英文摘要 |
In addition to the artistic feature, the utilitarian feature also plays a significant role for works of applied art. Because of utility, however, the copyrightability of applied artwork has become debatable. In the long past, copyright protection on artistic work has been limited to works of fine art. Even though legal precedents in Taiwan have later granted copyright to authors of applied artworks in the 1990s, the copyrightability has still been limited by the productiveness and the industrialization of a work. In recent years, courts and the Intellectual Property Office in Taiwan has the tendency to determine the copyrightability of applied artworks only with originality, yet some issues still stay unsettled. For instance, is it really inadequate to make productiveness a threshold for the copyrightbility of applied art? Should the originality be examined on the utility feature of an applied artwork? If the answer were “no”, how to identify the utility feature from artistic feature? The legislative, the administrative, and the juridical systems of the U.S. have accumulated considerable experience on the copyrightbility of applied art which is worth learning for Taiwan. The judicial system of the U.S., especially, has established the separability doctrine which is at least for now deemed to be effective to identify the artistic feature of a work. Following the introduction of the common definition of applied art internationally, this article will thus try to find workable solutions for the copyrightability of applied art in Taiwan by making a comparative study on the U.S. legal experience. |