作品類型法定緩和化的理據與路徑

作品類型的封閉式與開放式立法模式具有不同的法律適用方法。在開放式立法模式下，法院認定非典型作品時不能行使立法者專屬的法律政策選擇，而應堅持作品類型法定的緩和化，其理據在於法律規範的彈性空間與填補法律漏洞的需要。抽象的作品概念、以非物質化與技術中立的立法技術來界定具體作品類型，這使得非典型作品可通過法律解釋而得到保護。作品類型的法律漏洞主要是因技術、經濟因素造成的嗣後漏洞。準確識別法律漏洞是進行漏洞填補的前提，版權法上有意義的沉默不屬於法律漏洞，它是指表達形式的反面———不受保護的思想、程序、操作方法或數學概念等。作品法定類型的法律漏洞包括隱藏式漏洞與開放式漏洞。不同漏洞的填補方法應有所區別，但關鍵在於準確識別作品法定類型的標準特徵、否定特徵和可變特徵。應運用三步法，採用類推適用和分解類推等方式進行漏洞填補，也應允許特定情況下的整體類推。

"Different legal construction depends on how works are defined in copyright law from a closed or open catalogue of subject matters. Because of the flexibility in the concept of works and legal loopholes in statutory categories of works, courts shall provide a broad interpretation of statutory categories of works to protect atypical works, except that it is governed by the legal policy exclusive to legislator. Particularly given the abstraction in the concept of works and the legislative technique through technology neutrality and dematerialized essence, atypical works shall be protected through legal interpretation. Legal loopholes in statutory categories of works are derived from the fact that law always follows economic and social development. Therefore, identification of legal loopholes is the premise of loopholes filling. The meaningful silence in copyright law, which is not a legal loophole, refers to the reverse side of expression, such as unprotected idea, process, method and mathematical concept. Legal loopholes in statutory categories of works include hidden loopholes and open loopholes. Methods of filling depend on the nature of different loopholes, and the key is to accurately identify the features of statutory categories of works. It should adopt a classificatory system of standard, variable and contra-standard features of works and it also should adopt three-step method to fill loopholes, which include reasoning by analogy or disintegration analogy to statutory categories of works, and reasoning by ensemble analogy to works concept under certain circumstances."