《文化資產保存法》與《原住民族傳統智慧創作保護條例》的法律競合二例探討

Two Examples of Legal Coopetition Between The Cultural Heritage Preservation Act and The Protection Act for the Traditional Intellectual Creations of Indigenous Peoples

本文探討《文化資產保存法》與《原住民族傳統智慧創作保護條例》的法律競合二例。依照《文化資產保存法》指定的古物屬於有形文化資產，保管單位具有保管權。為了管理公有國寶及重要古物的複製，另訂有〈公有古物複製及監製管理辦法〉，以類似《著作權法》對於著作權重製的限制，讓保管單位得管理公有古物的複製。《原住民族傳統智慧創作保護條例》則保護原住民族得專用經認定的傳統智慧創作，如未經原住民族專用權人同意，任何人不得利用原住民族傳統智慧創作。若原住民族國寶被認定為原住民族傳統智慧創作，則保管單位及專用權人兩方皆可啟動複製，亦可阻止對方複製。第一例即為公有國寶及重要古物的保管單位，與原住民傳統智慧創作專用權人對於複製原住民族國寶或重要古物的法律競合。另依照《文化資產保存法》可指定無形文化資產的保存者，但對於保存者身分並未設定族群身分。今日已有原住民族重要無形文化資產的傳習藝生，不具原住民身分，但《原住民族傳統智慧創作保護條例》的權利主體設定為原住民族或部落，專用權人只能是原住民身分者。第二例即為原住民族重要無形文化資產保存者，與原住民傳統智慧創作專用權人的法律競合。此兩例皆需要文化部與原住民族委員會共同協商，取得共識，或可解開法律競合困境。

This study discussed two examples of legal coopetition between The Cultural Heritage Preservation Act (hereinafter“The Preservation Act”) and The Protection Act for the Traditional Intellectual Creations of Indigenous Peoples (hereinafter“The Protection Act”). Objects that are designated as antiquities in accordance with The Preservation Act are classified as tangible cultural heritage and held for safekeeping by their custodians. Similar to how the reproduction of intellectual properties is regulated under the Copyright Act, the reproduction of national treasures and significant antiquities is governed by the Regulations Governing the Reproduction and Supervised Reproduction of Public Antiquities, which allow custodians to oversee the reproduction of their public antiquities. The Protection Act protects indigenous people’s exclusive rights to use designated traditional intellectual creations and ensures that such creations will not be used by anyone else unless consented by the exclusive rights owner. If an indigenous national treasure has been designated as a traditional intellectual creation, both its custodian and the owner of exclusive rights to use it have the right to consent to the reproduction of the national treasure and to veto reproduction consented by the other. Accordingly, the first example of legal coopetition discussed in this study was between the custodians and the owners of exclusive rights to use indigenous national treasures or significant antiquities in relation to their reproduction. For intangible cultural heritage, The Preservation Act prescribes the appointment of a heritage preserver without specifying any eligibility criterion on their ethnicity, resulting in some preservers of intangible indigenous cultural heritage being nonindigenous. However, given The Protection Act’s focus on indigenous peoples and communities, an owner of exclusive rights to use indigenous intellectual creations must be an indigenous person. This conflict leads to the second example discussed in this study, namely the legal coopetition between the preservers and the owners of exclusive rights to use intangible indigenous cultural heritage. Both legal coopetition challenges require discussions between the Ministry of Culture and the Council of Indigenous Peoples to reach a mutual solution.