兩岸著作人格權針對法人為著作人之保護與救濟

Protection and Relief for Violations of the Moral Rights of Authors as Juridical Persons in Taiwan and China

法人得以為著作人，且同時享有著作財產權和著作人格權，例如：中國大陸著作權法第9條第2項，便為如此之規定。然我國經濟部智慧財產局，於2015年10月所公布之著作權法修正草案第三稿（以下稱草案第三稿）第20條第1項，乃有所修正，使法人消滅之後，關於其著作人格權之保護，並不視同存續。這雖然有助於解決現行著作權法（以下稱本法）第86條，並無提供法人消滅後，其著作人格權救濟之規定的缺失；只是這樣之修法，依現行本法第11條、第12條之規定，得以契約約定為著作人，並由其享有著作人格權，但於消滅後，卻按草案第三稿第20條第1項之規定，其著作人格權不視同存續；如此，雖有權利之享有，但卻無救濟之途徑，而這不但違反平等原則，且使法人於消滅後，第三人可任意改變法人著作人之名稱，並竄改其著作之內容，甚至公開發表其未公開之著作等。故如此之修法，將造成法人著作失去其完整性。是以，本文擬對此次公布之草案第三稿中，對於將法人之著作人格權排除的立法，來進行評估，乃先從兩岸法人著作人之保護、救濟法制的比較為本，並輔以伯恩公約（BemeConvention)、兩岸學說及實務之見解，來討論法人賦予著作人格權保護與救濟之必要性。此外，現行社會在著作權保護觀念不成熟之情況下，就著作人格權保護主體這部分，不應因自然人、法人之差異，而有不相同之保護與救濟方式，藉以保護法人著作之完整性。

Authors are defined as juridical persons with both economic and moral rights in Article 9, Section 2, of the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The Taiwan’s Copyright Act amendment, third edition (Copyright Act amendment, third edition), states in Section 1 that the protection of the moral rights of authors as juridical persons has been removed and authors shall not be deemed to be the same as when it was in existence. This amendment is helpful in clarifying that there is no relief for violations of moral rights once juridical personhood has been terminated based on Articles 18 and 86 of the Taiwan Copyright Act. However, this amendment cannot solve the problems that arise from an employment situation when the commissioning party is an author under the exception in Articles 11 and 12 of the Taiwan Copyright Act. This is because authors as juridical persons cannot be deemed to be the same as when the protection was in existence under Section 1 of the Copyright Act amendment described above. Furthermore, this not only violates the principle of impartiality but also gives rise to the possibility that anyone can change authors’ names or contents of works and publicly release these works, making them incomplete. This article evaluates whether the protection of moral rights for authors as juridical persons is excluded under the amendment to the Copyright Act, and discusses necessary protections and relief for violations of moral rights for authors as juridical persons under the Berne Convention, in addition to discussing legal theory and judicial opinions on the matters in Taiwan and Mainland China. In addition, the present analysis emphasizes the importance of providing similar protections and relief for authors as juridical persons, especially because copyright protection is not popular in Taiwan; the necessary protections and relief for works written by juridical persons is critical to protect their integrity.