Publications-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
Google ScholarTM
NCCU Library
Citation Infomation
Related Publications in TAIR
題名 實質近似的判斷標準之研究- 以Mattel v. MGA一案所使用之測試標準出發
The Determination On Substantial Similarity- On case of Mattel v MGA作者 張嘉惠
Chang, Chia Hui貢獻者 宋皇志
Sung, Huang Chih
張嘉惠
Chang, Chia Hui關鍵詞 實質近似
著作權侵害
Substantial Similarity
Copyright Infringement日期 2016 上傳時間 2-Sep-2016 01:30:40 (UTC+8) 摘要 實質近似作為判斷著作權侵害要件之一，然而，我國法律對於實質近似的判斷標並無明確規定，美國亦然。我國司法實務多以「質的近似」及「量的近似」佐以「整體概念與感覺」判斷有無構成實質近似。而美國司法實務上所發展的實質近似判斷方式及標準多元且漸趨細膩。\n本文嘗試以美國第九巡迴上訴法院Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment, Inc.一案出發，從流行時裝娃娃著作權大戰之個案來探討實質近似的判斷標準，並進而延伸探討美國其他法院之實質近似的標準。本文的脈絡主要分為三大主題，首先，回溯探討美國法院於先前實質近似之探討，美國各聯邦巡迴上訴法院中，於著作權侵權案件中判斷實質近似時，可能運用不一樣的標準。甚至同一巡迴上訴法院中，判斷方式亦可能存在些微差異。然而，仍可以從重要判決中整理出實質近似大致的判斷方向：其一為 「一般觀察者測試標準」及「更敏銳一般觀察者測試標準」；其二為「外部測試法」及「內部測試法」。此二測試法於美國司法實務上不斷地被各級法院運用，有些法院會輔以其他子原則協助實質近似之判斷。\n接下來進入本文重點，探討Mattel v MGA一案所適用之用以判斷實質近似之兩階段三步驟。第一階段即外部測試階段，包含「將不受保護之元素過濾 」及「決定比對客體的保護程度及選擇適用實質近似之標準」兩步驟，前者需探討著作中的元素是否受保護，此時必須先將思想、公共領域等不受保護的元素濾除，剩下受保護的元素極為比對客體。本文嘗試蒐集案例探討不受保護元素及受保護之元素之案例，期以釐清思想與表達之間的模糊界線；後者則決定比對客體背後思想的表達範圍寬窄而選用不同的實質近似判斷標準。第二階段為內部測試階段，利用一般觀察者測試標準判斷「被告作品與原告著作是否有達到實質近似標準」。綜合比較Mattel v MGA一案與先前法院的判決中所適用實質近似判斷步驟與標準，Mattel v MGA一案似將先前判決所使用之標準加以彙整，且更細膩清楚的呈現判斷，亦開始影響後續法院如何於其他個案引用Mattel v MGA所揭示之實質近似判斷標準。最後，本文將Mattel v MGA案的實質近似判斷標準於我國有關實質近似的重要判決判斷，探討引入我國的可行性 。 參考文獻 一、中文部分\n專書\n蕭雄淋，著作權法論，五南圖書出版有限公司，2015年2月，八版。\n羅明通，著作權法論[II]，2009年9月，七版。\n謝銘洋，智慧財產權法，2012年9月，三版。\n柳婷，廣告與行銷， 五南圖書出版有限公司，第 247 頁，2000 年 9 月，初版二刷。\n\n判決\n最高法院81年度台上字第3063號民事判決。\n最高法院94年度台上字第6398號刑事判決。\n最高法院 96 年度台上字第 529 號刑事判決。\n最高法院刑事判決97年度台上字第6499號。\n最高法院99年度台上字第2314號民事判決。\n最高法院99年度台上字第2109號民事判決。\n智慧財產法院97年度民著上易字第6號民事判決。\n智慧財產法院97年度刑智上易字第00027號刑事判決。\n智慧財產法院98年度民著上易字第12號民事判決。\n智慧財產法院98年度民訴字第40號民事判決。\n智慧財產法院98年度刑智上易字第123號刑事判決。\n智慧財產法院98 年度刑智上更(三)字第 2 號。\n智慧財產法院99年度民著訴字第36號民事判決。\n智慧財產法院 100 年度民著訴字第 55 號民事判決。\n智慧財產法院100 年度民公訴字第 5 號民事判決 。\n智慧財產法院 100 年度刑智上訴 第 39 號刑事判決。\n智慧財產法院101 年度民著上易 第 7 號民事判決。\n智慧財產法院101 年度 刑智上易 第 11 號刑事判決。\n智慧財產法院101 年度民著訴字第 37 號民事判決。\n智慧財產法院101 年度 民著上字第 21 號民事判決。 \n智慧財產法院101 年度民公上字第 6 號民事判決。\n智慧財產法院101年民著訴字第20號民事判決。\n智慧財產法院 102 年度民著上字第 10 號民事判決。\n智慧財產法院103 年度刑智上易 第 34 號刑事判決。\n智慧財產法院 103 年度刑智上易字第 47 號刑事判決。\n台灣高等法院 83 年度上 易字第 2980 號刑事判決。\n台灣高等法院90年台上字第1252號。\n台灣高等法院第97年度上易字第315號刑事判決。\n臺灣高等法院臺南分院 91 年上易字第 1136 號刑事判決。\n臺灣台北地方法院 93 年智字第 25 號民事判決。\n臺灣士林地方法院 95 年智字第 8 號民事判決。\n臺灣台北地方法院99年度智易字第34號刑事判決。\n板橋地方法院 96 年度智字第 18 號民事判決。\n\n函釋\n經濟部智慧財產局民國98年2月20日智著字第09800011610號函。\n經濟部智慧財產局民國94年7月27日智著字第09400059700號函。\n經濟部智慧財產局民國103年1月24日智著字第10200105850號函。\n經濟部智慧財產局民國100 年 5 月 2 日智著第 10000038740 號函。\n經濟部智慧財產局民國100 年 5 月 3 日智著字第 10000038730 號函。\n經濟部智慧財產局民國102年7月16日電子郵件1020716b。\n經濟部智慧財產局民國102年8月22日電子郵件1020822b。\n經濟部智慧財產局民國101年 4 月 10 日電子郵件 1010410 。\n經濟部智慧財產局98年07月10日電子郵件980710a。\n\n期刊文章\n李治安，著作權侵害之認定標準：以「接觸」與「實質近似」為中心，智慧財產訴訟制度相關論文彙編第2輯，2013年12月。\n章忠信，著作權侵害之鑑定， 月旦法學雜誌第190期，2011年3月 。\n謝明洋，我國著作權法中「創作」概念 相關判決之研究，國際比較下我國著作權法總檢討，2014年12月。\n林利芝，永遠的名偵探夏洛克･福爾摩斯─自Leslie S. Klinger v. Conan Doyle Estate案探討故事角色著作權保護爭議，智慧財產權月刊，2016年1月號。\n張瑞星，論電視節目版式之著作權保護，科技法學評論第8卷第2期，2011年12月。\n黃銘傑，重製權侵害中「實質類似」要件判斷之方式與專家證人之運用-板橋地方法院 96 年度智字第 18 號判決評析，月旦法學雜誌第 189 期，2011年。\n謝銘洋，智慧財產權第六講智慧財產權之取得(一)，月旦法學教室第 5 期，2003年3月。\n\n碩士論文\n林萱茹，著作權侵害判斷模式之研究，國立交通大學科技法律研究所碩士論文，2013年7月。\n劉芊影，著作權侵害認定之研究-以整體觀念與感覺測試法為中心，國立政治大學法律研究所碩士論文，2015年7月。\n朱家毅，著作重製權的侵害與實務，國立政治大學科技管理與智慧財產研究所碩士論文，2012年6月 。\n黃柏諺，電視產業發展與智慧財產權之互動—以節目版式為中心，國立政治大學科技管理與智慧財產研究所碩士論文，2015年7月 。\n廖沛穎，討論電視節目版式之法律保護，國立臺灣大學法律學院法律學系碩士論文，2010年10月。\n\n網路資料\n章忠信，違反學術倫理與侵害著作權的差異，2007/1/20，\nhttp://www.copyrightnote.org/ArticleContent.aspx?ID=2&aid=283 。\n章忠信，「著作權」與「資料專屬權」爭議析疑，2008/8/14，\nhttp://www.copyrightnote.org/ArticleContent.aspx?ID=6&aid=2656 。\n章忠信，黃色小鴨紛擾何時了，著作權筆記，2014/1/6，\nhttp://www.copyrightnote.org/ArticleContent.aspx?ID=2&aid=444 。\n章忠信，服裝設計可否受著作權法保護？，著作權筆記，http://www.copyrightnote.org/ArticleContent.aspx?ID=3&aid=1167 。\n章忠信，「棋譜」之著作權保護，2008/11/10，\nhttp://www.copyrightnote.org/ArticleContent.aspx?ID=2&aid=339 。\n章忠信，食譜是否受著作權法保護，著作權筆記，http://www.copyrightnote.org/ArticleContent.aspx?ID=3&aid=1099 。\n楊智傑，手機軟體遊戲之保護：以俄羅斯方塊案為例，北美智權報，2014/4/2，\nhttp://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Infringement_Case/publish-86.htm。\n維基共享資源(Wikimedia Commons) https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%BB%B4%E5%9F%BA%E5%85%B1%E4%BA%AB%E8%B5%84%E6%BA%90 。\n黃泰然，「祝妳生日快樂」違法嗎？ 公共領域的保護與著作權法，2015/12/18，\nhttp://creativecommons.tw/blog/20151218。\n經濟部智慧財產局， (五)研究成果篇，https://www.tipo.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=219600&ctNode=7561&mp=1 。\n吳尚昆，雞肉三明治受著作權保護嗎？，群和律師事務所，2015/08/30，https://wulaw.wordpress.com/2015/08/30/%E9%9B%9E%E8%82%89%E4%B8%89%E6%98%8E%E6%B2%BB%E5%8F%97%E8%91%97%E4%BD%9C%E6%AC%8A%E4%BF%9D%E8%AD%B7%E5%97%8E%EF%BC%9F/ 。\n陳麗秋，美國1998年著作權延長法案的司法風波國家衛生研究院電子報，第365期，http://enews.nhri.org.tw/enews_list_new2_more.php?volume_indx=365&showx=showarticle&article_indx=7869 。\n盧美慈，超人不會飛？-- 從超人授權事件看角色著作權爭議，2011/10/31，\nhttp://creativecommons.tw/blog/20111031。\n盧美慈，虛擬角色著作權爭議--以Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer v. American Honda Motor Co.案為例，2012/03/02，http://creativecommons.tw/in-depth/586 。\n\n二、外文文獻\n專書\nRobert C. Osterberg, Eric C. Osterberg, Substantial Similarity in Copyright Law, Practice Law Institutes(2003-2016).\nMarshall A. LEAFFER, Understanding Copyright, (2005).\n 4 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright §13.03[A] (2010). \n \n判決\nNichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F.2d 119, 121 (2d Cir. 1930), cert. denied, 282 U.S. 902 (1931).\nArnstein v. Porter, 154 F.2d 464 (2d Cir. 1946).\nHamil Am., Inc. v. GFI, Inc., 193 F.3d 92, 99 (2d Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1160 (2000).\nLaureyssens v. Idea Group, Inc., 964 F.2d 131, 140 (2d Cir. 1992).\nCastle Rock Entm’t, Inc. v. Carol Publ’g Group, Inc., 150 F.3d 132, 137(2d Cir. 1998).\nRepp v. Webber, 132 F.3d 882, 889 n.1 (2d Cir. 1997).\n Denker v. Uhry, 820 F. Supp. 722 (S.D.N.Y. 1992), aff’d, 996 F.2d 301 (2d Cir. 1993).\nBoisson v. Banian, Ltd., 273 F.3d 262, (2d Cir. 2001). \nShine v. Childs, 382 F. Supp. 2d 602, (S.D.N.Y. 2005).\nJorgensen v. Epic/Sony Records, 351 F.3d 46, 56 (2d Cir. 2003). \nBlanch v. Koons, 467 F.3d 244, 252 (2d Cir. 2006).\nKing Features Syndicate v. Fleischer, 299 F. 533 (2d Cir. 1924).\nFleischer Studios v. Freundlich, 73 F.2d 276 (2d Cir. 1934).\nDetective Comics, Inc. v. Bruns Publications Inc.,111 F.2d 432 (2d Cir. 1940).\nGlover v. Austin, 289 F. App’x 430, 432 (2d Cir. 2008).\nGal v. Viacom Int’l, Inc., 518 F. Supp. 2d 526, 537 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). \nA Slice of Pie Prods., LLC v. Wayans Bros. Entm’t, 487 F. Supp. 2d 41, 47 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). \nNicholls v. Tufenkian Imp./Exp. Ventures, Inc., 367 F. Supp. 2d 514, 522 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).\nCarol Barnhart, Inc. v. Econ. Cover Corp., 773 F.2d 411, 422 (2d Cir. 1985). \nSteinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries 663 F. Supp. 706 (S.D.N.Y 1987).\nMannion v. Coors Brewing Company,377 F.Supp. 2d 444(S.D.N.Y 2006).\nKnitwaves, Inc. v. Lollytogs Ltd., Inc., 71 F.3d 996, 1002 (2d Cir. 1995).\nNovelty Textile Mills, Inc. v. Joan Fabrics Corp., 558 F.2d 1090, 1093 (2d Cir. 1977); \nPeter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Martin Weiner Corp., 274 F.2d 487, 489 (2d Cir. 1960).\nHorgan v. MacMillan, Inc., 789 F.2d 157 (2d Cir. 1986). \nCity Merchandise Inc. v. Broadway Gifts, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5629 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2009).\nM.H. Segan L.P. v.Hasbro, Inc., 924 F. Supp. 512, 520–21 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).\nBurroughs v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer,Inc.,519 F.Supp.(S.D.N.Y.1981) aff`d, 636 F.2d 1200 (2d Cir. 1982).\nCoquico, Inc. v. Rodriguez-Miranda, 562 F.3d 62, (1st Cir. 2009).\nT-Peg, Inc. v. Vt. Timber Works, Inc., 459 F.3d 97, (1st Cir. 2006). \nJohnson v. Gordon, 409 F.3d 12, ay 18-24 (1st Cir. 2005).\nLotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int’l, 49 F.3d 807, 813 (1st Cir. 1995), aff’d, 516 U.S. 233 (1996).\nConcrete Mach. Co. v. Classic Lawn Ornaments, Inc., 843 F.2d 600, 608 (1st Cir. 1988).\nNat’l Nonwovens, Inc. v. Consumer Prods. Enters., Inc., 397 F. Supp. 2d 245, 255 (D. Mass. 2005).\nSkinder-Strauss Assocs. v. Mass. Continuing Legal Educ., Inc., 914 F. Supp. 665, 670–71 (D. Mass. 1995).\nFlomerics Ltd. v. Fluid Dynamics Int’l, Inc., 880 F. Supp. 60, 62 (D. Mass. 1995).\nArvelo v. Am. Int’l Ins. Co., 875 F. Supp. 95, 99 (D.P.R.), aff’d, 66 F.3d 306 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1117 (1995).\nLittle Souls, Inc. v. Les Petits, 789 F. Supp. 56, 57 (D. Mass. 1992).\nCMM Cable Rep., Inc. v. Ocean Coast Props., Inc., 97 F.3d 1504, 1513 (1st Cir. 1996).\nSegrets, Inc. v. Gillman Knitwear Co., 207 F.3d 56, 66 n.11 (1st Cir. 2000).\nHorizon Comics Production v. Marvel Entertainment LLC, et al., No. 15-11684, D. Mass.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15659.\nNorberto Colón Lorenzana, v. South American Restaurant Corp., No. 14-1698 (1st Cir. 2015).\nKay Berry, Inc. v Taylor Gifts, Inc., 421 F.3d 199, 207-208 (3d Cir. 2005). \nDam Things from Denmark, 290 F.3d 548, 562 (3d Cir. 2002).\nFord Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Prods., Inc., 930 F.2d 277, 290 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 939 (3d Cir.1991). \nYankee Candle Co. v. Bridgewater Candle Co., 99 F. Supp. 2d 140,144 (D. Mass. 2000), aff’d, 259 F.3d 25 (3d Cir. 2001).\nFranklin Mint Corp. v. Nat’l Wildlife Art Exch., (3d Cir. 1975 Inc., 575 F.2d 62, 64 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 880 (1978).\nCMM Cable Rep., Inc. v. Keymarket Commc’ns, Inc., 870 F. Supp. 631, 637 (M.D. Pa. 1994).\nUniversal Athletic Sales Co. v. Salkeld, 511 F.2d 904, 907 (3d Cir. 1975).\nSchiffer Publ’g Ltd. v. Chronicle Books, LLC, 73 U.S.P.Q.2d 1090, 1098 (E.D. Pa. 2004).\nValue Group, Inc. v. Mendham Lake Estates, L.P., 800 F. Supp. 1228, 1233 (D.N.J. 1992).\nNat’l Risk Mgmt., Inc. v. Bramwell, 819 F. Supp. 417, 427 (E.D. Pa. 1993).\nMasquerade Novelty v. Unique Indus., 912 F.2d 663, 670-71 (3d Cir. 1990).\nPositive Black Talk, Inc. v. Cash Money Records, Inc., 394 F.3d 357, 367-68 (5th Cir. 2004).\nGen. Universal Sys., Inc. v. Lee, 379 F.3d 131, 141-42 (5th Cir. 2004).\nBridgmon v. Array Sys. Corp., 325 F.3d, 576-77 (5th Cir. 2003). \nComputer Mgmt. Assistance Co. v. Robert F. DeCastro, Inc., 220 F.3d 396 (5th Cir. 2000).\nEng’g Dynamics, Inc. v. Structural Software, Inc., 26 F.3d 1335, 1341(5th Cir. 1994).\nFerguson v. Nat’l Broad. Co., 584 F.2d, 113-14 (5th Cir. 1978).\nGaliano v. Harrah’s Operating Co., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17258 (E.D.La. Nov. 21, 2000).\nR. Ready Prods., Inc. v. Cantrell, 85 F. Supp. 2d 672 (S.D. Tex. 2000).\nKing v. Ames, 179 F.3d 370, 376 (5th Cir. 1999).\nPeel & Co. v. Rug Mkt., 238 F.3d 391, 395 (5th Cir. 2001). \nCreations Unlimited, Inc. v. McCain, 112 F.3d 814, 816 (5th Cir. 1997).\nWildlife Express Corp. v. Carol Wright Sales, Inc., 18 F.3d 502 (7th Cir. 1994).\nAtari, Inc. v. N. Am. Philips Consumer Elecs. Corp., 672 F.2d 607, 614-15 (7th Cir.), 459 U.S. 880 (1982).\nIncredible Techs., Inc. v. Virtual Techs., Inc., 284 F. Supp. 2d 1069, 1080 (N.D. Ill. 2003).\nS.A.M. Elecs., Inc. v. Osaraprasop, 39 F. Supp. 2d 1074, 1082-82 (N.D. Ill. 1999).\nFASA Corp. v. Playmates Toys, Inc., 912 F. Supp. 1124, 1127-29(N.D. Ill. 1996).\nTy, Inc. v. GMA Accessories, Inc., 959 F. Supp. 936, 942 (N.D. Ill. 1997). \nSanford v. CBS, Inc., 594 F. Supp. 711,717 (N.D. Ill. 1984).\nScott v. WKJG, Inc., 376 F.2d 467, 469 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 832(1967).\nPampered Chef, Ltd. v. Magic Kitchen, Inc., 12 F. Supp. 2d 785, 791–92 (N.D. Ill. 1998).\nTheotokatos v. Sara Lee Pers. Prods., 971 F. Supp. 332, 341 (N.D. Ill. 1997).\nN. Am. Bear Co. v. Carson Pirie Scott & Co., 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17350 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 26, 1991).\nAlpi International, Ltd v. Anga Supply, 118 F.Supp.3d 1172, (N.D.Cal 2015).\nLa Resolana Architects, PA v. Reno, Inc., 555 F.3d 1171, (10th Cir. 2009).\nCountry Kids ’N City Slicks, Inc. v. Sheen, 77 F.3d 1280, 1284 (10th Cir. 1996). \nClose to My Heart, Inc. v. Enthusiast Media LLC, 508 F. Supp. 2d 963 (D. Utah 2007). \nKindergartners Count, Inc. v. DeMoulin, 249 F. Supp. 2d 1214 (D. Kan. 2003).\nMadrid v. Chronicle Books, 209 F. Supp. 2d 1227 (D. Wyo. 2002). \nFisher v. United Feature Syndicate, Inc., 37 F. Supp. 2d 1213 (D. Colo. 1999), aff’d mem., 203 F.3d 834 (10th Cir.) (unpublished opinion available at 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 1749), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 992 (2000) .\nSportsmans Warehouse, Inc. v. Fair, 576 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (D. Colo. 2008) .\nMcRae v. Smith, 968 F. Supp. 559 (D. Colo. 1997) .\nMitel, Inc. v. Iqtel, Inc., 124 F.3d 1366, 1370 (10th Cir. 1997).\nVasquez v. Ybarra, 150 F. Supp. 2d 1157 (D. Kan. 2001).\nLa Resolana Architects, PA v. Reno, Inc., 555 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir. 2009).\nJacobsen v. Deseret Book Co., 287 F.3d 936, 943 n.5 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1066 (2002). \nMedias & Co. v. Ty, Inc., 106 F. Supp. 2d 1132 (D. Colo. 2000); Sportsmans Warehouse, Inc. v. Fair, 576 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (D. Colo. 2008).\nMeshwerks, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., 528 F.3d 1258, 1267-68 (10th Cir. 2008).\nAtkins v. Fischer, 331 F.3d 988 (D.C. Cir. 2003).\nSturdza v. United Arab Emirates, 281 F.3d 1287, 1297 (D.C. Cir. 2002).\nNelson v. Grisham, 942 F. Supp. 649, 652 (D.D.C. 1996), aff’d, 132 F.3d 1481 (D.C. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1148 (1998).\nPrunté v. Universal Music Group, 484 F. Supp. 2d 32, 41 (D.D.C. 2007) (on motion to dismiss) and 563 F. Supp. 2d 41, 43 (D.D.C. 2008) (on proposed motion for summary judgment). But see Murray Hill Publ’ns, Inc. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 361 F.3d 312, 318 (6th Cir. 2004) .\nWhitehead v. CBS/Viacom, Inc., 315 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2004).\nSid & Marty Krofft Television Prods., Inc. v. McDonald’s Corp., 562 F.2d 1157 (9th Cir. 1977).\nShaw v. Lindheim, 919 F.2d 1353 (9th Cir. 1990). \nSwirsky v. Carey, 376 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2004).\nRice v. Fox Broad. Co., 330 F.3d 1170, 1174,1176–77(9th Cir. 2003).\nCavalier v. Random House, Inc., 297 F.3d 815, 826(9th Cir. 2002).\nLitchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1052 (1985). \nMcCulloch v. Albert E. Price, Inc., 823 F.2d 316, 319 (9th Cir. 1987).\nPasillas v. McDonald’s Corp., 927 F.2d 440, 441 (9th Cir. 1991).\nJada Toys, Inc. v. Mattel, Inc., 518 F.3d 628, 636 (9th Cir. 2008).\nDr. Seuss Enters., L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., 109 F.3d 1394, 1398 (9th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 521 U.S. 1146 (1997).\nSmith v. Jackson, 84 F.3d 1213, 1218 (9th Cir. 1996).\nBrown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp., 960 F.2d 1465, 1475–76 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 869 (1992); Aliotti v. R. Dakin & Co., 831 F.2d 898, 901 (9th Cir. 1987).\nApple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1184 (1995).\nChase-Riboud v. Dreamworks, Inc., 987 F. Supp. 1222, 1226 (C.D. Cal. 1997). \nThree Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton, 212 F.3d 477, 485 (9th Cir. 2000).\nBensbargains.Net, LLC v. Xpbargains.Com 2007 WL 2385092(S.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2007).\nRoth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co 429 F.2d 1106 (9th Cir. 1970).\nBryant v. Mattel, Inc., 2008 WL 5598275 (C.D. Cal., 2008). \nMattel, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., 616 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2010).\nMattel, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment,, Inc., 782 F. Supp. 2d 911 (C.D. Cal. 2011).\nMattel, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment,, Inc., 705 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2013).\nHerbert Rosenthal Jewelry Corp. v. Kal- pakian, 446 F.2d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 1971).\nSatava v. Lowry, 323 F.3d 805, 812 (9th Cir. 2003).\nPoe v. Missing Persons, 745 F.2d 1238, 1242 (9th Cir. 1984).\nSeth Swirsky v. Mariah Carey, 376 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2004).\nMarya v. Warner/ Chappell Music (C.D. Cal 2015).\nBikram`s Yoga College of India, L.P. v. Evolation Yoga, LLC 803 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2015)ㄡ\nOpen Source Yoga Unity v. Bikram Choudhury (N.D. Cal., 4/1/05, No. C 03–3182 PJH).\nOlson v. National Broadcasting Co., 855 F.2d1446 (9th Cir. 1988).\nWarner Bros. Pictures, Inc. v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 216 F.2d 945 (9th Cir.1954).\nWalt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates, 581F.2d 751(9th Cir,1978).\nMetro-Goldwyn-Mayer v. American Honda Motor Co. 900 F. Supp. 1287 (C.D. Cal. 1995).\nSiegel et al v DC Comics et al 658 F. Supp. 2d 1036, *1052; 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78193; affirmed by 9th Circuit.\nHalicki Films v. Sanderson Sales and Marketing et al 547 F.3d 1213,1224(9th Cir.2008).\nDC Comics v Towle, 802F.3d 1012(9th Cir. 2015).\nScentsy, Inc. v. B.R. Chase, LLC., 942 F. Supp. 2d 1045 (D. Idaho 2013), aff`d in part, rev`d in part and remanded sub nom. Scentsy, Inc. v. Harmony Brands, LLC, 585 F. App`x 621 (9th Cir. 2014).\nRentmeester v. Nike, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-00113-MO, 2015 WL 3766546,6 (D. Or. June 15, 2015).\nScentsy, Inc. v. B.R. Chase, LLC., 942 F. Supp. 2d 1045 (D. Idaho 2013), aff`d in part, rev`d in part and remanded sub nom. Scentsy, Inc. v. Harmony Brands, LLC, 585 F. App`x 621 (9th Cir. 2014).\nAsset Vision, LLC v. Fielding, No. 4:13-CV-00288-BLW, 2013 WL 6633743 (D. Idaho Dec. 17, 2013).\nAsset Vision, LLC v. Fielding, No. 4:13-CV-00288-BLW, 2014 WL 7186840 (D. Idaho Dec. 16, 2014), appeal dismissed (July 2, 2015).\nLyons P’ship, L.P. v. Morris Costumes, Inc., 243 F.3d 789, 801(4th Cir. 2001).\nTowler v. Sayles, 76 F.3d 579, 583 (4th Cir. 1996);\nDawson v. Hinshaw Music, Inc., 905 F.2d 731, 732–33 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 981 (1990).\nEaton v. Nat’l Broad. Co., 972 F. Supp. 1019 (E.D. Va. 1997), aff’d, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10288 (4th Cir. May 21, 1998).\nBaldine v. Furniture Comfort Corp., 956 F. Supp. 580, 586 (M.D.N.C. 1996).\nRobinson v. New Line Cinema Corp., 42 F. Supp. 2d 578 (D. Md. 1999).\nEaton v. Nat’l Broad. Co., 972 F. Supp. 1019 (E.D. Va. 1997), aff’d, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10288 (4th Cir. May 21, 1998).\nSilver Ring Splint Co. v. Digisplint, Inc., 543 F. Supp. 2d 509, 517(W.D. Va. 2008).\nKing Records, Inc. v. Bennett, 438 F. Supp. 2d 812, 849 (M.D. Tenn. 2006) .\nKohus v. Mariol, 328 F.3d 848, 857 (6th Cir. 2003).\nComins v. Discovery Commc’ns, Inc., 200 F. Supp.2d 512, 517 (D. Md. 2002).\nData E. USA, Inc. v. Epyx, Inc., 862 F.2d 204, 210 (9th Cir. 1988).\nJohnson Controls, Inc. v. Phoenix Control Sys., 886 F.2d 1173, 1176 n.4 (9th Cir. 1989).\nConsul; Tec, Inc. v. Interface Sys., Inc., 22 U.S.P.Q.2d 1538, 1540 (E.D. Mich. 1991).\nWickham v. Knoxville Int’l Energy Exposition, Inc., 739 F.2d 1094, 1096-97 (6th Cir. 1984). \nContra Dahlen v. Mich. Licensed Beverage Ass’n, 132 F. Supp. 2d 574, 584 (E.D. Mich. 2001).\nLewinson v. Henry Holt & Co., 659 F. Supp. 2d 547, 565 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).\nGay Toys, Inc. v. Buddy L Corp., 703 F.2d 970, 973 (6th Cir. 1983).\nMoore v. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc., 972 F.2d 939, 945 (8th Cir. 1992).\nHartman v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 833 F.2d 117, 120 (8th Cir. 1987).\nRottlund Co. v. Pinnacle Corp., 452 F.3d 726, 731-32 (8th Cir. 2006). \nTaylor Corp. v. Four Seasons Greetings, LLC, 403 F.3d 958, 966 (8th Cir. 2005). \nSun Media Sys., Inc. v. KDSM, LLC, 576 F. Supp. 2d 1018, 1022 (S.D. Iowa 2008).\nSchoolhouse, Inc. v. Anderson, 275 F.3d 726, 729 (8th Cir. 2002).\nHerbert Rosenthal Jewelry Corp v. Edward and Lucy, etc., 446 F.2d 742(8th Cir. 1971).\nBird Brain, Inc. v. Menard, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11668,24 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 4, 2000).\nEllis v. Diffie, 177 F.3d 503, 506 (6th Cir. 1999).\nBenton v. Decotex, Inc., 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 26779 (6th Cir. Oct. 18, 2000).\nMarigold Foods, Inc. v. Purity Dairies, Inc., 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 14044 (6th Cir. June 10, 1992). \nStromback v. New Line Cinema, 384 F.3d 283, 294 (6th Cir. 2004).\nMurray Hill Publ’ns, Inc. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 361 F.3d 312, 318 (6th Cir. 2004). \nBridgeport Music, Inc. v. UMG Recordings, Inc., 585 F.3d 267, 274 (6th Cir. 2009).\nTiseo Architects, Inc. v. B&B Pools Serv. & Supply Co., 495 F.3d 344, 348 (6th Cir. 2007).\nBrainard v. Vassar, 625 F. Supp. 2d 608, 頁616-17 (M.D. Tenn. 2009).\nJohnson v. Foxx, 502 F. Supp. 2d 620, 623 (E.D. Mich. 2007).\nBandana Co. v. TJX Cos., 2005 Copyright L. Dec. ¶ 29,012 (W.D. Ky. 2005).\nJB Oxford & Co. v. First Tenn. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 427 F. Supp. 2d 784, 799 (M.D. Tenn. 2006).\nTomaydo-Tomahhdo, LLC, et al., v. George Vozary, et al., NO. 1:14 CV 469, (Dist. Ohio, 2015).\nHerzog v. Castle Rock Entm’t, 193 F.3d 1241, 1257 (11th Cir. 1999).\nLeigh v. Warner Bros., Inc., 212 F.3d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 2000). \nSuntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 268 F.3d 1257, 1266 (11th Cir. 2001).\nBateman v. Mnemonics, Inc., 79 F.3d 1532, 1541–42 (11th Cir. 1996).\nBenson v. Coca-Cola Co., 795 F.2d 973, 975 (11th Cir. 1986).\nBeal v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 20 F.3d 454, 460 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1062 (1994).\nJohn Alden Homes, 142 F. Supp. 2d 頁1344. 1541–42.\nUnited States v. O’Reilly, 794 F.2d 613, 615 (11th Cir. 1986).\nMitek Holdings, Inc. v. Arce Eng’g Co., 89 F.3d 1548, 1558–59 (11th Cir. 1996). \nBUC Int’l Corp. v. Int’l Yacht Council Ltd., 489 F.3d 1129, at 1148–49 (11th Cir. 2007).\nPeter Letterese & Assocs. v. World Inst. of Scientology,533 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir. 2008).\nFeist Publications, inc,. v. Rural telephone Service Company, Inc 11 S.Ct. 1282 (1991).\nMAZER v. STEIN, 347 U.S. 201, S. Ct. (1954).\n\n網路資料\nWIPO, Barbie and Bratz: the feud continues, WIPO Magazine, August 2011.\nRetrieve from\nhttp://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2011/04/article_0006.html#1.\nMATTEL, INC. v. MGA ENTERTAINMENT, INC. Retrieve from\nhttp://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020111117868/MATTEL,%20INC.%20v.%20MGA%20ENTERTAINMENT,%20INC. \nKate Taylor, Should the law protect original research? May 2013. Retrieve from\nhttp://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/kate-taylor-should-the-law-protect-original-research/article30017704/.\nDanny Cevallos, When a monkey takes a selfie ..., August 2014, http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/08/opinion/cevallos-monkey-selfie-copyright/.\nNicholas Iovino, Courthouse News Service, January 2016, Retrieve from\nhttp://www.courthousenews.com/2016/01/07/monkey-photographers-claim-is-on-the-ropes.htm \nLibrary of Congress Copyright Office, Registration of Claims to Copyright , 37 CFR Part 201 [Docket No. 2012–6] , June 2012, Retrieve from\nhttp://copyright.gov/fedreg/2012/77fr37605.pdf.\nTed Johnson, Universal, MGM Settle James Bond Copyright Case, January 2015, Retrieve from\nhttp://variety.com/2015/film/news/universal-mgm-settle-james-bond-copyright-case-1201394908/. \nDaniel Fisher, Supreme Court Dives Into Copyright Fight Over Cheerleader Uniforms, May 2016, Retrieve from\nhttp://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2016/05/02/supreme-court-dives-into-copyright-fight-over-cheerleader-uniforms/#5115361b2bf0. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
科技管理與智慧財產研究所
102364219資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1023642191 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 宋皇志 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Sung, Huang Chih en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 張嘉惠 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Chang, Chia Hui en_US dc.creator (作者) 張嘉惠 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Chang, Chia Hui en_US dc.date (日期) 2016 en_US dc.date.accessioned 2-Sep-2016 01:30:40 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 2-Sep-2016 01:30:40 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 2-Sep-2016 01:30:40 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G1023642191 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/item?item_id=114686 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 科技管理與智慧財產研究所 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 102364219 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 實質近似作為判斷著作權侵害要件之一，然而，我國法律對於實質近似的判斷標並無明確規定，美國亦然。我國司法實務多以「質的近似」及「量的近似」佐以「整體概念與感覺」判斷有無構成實質近似。而美國司法實務上所發展的實質近似判斷方式及標準多元且漸趨細膩。\n本文嘗試以美國第九巡迴上訴法院Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment, Inc.一案出發，從流行時裝娃娃著作權大戰之個案來探討實質近似的判斷標準，並進而延伸探討美國其他法院之實質近似的標準。本文的脈絡主要分為三大主題，首先，回溯探討美國法院於先前實質近似之探討，美國各聯邦巡迴上訴法院中，於著作權侵權案件中判斷實質近似時，可能運用不一樣的標準。甚至同一巡迴上訴法院中，判斷方式亦可能存在些微差異。然而，仍可以從重要判決中整理出實質近似大致的判斷方向：其一為 「一般觀察者測試標準」及「更敏銳一般觀察者測試標準」；其二為「外部測試法」及「內部測試法」。此二測試法於美國司法實務上不斷地被各級法院運用，有些法院會輔以其他子原則協助實質近似之判斷。\n接下來進入本文重點，探討Mattel v MGA一案所適用之用以判斷實質近似之兩階段三步驟。第一階段即外部測試階段，包含「將不受保護之元素過濾 」及「決定比對客體的保護程度及選擇適用實質近似之標準」兩步驟，前者需探討著作中的元素是否受保護，此時必須先將思想、公共領域等不受保護的元素濾除，剩下受保護的元素極為比對客體。本文嘗試蒐集案例探討不受保護元素及受保護之元素之案例，期以釐清思想與表達之間的模糊界線；後者則決定比對客體背後思想的表達範圍寬窄而選用不同的實質近似判斷標準。第二階段為內部測試階段，利用一般觀察者測試標準判斷「被告作品與原告著作是否有達到實質近似標準」。綜合比較Mattel v MGA一案與先前法院的判決中所適用實質近似判斷步驟與標準，Mattel v MGA一案似將先前判決所使用之標準加以彙整，且更細膩清楚的呈現判斷，亦開始影響後續法院如何於其他個案引用Mattel v MGA所揭示之實質近似判斷標準。最後，本文將Mattel v MGA案的實質近似判斷標準於我國有關實質近似的重要判決判斷，探討引入我國的可行性 。 zh_TW dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章：緒論 1\n第一節：研究背景 1\n第二節：研究動機與問題 1\n壹、實質近似並無明確法律規範的標準 1\n貳、實質近似判斷標準之名稱相似致混淆 1\n參、思想與表達的區分困難 2\n肆、著作權與商標之概念可能有相似之處 2\n第三節：研究方法與限制 3\n第四節：研究架構 3\n第二章 美國實質近似判斷標準發展探討 4\n第一節、美國各巡迴上訴法院有關實質近似所演變之主流判斷標準 4\n壹、實質近似的主流判斷方法一： 「一般觀察者測試標準」或「更敏銳觀察者測試標準」 4\n貳、實質近似的主流判斷方式二：「外部測試法」及「內部測試法」22\n參、其他實質近似判斷方式及標準 35\n第二節 、美國實質近似判斷方法之分析 40\n壹、實質近似判斷方法發展演進 40\n貳、著作權侵害判斷模式之差異間接影響實質近似之判斷 42\n參、美國法院對於「初步近似」、「實質近似」及「驚人近似」之概念混淆與釐清 44\n肆、究竟如何分離受保護的元素與不受保護的元素 45\n伍、實質近似滑動基準 45\n陸、著作權與商標有關保護範圍之探討 47\n柒、實質近似比對標準 48\n捌、「抽象測試法（abstraction test）」與「整體觀念與感覺」之探討 49\n玖、小結 50\n第三章 實質近似標準之未來發展方向？Mattel案所適用之測試法 51\n第一節：Mattel v. MGA案介紹 51\n壹、案件事實 51\n貳、訴訟歷程 51\n參、法院判決 52\n肆、本案研析 61\n第二節：Mattel測試法之操作流程及相關案例介紹 65\n壹、第一步驟：將不受保護之元素過濾- 探討著作中的元素是否受保護 66\n貳、第二步驟：決定比對客體的保護程度及第三步驟判斷是否有達到標準 92\n第三節 Mattel案所發展之實質近似測試標準影響之往後判決 100\n第四章 Mattel測試法引入我國的可行性/以我國重要判決之個案評析 111\n第一節、我國以往於實質近似利用之標準 111\n壹、實質近似的判斷客體與方式 111\n貳、實質近似的判斷角度及標準 112\n參、著作表達方式與著作權保護範圍 113\n肆、實質近似與接觸的互動 114\n伍、智慧財產局對於實質近似判斷方法的觀點 114\n第二節、將Mattel測試法試適用於我國重要判決 115\n第三節 小結 126\n第五章 結論 128\n第一節 研究結論 128\n壹、以外部/內部測試法為實質近似分析大架構 128\n貳、實質近似比對客體及著作的表達範圍 129\n參、將Mattel MGA一案所適用之標準引入我國應屬可行 129\n第二節 對後續研究之建議 130\n參考文獻 131 zh_TW dc.format.extent 2609924 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1023642191 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 實質近似 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 著作權侵害 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Substantial Similarity en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Copyright Infringement en_US dc.title (題名) 實質近似的判斷標準之研究- 以Mattel v. MGA一案所使用之測試標準出發 zh_TW dc.title (題名) The Determination On Substantial Similarity- On case of Mattel v MGA en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 一、中文部分\n專書\n蕭雄淋，著作權法論，五南圖書出版有限公司，2015年2月，八版。\n羅明通，著作權法論[II]，2009年9月，七版。\n謝銘洋，智慧財產權法，2012年9月，三版。\n柳婷，廣告與行銷， 五南圖書出版有限公司，第 247 頁，2000 年 9 月，初版二刷。\n\n判決\n最高法院81年度台上字第3063號民事判決。\n最高法院94年度台上字第6398號刑事判決。\n最高法院 96 年度台上字第 529 號刑事判決。\n最高法院刑事判決97年度台上字第6499號。\n最高法院99年度台上字第2314號民事判決。\n最高法院99年度台上字第2109號民事判決。\n智慧財產法院97年度民著上易字第6號民事判決。\n智慧財產法院97年度刑智上易字第00027號刑事判決。\n智慧財產法院98年度民著上易字第12號民事判決。\n智慧財產法院98年度民訴字第40號民事判決。\n智慧財產法院98年度刑智上易字第123號刑事判決。\n智慧財產法院98 年度刑智上更(三)字第 2 號。\n智慧財產法院99年度民著訴字第36號民事判決。\n智慧財產法院 100 年度民著訴字第 55 號民事判決。\n智慧財產法院100 年度民公訴字第 5 號民事判決 。\n智慧財產法院 100 年度刑智上訴 第 39 號刑事判決。\n智慧財產法院101 年度民著上易 第 7 號民事判決。\n智慧財產法院101 年度 刑智上易 第 11 號刑事判決。\n智慧財產法院101 年度民著訴字第 37 號民事判決。\n智慧財產法院101 年度 民著上字第 21 號民事判決。 \n智慧財產法院101 年度民公上字第 6 號民事判決。\n智慧財產法院101年民著訴字第20號民事判決。\n智慧財產法院 102 年度民著上字第 10 號民事判決。\n智慧財產法院103 年度刑智上易 第 34 號刑事判決。\n智慧財產法院 103 年度刑智上易字第 47 號刑事判決。\n台灣高等法院 83 年度上 易字第 2980 號刑事判決。\n台灣高等法院90年台上字第1252號。\n台灣高等法院第97年度上易字第315號刑事判決。\n臺灣高等法院臺南分院 91 年上易字第 1136 號刑事判決。\n臺灣台北地方法院 93 年智字第 25 號民事判決。\n臺灣士林地方法院 95 年智字第 8 號民事判決。\n臺灣台北地方法院99年度智易字第34號刑事判決。\n板橋地方法院 96 年度智字第 18 號民事判決。\n\n函釋\n經濟部智慧財產局民國98年2月20日智著字第09800011610號函。\n經濟部智慧財產局民國94年7月27日智著字第09400059700號函。\n經濟部智慧財產局民國103年1月24日智著字第10200105850號函。\n經濟部智慧財產局民國100 年 5 月 2 日智著第 10000038740 號函。\n經濟部智慧財產局民國100 年 5 月 3 日智著字第 10000038730 號函。\n經濟部智慧財產局民國102年7月16日電子郵件1020716b。\n經濟部智慧財產局民國102年8月22日電子郵件1020822b。\n經濟部智慧財產局民國101年 4 月 10 日電子郵件 1010410 。\n經濟部智慧財產局98年07月10日電子郵件980710a。\n\n期刊文章\n李治安，著作權侵害之認定標準：以「接觸」與「實質近似」為中心，智慧財產訴訟制度相關論文彙編第2輯，2013年12月。\n章忠信，著作權侵害之鑑定， 月旦法學雜誌第190期，2011年3月 。\n謝明洋，我國著作權法中「創作」概念 相關判決之研究，國際比較下我國著作權法總檢討，2014年12月。\n林利芝，永遠的名偵探夏洛克･福爾摩斯─自Leslie S. Klinger v. Conan Doyle Estate案探討故事角色著作權保護爭議，智慧財產權月刊，2016年1月號。\n張瑞星，論電視節目版式之著作權保護，科技法學評論第8卷第2期，2011年12月。\n黃銘傑，重製權侵害中「實質類似」要件判斷之方式與專家證人之運用-板橋地方法院 96 年度智字第 18 號判決評析，月旦法學雜誌第 189 期，2011年。\n謝銘洋，智慧財產權第六講智慧財產權之取得(一)，月旦法學教室第 5 期，2003年3月。\n\n碩士論文\n林萱茹，著作權侵害判斷模式之研究，國立交通大學科技法律研究所碩士論文，2013年7月。\n劉芊影，著作權侵害認定之研究-以整體觀念與感覺測試法為中心，國立政治大學法律研究所碩士論文，2015年7月。\n朱家毅，著作重製權的侵害與實務，國立政治大學科技管理與智慧財產研究所碩士論文，2012年6月 。\n黃柏諺，電視產業發展與智慧財產權之互動—以節目版式為中心，國立政治大學科技管理與智慧財產研究所碩士論文，2015年7月 。\n廖沛穎，討論電視節目版式之法律保護，國立臺灣大學法律學院法律學系碩士論文，2010年10月。\n\n網路資料\n章忠信，違反學術倫理與侵害著作權的差異，2007/1/20，\nhttp://www.copyrightnote.org/ArticleContent.aspx?ID=2&aid=283 。\n章忠信，「著作權」與「資料專屬權」爭議析疑，2008/8/14，\nhttp://www.copyrightnote.org/ArticleContent.aspx?ID=6&aid=2656 。\n章忠信，黃色小鴨紛擾何時了，著作權筆記，2014/1/6，\nhttp://www.copyrightnote.org/ArticleContent.aspx?ID=2&aid=444 。\n章忠信，服裝設計可否受著作權法保護？，著作權筆記，http://www.copyrightnote.org/ArticleContent.aspx?ID=3&aid=1167 。\n章忠信，「棋譜」之著作權保護，2008/11/10，\nhttp://www.copyrightnote.org/ArticleContent.aspx?ID=2&aid=339 。\n章忠信，食譜是否受著作權法保護，著作權筆記，http://www.copyrightnote.org/ArticleContent.aspx?ID=3&aid=1099 。\n楊智傑，手機軟體遊戲之保護：以俄羅斯方塊案為例，北美智權報，2014/4/2，\nhttp://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Infringement_Case/publish-86.htm。\n維基共享資源(Wikimedia Commons) https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%BB%B4%E5%9F%BA%E5%85%B1%E4%BA%AB%E8%B5%84%E6%BA%90 。\n黃泰然，「祝妳生日快樂」違法嗎？ 公共領域的保護與著作權法，2015/12/18，\nhttp://creativecommons.tw/blog/20151218。\n經濟部智慧財產局， (五)研究成果篇，https://www.tipo.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=219600&ctNode=7561&mp=1 。\n吳尚昆，雞肉三明治受著作權保護嗎？，群和律師事務所，2015/08/30，https://wulaw.wordpress.com/2015/08/30/%E9%9B%9E%E8%82%89%E4%B8%89%E6%98%8E%E6%B2%BB%E5%8F%97%E8%91%97%E4%BD%9C%E6%AC%8A%E4%BF%9D%E8%AD%B7%E5%97%8E%EF%BC%9F/ 。\n陳麗秋，美國1998年著作權延長法案的司法風波國家衛生研究院電子報，第365期，http://enews.nhri.org.tw/enews_list_new2_more.php?volume_indx=365&showx=showarticle&article_indx=7869 。\n盧美慈，超人不會飛？-- 從超人授權事件看角色著作權爭議，2011/10/31，\nhttp://creativecommons.tw/blog/20111031。\n盧美慈，虛擬角色著作權爭議--以Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer v. American Honda Motor Co.案為例，2012/03/02，http://creativecommons.tw/in-depth/586 。\n\n二、外文文獻\n專書\nRobert C. Osterberg, Eric C. Osterberg, Substantial Similarity in Copyright Law, Practice Law Institutes(2003-2016).\nMarshall A. LEAFFER, Understanding Copyright, (2005).\n 4 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright §13.03[A] (2010). \n \n判決\nNichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F.2d 119, 121 (2d Cir. 1930), cert. denied, 282 U.S. 902 (1931).\nArnstein v. Porter, 154 F.2d 464 (2d Cir. 1946).\nHamil Am., Inc. v. GFI, Inc., 193 F.3d 92, 99 (2d Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1160 (2000).\nLaureyssens v. Idea Group, Inc., 964 F.2d 131, 140 (2d Cir. 1992).\nCastle Rock Entm’t, Inc. v. Carol Publ’g Group, Inc., 150 F.3d 132, 137(2d Cir. 1998).\nRepp v. Webber, 132 F.3d 882, 889 n.1 (2d Cir. 1997).\n Denker v. Uhry, 820 F. Supp. 722 (S.D.N.Y. 1992), aff’d, 996 F.2d 301 (2d Cir. 1993).\nBoisson v. Banian, Ltd., 273 F.3d 262, (2d Cir. 2001). \nShine v. Childs, 382 F. Supp. 2d 602, (S.D.N.Y. 2005).\nJorgensen v. Epic/Sony Records, 351 F.3d 46, 56 (2d Cir. 2003). \nBlanch v. Koons, 467 F.3d 244, 252 (2d Cir. 2006).\nKing Features Syndicate v. Fleischer, 299 F. 533 (2d Cir. 1924).\nFleischer Studios v. Freundlich, 73 F.2d 276 (2d Cir. 1934).\nDetective Comics, Inc. v. Bruns Publications Inc.,111 F.2d 432 (2d Cir. 1940).\nGlover v. Austin, 289 F. App’x 430, 432 (2d Cir. 2008).\nGal v. Viacom Int’l, Inc., 518 F. Supp. 2d 526, 537 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). \nA Slice of Pie Prods., LLC v. Wayans Bros. Entm’t, 487 F. Supp. 2d 41, 47 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). \nNicholls v. Tufenkian Imp./Exp. Ventures, Inc., 367 F. Supp. 2d 514, 522 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).\nCarol Barnhart, Inc. v. Econ. Cover Corp., 773 F.2d 411, 422 (2d Cir. 1985). \nSteinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries 663 F. Supp. 706 (S.D.N.Y 1987).\nMannion v. Coors Brewing Company,377 F.Supp. 2d 444(S.D.N.Y 2006).\nKnitwaves, Inc. v. Lollytogs Ltd., Inc., 71 F.3d 996, 1002 (2d Cir. 1995).\nNovelty Textile Mills, Inc. v. Joan Fabrics Corp., 558 F.2d 1090, 1093 (2d Cir. 1977); \nPeter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Martin Weiner Corp., 274 F.2d 487, 489 (2d Cir. 1960).\nHorgan v. MacMillan, Inc., 789 F.2d 157 (2d Cir. 1986). \nCity Merchandise Inc. v. Broadway Gifts, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5629 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2009).\nM.H. Segan L.P. v.Hasbro, Inc., 924 F. Supp. 512, 520–21 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).\nBurroughs v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer,Inc.,519 F.Supp.(S.D.N.Y.1981) aff`d, 636 F.2d 1200 (2d Cir. 1982).\nCoquico, Inc. v. Rodriguez-Miranda, 562 F.3d 62, (1st Cir. 2009).\nT-Peg, Inc. v. Vt. Timber Works, Inc., 459 F.3d 97, (1st Cir. 2006). \nJohnson v. Gordon, 409 F.3d 12, ay 18-24 (1st Cir. 2005).\nLotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int’l, 49 F.3d 807, 813 (1st Cir. 1995), aff’d, 516 U.S. 233 (1996).\nConcrete Mach. Co. v. Classic Lawn Ornaments, Inc., 843 F.2d 600, 608 (1st Cir. 1988).\nNat’l Nonwovens, Inc. v. Consumer Prods. Enters., Inc., 397 F. Supp. 2d 245, 255 (D. Mass. 2005).\nSkinder-Strauss Assocs. v. Mass. Continuing Legal Educ., Inc., 914 F. Supp. 665, 670–71 (D. Mass. 1995).\nFlomerics Ltd. v. Fluid Dynamics Int’l, Inc., 880 F. Supp. 60, 62 (D. Mass. 1995).\nArvelo v. Am. Int’l Ins. Co., 875 F. Supp. 95, 99 (D.P.R.), aff’d, 66 F.3d 306 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1117 (1995).\nLittle Souls, Inc. v. Les Petits, 789 F. Supp. 56, 57 (D. Mass. 1992).\nCMM Cable Rep., Inc. v. Ocean Coast Props., Inc., 97 F.3d 1504, 1513 (1st Cir. 1996).\nSegrets, Inc. v. Gillman Knitwear Co., 207 F.3d 56, 66 n.11 (1st Cir. 2000).\nHorizon Comics Production v. Marvel Entertainment LLC, et al., No. 15-11684, D. Mass.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15659.\nNorberto Colón Lorenzana, v. South American Restaurant Corp., No. 14-1698 (1st Cir. 2015).\nKay Berry, Inc. v Taylor Gifts, Inc., 421 F.3d 199, 207-208 (3d Cir. 2005). \nDam Things from Denmark, 290 F.3d 548, 562 (3d Cir. 2002).\nFord Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Prods., Inc., 930 F.2d 277, 290 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 939 (3d Cir.1991). \nYankee Candle Co. v. Bridgewater Candle Co., 99 F. Supp. 2d 140,144 (D. Mass. 2000), aff’d, 259 F.3d 25 (3d Cir. 2001).\nFranklin Mint Corp. v. Nat’l Wildlife Art Exch., (3d Cir. 1975 Inc., 575 F.2d 62, 64 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 880 (1978).\nCMM Cable Rep., Inc. v. Keymarket Commc’ns, Inc., 870 F. Supp. 631, 637 (M.D. Pa. 1994).\nUniversal Athletic Sales Co. v. Salkeld, 511 F.2d 904, 907 (3d Cir. 1975).\nSchiffer Publ’g Ltd. v. Chronicle Books, LLC, 73 U.S.P.Q.2d 1090, 1098 (E.D. Pa. 2004).\nValue Group, Inc. v. Mendham Lake Estates, L.P., 800 F. Supp. 1228, 1233 (D.N.J. 1992).\nNat’l Risk Mgmt., Inc. v. Bramwell, 819 F. Supp. 417, 427 (E.D. Pa. 1993).\nMasquerade Novelty v. Unique Indus., 912 F.2d 663, 670-71 (3d Cir. 1990).\nPositive Black Talk, Inc. v. Cash Money Records, Inc., 394 F.3d 357, 367-68 (5th Cir. 2004).\nGen. Universal Sys., Inc. v. Lee, 379 F.3d 131, 141-42 (5th Cir. 2004).\nBridgmon v. Array Sys. Corp., 325 F.3d, 576-77 (5th Cir. 2003). \nComputer Mgmt. Assistance Co. v. Robert F. DeCastro, Inc., 220 F.3d 396 (5th Cir. 2000).\nEng’g Dynamics, Inc. v. Structural Software, Inc., 26 F.3d 1335, 1341(5th Cir. 1994).\nFerguson v. Nat’l Broad. Co., 584 F.2d, 113-14 (5th Cir. 1978).\nGaliano v. Harrah’s Operating Co., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17258 (E.D.La. Nov. 21, 2000).\nR. Ready Prods., Inc. v. Cantrell, 85 F. Supp. 2d 672 (S.D. Tex. 2000).\nKing v. Ames, 179 F.3d 370, 376 (5th Cir. 1999).\nPeel & Co. v. Rug Mkt., 238 F.3d 391, 395 (5th Cir. 2001). \nCreations Unlimited, Inc. v. McCain, 112 F.3d 814, 816 (5th Cir. 1997).\nWildlife Express Corp. v. Carol Wright Sales, Inc., 18 F.3d 502 (7th Cir. 1994).\nAtari, Inc. v. N. Am. Philips Consumer Elecs. Corp., 672 F.2d 607, 614-15 (7th Cir.), 459 U.S. 880 (1982).\nIncredible Techs., Inc. v. Virtual Techs., Inc., 284 F. Supp. 2d 1069, 1080 (N.D. Ill. 2003).\nS.A.M. Elecs., Inc. v. Osaraprasop, 39 F. Supp. 2d 1074, 1082-82 (N.D. Ill. 1999).\nFASA Corp. v. Playmates Toys, Inc., 912 F. Supp. 1124, 1127-29(N.D. Ill. 1996).\nTy, Inc. v. GMA Accessories, Inc., 959 F. Supp. 936, 942 (N.D. Ill. 1997). \nSanford v. CBS, Inc., 594 F. Supp. 711,717 (N.D. Ill. 1984).\nScott v. WKJG, Inc., 376 F.2d 467, 469 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 832(1967).\nPampered Chef, Ltd. v. Magic Kitchen, Inc., 12 F. Supp. 2d 785, 791–92 (N.D. Ill. 1998).\nTheotokatos v. Sara Lee Pers. Prods., 971 F. Supp. 332, 341 (N.D. Ill. 1997).\nN. Am. Bear Co. v. Carson Pirie Scott & Co., 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17350 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 26, 1991).\nAlpi International, Ltd v. Anga Supply, 118 F.Supp.3d 1172, (N.D.Cal 2015).\nLa Resolana Architects, PA v. Reno, Inc., 555 F.3d 1171, (10th Cir. 2009).\nCountry Kids ’N City Slicks, Inc. v. Sheen, 77 F.3d 1280, 1284 (10th Cir. 1996). \nClose to My Heart, Inc. v. Enthusiast Media LLC, 508 F. Supp. 2d 963 (D. Utah 2007). \nKindergartners Count, Inc. v. DeMoulin, 249 F. Supp. 2d 1214 (D. Kan. 2003).\nMadrid v. Chronicle Books, 209 F. Supp. 2d 1227 (D. Wyo. 2002). \nFisher v. United Feature Syndicate, Inc., 37 F. Supp. 2d 1213 (D. Colo. 1999), aff’d mem., 203 F.3d 834 (10th Cir.) (unpublished opinion available at 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 1749), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 992 (2000) .\nSportsmans Warehouse, Inc. v. Fair, 576 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (D. Colo. 2008) .\nMcRae v. Smith, 968 F. Supp. 559 (D. Colo. 1997) .\nMitel, Inc. v. Iqtel, Inc., 124 F.3d 1366, 1370 (10th Cir. 1997).\nVasquez v. Ybarra, 150 F. Supp. 2d 1157 (D. Kan. 2001).\nLa Resolana Architects, PA v. Reno, Inc., 555 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir. 2009).\nJacobsen v. Deseret Book Co., 287 F.3d 936, 943 n.5 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1066 (2002). \nMedias & Co. v. Ty, Inc., 106 F. Supp. 2d 1132 (D. Colo. 2000); Sportsmans Warehouse, Inc. v. Fair, 576 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (D. Colo. 2008).\nMeshwerks, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., 528 F.3d 1258, 1267-68 (10th Cir. 2008).\nAtkins v. Fischer, 331 F.3d 988 (D.C. Cir. 2003).\nSturdza v. United Arab Emirates, 281 F.3d 1287, 1297 (D.C. Cir. 2002).\nNelson v. Grisham, 942 F. Supp. 649, 652 (D.D.C. 1996), aff’d, 132 F.3d 1481 (D.C. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1148 (1998).\nPrunté v. Universal Music Group, 484 F. Supp. 2d 32, 41 (D.D.C. 2007) (on motion to dismiss) and 563 F. Supp. 2d 41, 43 (D.D.C. 2008) (on proposed motion for summary judgment). But see Murray Hill Publ’ns, Inc. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 361 F.3d 312, 318 (6th Cir. 2004) .\nWhitehead v. CBS/Viacom, Inc., 315 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2004).\nSid & Marty Krofft Television Prods., Inc. v. McDonald’s Corp., 562 F.2d 1157 (9th Cir. 1977).\nShaw v. Lindheim, 919 F.2d 1353 (9th Cir. 1990). \nSwirsky v. Carey, 376 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2004).\nRice v. Fox Broad. Co., 330 F.3d 1170, 1174,1176–77(9th Cir. 2003).\nCavalier v. Random House, Inc., 297 F.3d 815, 826(9th Cir. 2002).\nLitchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1052 (1985). \nMcCulloch v. Albert E. Price, Inc., 823 F.2d 316, 319 (9th Cir. 1987).\nPasillas v. McDonald’s Corp., 927 F.2d 440, 441 (9th Cir. 1991).\nJada Toys, Inc. v. Mattel, Inc., 518 F.3d 628, 636 (9th Cir. 2008).\nDr. Seuss Enters., L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., 109 F.3d 1394, 1398 (9th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 521 U.S. 1146 (1997).\nSmith v. Jackson, 84 F.3d 1213, 1218 (9th Cir. 1996).\nBrown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp., 960 F.2d 1465, 1475–76 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 869 (1992); Aliotti v. R. Dakin & Co., 831 F.2d 898, 901 (9th Cir. 1987).\nApple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1184 (1995).\nChase-Riboud v. Dreamworks, Inc., 987 F. Supp. 1222, 1226 (C.D. Cal. 1997). \nThree Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton, 212 F.3d 477, 485 (9th Cir. 2000).\nBensbargains.Net, LLC v. Xpbargains.Com 2007 WL 2385092(S.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2007).\nRoth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co 429 F.2d 1106 (9th Cir. 1970).\nBryant v. Mattel, Inc., 2008 WL 5598275 (C.D. Cal., 2008). \nMattel, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., 616 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2010).\nMattel, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment,, Inc., 782 F. Supp. 2d 911 (C.D. Cal. 2011).\nMattel, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment,, Inc., 705 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2013).\nHerbert Rosenthal Jewelry Corp. v. Kal- pakian, 446 F.2d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 1971).\nSatava v. Lowry, 323 F.3d 805, 812 (9th Cir. 2003).\nPoe v. Missing Persons, 745 F.2d 1238, 1242 (9th Cir. 1984).\nSeth Swirsky v. Mariah Carey, 376 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2004).\nMarya v. Warner/ Chappell Music (C.D. Cal 2015).\nBikram`s Yoga College of India, L.P. v. Evolation Yoga, LLC 803 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2015)ㄡ\nOpen Source Yoga Unity v. Bikram Choudhury (N.D. Cal., 4/1/05, No. C 03–3182 PJH).\nOlson v. National Broadcasting Co., 855 F.2d1446 (9th Cir. 1988).\nWarner Bros. Pictures, Inc. v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 216 F.2d 945 (9th Cir.1954).\nWalt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates, 581F.2d 751(9th Cir,1978).\nMetro-Goldwyn-Mayer v. American Honda Motor Co. 900 F. Supp. 1287 (C.D. Cal. 1995).\nSiegel et al v DC Comics et al 658 F. Supp. 2d 1036, *1052; 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78193; affirmed by 9th Circuit.\nHalicki Films v. Sanderson Sales and Marketing et al 547 F.3d 1213,1224(9th Cir.2008).\nDC Comics v Towle, 802F.3d 1012(9th Cir. 2015).\nScentsy, Inc. v. B.R. Chase, LLC., 942 F. Supp. 2d 1045 (D. Idaho 2013), aff`d in part, rev`d in part and remanded sub nom. Scentsy, Inc. v. Harmony Brands, LLC, 585 F. App`x 621 (9th Cir. 2014).\nRentmeester v. Nike, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-00113-MO, 2015 WL 3766546,6 (D. Or. June 15, 2015).\nScentsy, Inc. v. B.R. Chase, LLC., 942 F. Supp. 2d 1045 (D. Idaho 2013), aff`d in part, rev`d in part and remanded sub nom. Scentsy, Inc. v. Harmony Brands, LLC, 585 F. App`x 621 (9th Cir. 2014).\nAsset Vision, LLC v. Fielding, No. 4:13-CV-00288-BLW, 2013 WL 6633743 (D. Idaho Dec. 17, 2013).\nAsset Vision, LLC v. Fielding, No. 4:13-CV-00288-BLW, 2014 WL 7186840 (D. Idaho Dec. 16, 2014), appeal dismissed (July 2, 2015).\nLyons P’ship, L.P. v. Morris Costumes, Inc., 243 F.3d 789, 801(4th Cir. 2001).\nTowler v. Sayles, 76 F.3d 579, 583 (4th Cir. 1996);\nDawson v. Hinshaw Music, Inc., 905 F.2d 731, 732–33 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 981 (1990).\nEaton v. Nat’l Broad. Co., 972 F. Supp. 1019 (E.D. Va. 1997), aff’d, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10288 (4th Cir. May 21, 1998).\nBaldine v. Furniture Comfort Corp., 956 F. Supp. 580, 586 (M.D.N.C. 1996).\nRobinson v. New Line Cinema Corp., 42 F. Supp. 2d 578 (D. Md. 1999).\nEaton v. Nat’l Broad. Co., 972 F. Supp. 1019 (E.D. Va. 1997), aff’d, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10288 (4th Cir. May 21, 1998).\nSilver Ring Splint Co. v. Digisplint, Inc., 543 F. Supp. 2d 509, 517(W.D. Va. 2008).\nKing Records, Inc. v. Bennett, 438 F. Supp. 2d 812, 849 (M.D. Tenn. 2006) .\nKohus v. Mariol, 328 F.3d 848, 857 (6th Cir. 2003).\nComins v. Discovery Commc’ns, Inc., 200 F. Supp.2d 512, 517 (D. Md. 2002).\nData E. USA, Inc. v. Epyx, Inc., 862 F.2d 204, 210 (9th Cir. 1988).\nJohnson Controls, Inc. v. Phoenix Control Sys., 886 F.2d 1173, 1176 n.4 (9th Cir. 1989).\nConsul; Tec, Inc. v. Interface Sys., Inc., 22 U.S.P.Q.2d 1538, 1540 (E.D. Mich. 1991).\nWickham v. Knoxville Int’l Energy Exposition, Inc., 739 F.2d 1094, 1096-97 (6th Cir. 1984). \nContra Dahlen v. Mich. Licensed Beverage Ass’n, 132 F. Supp. 2d 574, 584 (E.D. Mich. 2001).\nLewinson v. Henry Holt & Co., 659 F. Supp. 2d 547, 565 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).\nGay Toys, Inc. v. Buddy L Corp., 703 F.2d 970, 973 (6th Cir. 1983).\nMoore v. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc., 972 F.2d 939, 945 (8th Cir. 1992).\nHartman v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 833 F.2d 117, 120 (8th Cir. 1987).\nRottlund Co. v. Pinnacle Corp., 452 F.3d 726, 731-32 (8th Cir. 2006). \nTaylor Corp. v. Four Seasons Greetings, LLC, 403 F.3d 958, 966 (8th Cir. 2005). \nSun Media Sys., Inc. v. KDSM, LLC, 576 F. Supp. 2d 1018, 1022 (S.D. Iowa 2008).\nSchoolhouse, Inc. v. Anderson, 275 F.3d 726, 729 (8th Cir. 2002).\nHerbert Rosenthal Jewelry Corp v. Edward and Lucy, etc., 446 F.2d 742(8th Cir. 1971).\nBird Brain, Inc. v. Menard, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11668,24 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 4, 2000).\nEllis v. Diffie, 177 F.3d 503, 506 (6th Cir. 1999).\nBenton v. Decotex, Inc., 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 26779 (6th Cir. Oct. 18, 2000).\nMarigold Foods, Inc. v. Purity Dairies, Inc., 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 14044 (6th Cir. June 10, 1992). \nStromback v. New Line Cinema, 384 F.3d 283, 294 (6th Cir. 2004).\nMurray Hill Publ’ns, Inc. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 361 F.3d 312, 318 (6th Cir. 2004). \nBridgeport Music, Inc. v. UMG Recordings, Inc., 585 F.3d 267, 274 (6th Cir. 2009).\nTiseo Architects, Inc. v. B&B Pools Serv. & Supply Co., 495 F.3d 344, 348 (6th Cir. 2007).\nBrainard v. Vassar, 625 F. Supp. 2d 608, 頁616-17 (M.D. Tenn. 2009).\nJohnson v. Foxx, 502 F. Supp. 2d 620, 623 (E.D. Mich. 2007).\nBandana Co. v. TJX Cos., 2005 Copyright L. Dec. ¶ 29,012 (W.D. Ky. 2005).\nJB Oxford & Co. v. First Tenn. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 427 F. Supp. 2d 784, 799 (M.D. Tenn. 2006).\nTomaydo-Tomahhdo, LLC, et al., v. George Vozary, et al., NO. 1:14 CV 469, (Dist. Ohio, 2015).\nHerzog v. Castle Rock Entm’t, 193 F.3d 1241, 1257 (11th Cir. 1999).\nLeigh v. Warner Bros., Inc., 212 F.3d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 2000). \nSuntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 268 F.3d 1257, 1266 (11th Cir. 2001).\nBateman v. Mnemonics, Inc., 79 F.3d 1532, 1541–42 (11th Cir. 1996).\nBenson v. Coca-Cola Co., 795 F.2d 973, 975 (11th Cir. 1986).\nBeal v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 20 F.3d 454, 460 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1062 (1994).\nJohn Alden Homes, 142 F. Supp. 2d 頁1344. 1541–42.\nUnited States v. O’Reilly, 794 F.2d 613, 615 (11th Cir. 1986).\nMitek Holdings, Inc. v. Arce Eng’g Co., 89 F.3d 1548, 1558–59 (11th Cir. 1996). \nBUC Int’l Corp. v. Int’l Yacht Council Ltd., 489 F.3d 1129, at 1148–49 (11th Cir. 2007).\nPeter Letterese & Assocs. v. World Inst. of Scientology,533 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir. 2008).\nFeist Publications, inc,. v. Rural telephone Service Company, Inc 11 S.Ct. 1282 (1991).\nMAZER v. STEIN, 347 U.S. 201, S. Ct. (1954).\n\n網路資料\nWIPO, Barbie and Bratz: the feud continues, WIPO Magazine, August 2011.\nRetrieve from\nhttp://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2011/04/article_0006.html#1.\nMATTEL, INC. v. MGA ENTERTAINMENT, INC. Retrieve from\nhttp://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020111117868/MATTEL,%20INC.%20v.%20MGA%20ENTERTAINMENT,%20INC. \nKate Taylor, Should the law protect original research? May 2013. Retrieve from\nhttp://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/kate-taylor-should-the-law-protect-original-research/article30017704/.\nDanny Cevallos, When a monkey takes a selfie ..., August 2014, http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/08/opinion/cevallos-monkey-selfie-copyright/.\nNicholas Iovino, Courthouse News Service, January 2016, Retrieve from\nhttp://www.courthousenews.com/2016/01/07/monkey-photographers-claim-is-on-the-ropes.htm \nLibrary of Congress Copyright Office, Registration of Claims to Copyright , 37 CFR Part 201 [Docket No. 2012–6] , June 2012, Retrieve from\nhttp://copyright.gov/fedreg/2012/77fr37605.pdf.\nTed Johnson, Universal, MGM Settle James Bond Copyright Case, January 2015, Retrieve from\nhttp://variety.com/2015/film/news/universal-mgm-settle-james-bond-copyright-case-1201394908/. \nDaniel Fisher, Supreme Court Dives Into Copyright Fight Over Cheerleader Uniforms, May 2016, Retrieve from\nhttp://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2016/05/02/supreme-court-dives-into-copyright-fight-over-cheerleader-uniforms/#5115361b2bf0. zh_TW
