英文摘要 |
This study aimed to balance the conflict between the right to disclosure and the right of paternity as moral rights and the guarantee of equal protection under the constitution. We discussed whether the proviso of Section 1, Article 15 and Section 2, Article 16 of the Taiwan Copyright Act, which excludes the right to disclosure and the right of paternity for public servants, infringes on the copyright interests of public servants. In addition, we also determined whether excluding protections concerning such rights for public servants benefits the harmonization of public interests. Moreover, we sought to ascertain whether public servants' inability to avail of protections concerning such rights for their works slows down national cultural developments. On April 8, 2021, amendments to the Taiwan Copyright Act were passed by the committee of the Executive Yuan and were left pending for examination in the committee of the Legislative Yuan. However, these amendments were modified from the original proviso of Section 1, Article 15 to the Clause 1, Section 1, Article 15 but were not changed the Section 2, Article 16 of the Taiwan Copyright Act. Thus, public servants remain unprotected regarding the right to disclosure and the right of paternity as moral rights. Reasons for the proposed amendments include the restriction of legal persons in promoting national public matters should public servants not receive protections for their works as a moral right, which would actually deprive public servants' guarantee of equal protection under the constitution. The Taiwan Copyright Act is built on the civil law system that has a tradition of protecting moral rights. As each work of an individual is protected with regard to the right to disclosure, right of paternity, and right of integrity, legislators should include protections in the law concerning such rights as moral rights for public servants' works. This study examined whether public servants' works could be protected as a moral right by analyzing various legal theories and judgments. We also propose concrete suggestions for amending the Taiwan Copyright Act. |