3D列印之著作權議題研究-以實用性物品之設計保護為核心

Abstract

3D列印技術最早可以被追溯到18世紀，直到2012年英國經濟學人期刊表示3D列印技術將引爆第三次工業革命後，全球各國與產業界更加投入於此。直至今日，世界智慧財產權組織(WIPO)於2015年公布的《世界智慧財產報告》仍將3D列印列為三大前鋒技術之一，Gartner在2016年所提出之年度預測中，亦表示3D列印在2017年仍是最重要之技術之一，本文研究發現其具備設計靈活、材料多樣、一體成型、以及材料節省等特性，在技術與設備逐漸成熟、價格降低等因素下，業界已將其運用在產品製造的各個階段－設計、製造、銷售、與維修階段，且根據研究許多企業亦對於3D列印抱持正面、積極之態度，可見3D列印技術之價值。本文因此以3D列印技術為對象討論，並討論所涉及之著作權議題。\n 本文觀察到在3D列印中有兩個值得關注的部分，首先，由於其可使用多種材料製作多樣列印成品，當中包括了實用性物品之設計，即兼具藝術性與實用性之創作，會產生是否可受著作權保護之疑問，以及不同於純藝術之創作，為避免給予保護後將逾越著作權之立法精神，是否需要適用額外之著作權保護要件之問題；其次，由於3D列印在製造過程中，可分為建模階段、列印階段，當中涉及空間轉換之情形，因此會產生我國著作權法上如何評價此議題之疑問，本文針對以上兩部分進行研究，透過我國與美國實務與學說見解，分析與提出建議。\n 根據我國著作權法之規範，本文認為我國著作權法在圖形著作與美術著作中係有兼具實用性與藝術性之創作類型存在，惟過去我國實務在美術著作僅以「手工」、「一品製作」之「美術工藝品」，本文認為專利法與著作權法並非互斥，有雙重保護之可能下，應揚棄「手工」、「一品製作」要件，縱使獲得設計專利保護、或屬於「機械」、「大量製造」之工業設計，亦可獲得著作權保護，因此本文建議修正「美術工藝品」用語為「應用美術」。接著是否需額外著作權保護要件上，本文發現我國判決曾引用美國著作權法之實用性原則之內涵，同時研究後認為在美國Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc.案後，統一適用步驟與標準，解決以往美國實務與學說所產生之矛盾與爭議，建議我國可以修法引進實用性原則，便於實務操作、判斷。\n 在著作空間轉換議題，主要爭議是來自於立法沿革，目前實務、主管機關與學說見解共識在於著作於平面轉立體時，並非一概屬於實施行為，而不受著作權規範。實務、主管機關表示需視「立體物實際展現之內容」判斷為重製、改作、或實施，對此學說有不同意見，主要爭議在於考量因素與實施意義認定之差異，本文研究後提出著作空間轉換模型，以利實務判斷，並認為立體轉為平面亦可以同理判斷。\n 最後，在3D列印之CAD檔案與列印成品可著作性上，本文認為最主要的問題除了實用性原則外，尚包括原創性部分，原創性之判斷會受到不同創作方式影響，但仍有受到著作權保護之可能。在實用性原則部分，Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc.案最高法院所提出標準相較以往更為寬鬆，本文認為若採取此見解，將會更容易取得著作權保護，對於3D列印創作人較為有利。

3D printing can be traced back to the 18th century at the earliest time. After The Economist Journal said 3D printing is one of important breakthroughs leading to the factory of the future and digital manufacturing, amount to the third industrial revolution in 2012, countries and industries around the world paid more attention on it. Until now, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) published new WIPO report in 2015 and shows three frontier technologies that hold the potential to boost future economic growth are 3D printing, nanotechnology and robotics. In Gartner’s 2017 annual predictions about the future of 3D printing, Gartner also said that 3D printing is still one of the most important technologies. This thesis finds that \n3D printing has the characteristics of flexible design, diversified materials, production in one-step and products without cost penalties in manufacturing, and so on. As the technology and equipment gradually mature and price decreases, the industry has applied 3D printing to various stages of producing- design, manufacturing, distribution, and after-sale service. According to the studies that many companies also have a positive attitude towards 3D printing. For the above reasons, this thesis therefore discusses 3D printing technology, and focuses on the copyright issues of it. \n This thesis discovers that there are two questions worthy of attention in 3D printing. First of all, because there are many materials used for 3D printing to produce a variety of printed products, including the design of useful articles, which are both artistic and utilitarian products. It will call into questions whether the design of useful articles is copyrightable or not, and if the answer is yes, what is the protection scope? Second, there are two stages in the process of 3D printing- executing Computer-Aided design file (CAD file) stage and printing stage involved in space conversion (2D-3D, 3D-2D) question. This thesis focuses on the above two questions, and refers to the scholars’ and the courts’ opinions of U.S. and R.O.C copyright law to propose some advice and opinions.\n For the first question, this thesis conclusion is that the design of useful articles is protectable in R.O.C copyright law, which might be pictorial and graphical works or artistic works. Besides, it is not reasonable to add two elements of applied arts- craftsman and only one production. After the Supreme Court held in Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc. that it proposed unified and appropriate test for implementing the useful article doctrine, the useful article doctrine becomes easier to apply. Therefore it might be a good solution to decide whether the design of useful articles is copyrightable or not, and if the answer is yes, what is the protection scope? For the second question, it happened because of amendment of R.O.C copyright law, and this thesis proposes a model to assist judgment.\n Last but not least, this thesis shows that the most two important elements determine whether the design of useful articles is copyrightable or not are originality and the useful article doctrine. According the opinions about Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, the unified test for implementing the useful article doctrine becomes easily accessible and will beneficial for creators to be protected by U.S. copyright law.