從虛擬實境遊戲論肖像權和著作權保護衝突

Conflicts between Right of Publicity and Copyright Protection in Virtual Reality Games

隨著虛擬實境技術不斷進步，虛擬實境議題在全球持續發酵。虛擬實境技術被廣泛應用於娛樂、教育及訓練等多元領域。娛樂發展趨勢更是以開發虛擬實境遊戲為主力。虛擬實境遊戲業者積極尋求異業結盟，包括與各大體育聯盟、球隊、明星球員及賽事策略合作，取得明星球員肖像授權使用。這類虛擬實境遊戲的熱賣，卻讓遊戲業者因在明星球員虛擬化身，身上擬真再現本尊身上的紋身圖案(tattoo)，而遭紋身圖案權利人指控侵害著作權，從而引發肖像權(the right of publicity)與著作權保護衝突的爭議。本文以此爭議作為探究虛擬實境技術採集素材爭議的切入點，先行介紹肖像權和著作權在本爭議涉及的問題，接續整理美國和我國關於肖像權之核心概念與相關權利保護和限制規定、法院判決，以及進行合理使用分析。兩項權利保護各有核心利益，允許著作權人嚴格執行公開展示權會對肖像權人的授權行使造成不當阻礙，反之亦會使著作權人權益受損。最後結論是本文認為，我國法院未來若處理此類爭議，應秉持著作權法立法目的，重視肖像權，保護人格法益，以遏阻著作權濫用。

With advancement of the virtual reality technology, virtual reality has become a global phenomenon. Virtual reality technology is now widely used in a variety of areas such as entertainment, education, and practical trainings. The developing trend of the entertainment industry is mainly on the development of virtual reality games. The developers of virtual reality sports games are actively seeking strategic cooperation with major sports leagues, teams, star players and tournaments, and obtaining the right of publicity license from star players. The hot sale of virtual reality sports games has unexpectedly incurred copyright infringement claims over tattoos displayed on the avatars of star players, thus causing conflicts between the right of publicity and copyright protection. This article will address this copyright infringement issue beginning from the use of copyrighted materials in virtual reality. It will first introduce the tattoo infringement issues relating to the right of publicity and copyrigh t protection, and then organize the core concepts of both the right of publicity and copyright, scope of protection and limitation, and court judgments in the United States and Taiwan respectively. This article will finally proceed with a copyright fair use analysis regarding to the tattoos displayed on the avatars of the star players. The right of publicity and copyright protection have their separate legislative purposes. Allowing the copyright owner to aggressively enforce the public display right will cause undue restriction on the exercise of the right of publicity. But allowing the right holder to strictly enforce the right of publicity will also improperly hinder the copyright protection. To adjudicate this type of dispute in the future, this article suggests the court in Taiwan must take the legislative intent of copyright law, the purpose of the right of publicity, and legitimate interests of both litigants into consideration in order to deter copyright abuse claim.