轉化才是王道？論合理使用原則轉化性要素之適用與影響

Is Tranformativeness the Superior Criterion? Study on the Application and Impacts of Copyright Fair Use Transformative Element

美國著作權法第107條合理使用原則一直是平衡公共利益，增進科學及實用藝術之發展的手段，然從該條文義中可發現，其並不打算定義何謂「合理使用」，而係「為決定對某著作之利用行為是否為合理使用」，列出應考量之判斷要件。然而，此一富有彈性的判斷標準，亦造成美國各級法院在合理使用原則之適用上產生極大的歧異。為此，美國紐約南區聯邦地方法院法官Pierre N. Leval於1990年在哈佛法學期刊發表了一篇名為「樹立合理使用之標準」的文章，提出「轉化性」之概念，並於1994年為美國最高法院於Campbell案時引用，自此，轉化性之認定幾乎與合理使用之成立畫上等號。但究竟何謂「轉化」？轉化性要素於合理使用之認定又占有如何之重要性？本文將從轉化性原則發展及確立談起，探詢Leval法官提出轉化性要素真正的用意。接著將整理、分析多位美國學者針對轉化性要素於美國著作權合理使用案件中所占重要性之實證研究，試圖找出美國聯邦各級法院對判定轉化性要素成立之軌跡。最後，藉由分析多個上訴巡迴法院判決，包括Leval法官於睽違25年後，再度對「轉化性要素」予以闡釋之Authors Guildv. Google案，本文將嘗試釐清什麼是「轉化」？本文最終強調應依美國最高法院2006年eBayv. Merc Exchange案之主旨，審慎評估禁制令之核發作為衡平著作權人與利用人間利益之配套，以避免轉化性之適用反造成對著作權人不甚合理之結果。

In the year of 1976, Fair Use Doctrine was formally embodied in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act as a basic rule to determine the ‘supersedes the object’ of the original creation, or instead adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message. This “transformative” element late been adopted in Campbell by U.S. Supreme Court and become overwhelmingly influence to the outcome of the fair use finding. What is transformation? What role is it stand for under the four-factor fair use analysis? This article will first review the developing history and purpose of this element, expecting to inquire about the true meaning of Judge Leval’s “transformativeness.” Then, this article will collate and analyze several empirical researches on the importance of “transformative” as to the fair use’ cases in the U.S., also will analyze cases hold by several U.S. Appellate Courts, including the significant case Authors Guild v. Google, Inc. hold by Judge Leval in 2015, and try to clarify the pattern that how courts apply the transformative element. And finally, this article advocate that courts should consider the Supreme Court 2006 case eBay v. MercExchange, prudent evaluate the issuance of the injunction as a balance between the copyright owner and the user in order to avoid the application of “transformative” cause unreasonable result.