著作人之推定

Study on Presumption of Authorship

本文探討著作權法第 13 條著作人推定制度。以比較法研究法，從伯恩 公約出發，比較德國與我國著作權法，在制度目的、適用要件、適用案型、 法律效果與保護期間計算實踐之差異。研究發現：著作人推定制度起源於侵 權訴訟之舉證責任倒置，以便利著作人行使權利，免於舉證創作過程之困難。 但須考量所保護者未必為真實著作人，在適用案型上，不宜過度擴張。就契 約訴訟，宜依舉證原則，公平分配訴訟風險；就刑事訴訟，不應牴觸有疑應 有利於被告原則。對要件之解釋，應嚴守「以通常方法之表示」必須被客觀 認識為著作人。保護期間可依所推定著作人之生存期間計算；無法推定時， 即依不具名著作之規定。另為維護著作人消極姓名表示權及便利專屬被授權 人行使權利，建議我國分別新增著作上之出版人代為行使權利與專屬被授權 人推定之規定。博物館等利用人，應善盡查證權利人之義務，不能僅單純主 張著作人推定。但博物館得依著作人推定計算之保護期間經過後而為利用。 唯真正著作人之容忍，仍建立在利用行為具有重要公共利益、已採取科技與 經濟上合理可期待之防護措施，因此，博物館如採行開放授權，難認已盡善良管理人之注意義務。利用人是否應明示著作上表示之著作人姓名，亦應依查證結果處理。

This study explores rules on the presumption of authorship under Article 13 of the Copyright Act. Through comparative law study, starting from the norms of the Berne Convention, the differences between the German and Taiwan's copyright laws on how to implement the Berne Convention are compared in terms of system purpose, application requirements, application case, legal effect and calculation of protection period. This study finds that the rules on the presumption of authorship have its origin in the shifting of the burden of proof in infringement litigation, which facilitates the author to exercise his/her rights and alleviate the burden of proving the process of creation. However, it must be noted that the person protected may not necessarily be the actual author, therefore the applicable case types should not be overly expansive. For contract litigation, the risk in litigation should still be fairly apportioned according to the allocation of burden of proof. In criminal litigation, it should not conflict with the principle that favors the defendant in the case of doubt. When explaining the requirement of ''appear on the work in the usual manner'', the person expressed must be objectively recognized as the author. The calculation of the duration of protection can be calculated based on the lifetime of the presumed author; when a presumption cannot be made, calculation shall be based on the rules concerning anonymous works. Besides, to ensure the author's right to remain anonymous, and to facilitate the enforcement of rights by an exclusive licensee, this study recommends to enact new rules concerning the presumption that the publisher whose name appears on the work may enforce the rights on behalf of the author and the presumption of exclusive licensee. Finally, users such as museums still shall exercise the due care of a good administrator in conducting the obligation of verifying the identity of the right holder and should not simply rely on the presumption of authorship. A museum should still be allowed to calculate the copyright protection term based on the authorship presumption and use the work after the copyright term has expired. However, the obligation of the true author to endure must still be premised on the importance of public good in the act of use; protective measures which can be technologically and economically reasonably expected have been taken. Therefore, if an open license is adopted, it cannot be the due care of a good administrator. Whether users should clearly mention the name of the author indicated on the work, it should also be handled according to the results of the verification.