyn Y. T. Chen)

抄襲 ； 引用 ； 學術倫理 ； 創用CC ； plagiarize ； quote ； academic ethics ； creative commons

高大法學論叢

8卷1期（2012 / 09 / 01）

133 - 172

繁體中文

台灣現行法律對於「合理使用」之概括規定，大抵與國際標準相同。惟因「合理使用」之判斷，對一般人（包括學術研究者）而言，過於抽象且不易判斷，且法院實務上及學術上對於抄襲之認定標準不盡相同，造成一般人，尤其係學術研究者，無法清楚界定抄襲與引用之區別。本文透過引用及抄襲之介紹，期待學術研究者能掌握二者之區別及分際，避免觸法及違反學術倫理。本文首先透過對美國著作權法及其實務運用、國際公約及台灣著作權法對合理使用認定標準之介紹，以期一般人及學術研究者能的第一堂課，也清楚認定合理使用之範圍，合法引用他人文章，豐富本身著作之內容。另外，透過法律面及學術面對抄襲之認定及二者認定差異之介紹，對於避免違法及違反學術倫理，應可提供一定助益。而分別從民刑事及行政懲處之觀點，剖析抄襲之處罰，尤其從教育部、國科會及各大專院校之規定，分析抄襲之行政懲處，對於研究者當有警惕作用。又鑑於對合理使用之認定，過於抽象，本文亦一併介紹利用文章，不致構成侵權之其他方法。最後，本文更從學界實際上常發生之著作權法律爭議問題出發，從法律面及學術倫理面，提出個人淺見，以期對學界習以為常或偏頗之現象，有所導正。

Taiwan's current law for ”fair use” general provisions are similar to international standard. For general people (including academic researchers), ”fair use” is too abstract and difficult to judge and identification of plagiarism vary between court practice and academic standards. Therefore, most persons especially the academic researchers are unable to define the difference between plagiarism and quotation. Through the introduction about plagiarism and quotation, we hope that academic researchers can grasp the distinction between them, and avoid breaking the law and academic ethics.First, by the ”fair use” introduction of United States Copyright Law, the international convention and Taiwan Copyright Law, we hope general people and academic researchers can identify clearly the scope of fair use, use other articles legally, and enrich their writing content. Second, through the introduction of the difference about plagiarism indentified by legal side and academic view, it should provide certain benefit to avoid illegal and violate academic ethics. Third, from the civil and criminal viewpoint and administrative sanction, the penalties analysis of plagiarism, especially from the Ministry of Education, National Science Council and the provision of universities, it can provide some vigilance for researchers. Because the determining of fair use is very abstract, this paper also introduce the other methods which will not constitute infringement. Finally, facing the copyright controversial issues from the scholars, the author will propose some humble opinion to guide some academic accustomed phenomenon or bias.

1. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539,105S,Ct.2218 (1985).
2. 羅明通（2000）。《著作違法抄襲之判斷基準－兼談電腦軟體著作權之侵害》，載於http://www.ascc.sinica.edu.tw/nl/86/1315/05.txt（最後瀏覽日：01/13/2011）。Ming-Tong Luo (2000). The judge basis of writing palagiarism - computer software copyright infringement, Retrieved Oct.13, 2011, from the website: www.ascc.sinica.edu.tw/nl/86/1315/05.txt
3. Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003).
4. 魏禹嫻（ 2011 ）。〈公眾授權與創用CC 簡介〉， 載於http://get.nccu.edu.tw:8080/getcdb/retrieve/106377創用CC_1.5hr_NTU.p（最後瀏覽日：10/20/2011）。Yu-Wei Xian (2011). General Public License and Creative Commons, Retrieved Oct. 20, 2011, from the website: http://get.nccu.edu.tw:8080/getcdb/retrieve/106377/CreativeCC_1.5hr_NTU.p
5. US Copyright Office, fair use at www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html(last visited 10/21/2011).
6. Sony Corp. of America Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 104S.Ct.774, 78L.Ed.zd 574 (1984) .
7. 中小企業法律諮詢服務專區（2011）。《未公開的著作可否主張合理評論》，載於http://law.moeasmea.gov.tw/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=15753（最後瀏覽日：01/17/2012）。SME Legal Consultancy Services (2011). The possibility of advocating reasonable comments in the unpublished writings, Retrieved Jan.17, 2012, from the website : http://law.moeasmea.gov.tw/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=15753
8. 楊益昇（ 2006 ）。〈著作權合理使用制度之侷限〉，http://www.openfoundry.org/tw/resourcecatalog?Name=Value，全文下載（最後瀏覽日：01/03/2011）。Yi-Sun Yang (2006). The limitations of the Fair Use of Copyright, Retrieved March 3, 2012, available at: http://www.openfoundry.org/tw/resourcecatalog?Name=Value
9. Agreement on Guidelines for Classroom Copying in Non-For-Profit Educational Institutions, at http://castle.eiu.edu/copyright/guidelines_for_classroom_copying.pdf. (last visited 11/04/2011).
10. Boyle, James(2008).THE PUBLIC DOMAIN:ENCLOSING THE COMMONS OF THE MIND.
11. Lessing(2006).Re-crafting a Public Domain.YALE J. L. & HUMAN,18,79-80.
12. 畢恆達(2005)。教授為什麼沒告訴我—論文寫作的枕邊書。台北=Taipei:學富=Sha-hwu。
13. 湯德宗(2007)。行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫,台北=Taipei:行政院國家科學委員會=National Science Council。
14. 黃怡騰(2002)。著作之合理使用案例介紹。台北=Taipei:經濟部智慧財產局=Ministry of Economic Affairs Intellectual Property Office。
15. 黃銘傑(2011)。著作權法與學術倫理面面觀。人文與社會科學簡訊，12(2)，4。
16. 經濟部智慧財產局(2004)。,未出版
17. 趙晉枚(2008)。智慧財產權入門。台北=Taipei:元照=Yuan- Zhao。
18. 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，8，122-123。
19. 謝銘洋(2009)。智慧財產法導論。台北=Taipei:經濟部智慧財產局=MOEA Intellectual Property Office。

1. 蔡明誠(2014)。抄襲與著作權侵害之概念、類型化及判斷原則再思考。法令月刊，65(8)，36-50。
2. 黃致穎(2017)。論著作權法第17 條「致損害其名譽」要件之妥當性。高大法學論叢，12(2)，163-243。
3. (2014)。自著作權法與學術倫理之規範析論論文抄襲剽竊。軍法專刊，60(6)，81-98。