從啦啦隊制服案探討美國實用性物品設計之著作權法保護

在美國著作權法中，對於工業設計是否賦予著作權法之保護，一直是一個難以定奪的議題。美國著作權不保護實用性物品之原因，在於避免該等物品略過專利之嚴格審查，卻仍可取得類似專利權（patent-like）的獨占權利，而工業設計產品作為實用性物品，即須將其實用功能抽離，以「圖畫、圖形、或雕塑著作」以取得著作權法之保護。有關實用性物品之設計是否可受著作權保護之爭議，又以服裝設計之保護議題最廣受注目，就美國著作權法而言，服裝整體設計因其為實用性物品而無法取得著作權保護，然服裝設計內所包含之圖畫、圖形及雕塑等元素若能在物理上或概念上與服裝本身之實用性功能分離，並能獨立存在，則仍有取得著作權保護之可能。本文即從美國最高法院 Star Athletica, v. Varsity Brands 案為契機，從美國案例法中釐清此一「著作權中唯一最令人傷神之懸而未決的爭議。」我國著作權法雖無「實用性物品」之用語，但保護應用美術作品下之「美術工藝品」。由於「應用美術著作」同樣係以結合「實用性」與「藝術性」之作品為保護標的，則關於保護之範圍與判斷方式，本文將試就文中所討論之美國法下「分離性測試」，分析其適用於我國法制之可能並提出建議。"

Dress designs are traditionally afforded limited protection under U.S. copyright law because copyright protection does not extend to Useful Articles. The only way for dress to acquire copyright protection is if the dress's design elements “can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.” What this entails have been the subject of much confusion and debate. The determination of separability has proven to be particularly difficult in the context of fashion, likely due to dress possessing both functional and aesthetic attributes. Dress serves the utilitarian function of protecting the body from natural elements, but also contains original designs that account for purely artistic preferences. For the first time in history, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed copyright protection in the context of apparel in the case Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc. This case tackles arguably the most vexing, unresolved question in copyright law: How to determine whether artistic features of a useful article are conceptually separable from the article and thus protectable. In Star, Justice Thomas has proclaimed a new “imagination test” to inquire the copyrightability of useful article. However, due to the elasticity of this test, it may open the back door of Copyright protections for dress and industrial designs.