Fw: [閒聊] 智財局新條文

看板PublicIssue作者lyu0001 (omega-3)時間11年前 (2014/04/26 02:11)推噓0(0推 0噓 0→)

留言0則, 0人參與討論串1/1

※ [本文轉錄自 C_Chat 看板 #1JMRt3Tc ] 作者: belmontc (￣▽￣＃) 看板: C_Chat 標題: Re: [閒聊] 智財局新條文時間: Fri Apr 25 09:43:27 2014 ※ 引述《KawasumiMai (闇に沈んだ刃)》之銘言： : http://www.epza.gov.tw/info.aspx?pageid=5550d9477f17eece&cid=409f8f9caca9df05 : http://www.tipo.gov.tw/dl.asp?filename=44314544971.doc : 1.契約有寫，依照契約上的 : 2.契約上沒註明，你圖是老闆的 : ............台灣啊.... 其實這真的沒啥好爭議. 因為就只是照抄美國的koberight law(誤以下條文: § 201 . Ownership of copyright1 (a) Initial Ownership. — Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work. The authors of a joint work are coowners of copyright in the work. (b) Works Made for Hire. — In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright. (c) Contributions to Collective Works. — Copyright in each separate contribution to a collective work is distinct from copyright in the collective work as a whole, and vests initially in the author of the contribution. In the absence of an express transfer of the copyright or of any rights under it, the owner of copyright in the collective work is presumed to have acquired only the privilege of reproducing and distributing the contribution as part of that particular collective work, any revision of that collective work, and any later collective work in the same series. 後面多的就不貼了有興趣自己查阿,既然條文明定僱傭契約會受到拘束, 那我想對於其他以"接案"類型的承攬或是委任應該影響是還好而已至於法學常識中的雇傭委任承攬我就不在這邊介紹了那已經拉太遠另外有趣的是很想說這些智慧財產局的人弄這些其實問題一堆阿... 首先,我們這次抄的是美國的版權法, 要知道美國版權法沒有所謂著作人格權能看到的也頂多是用一些法院的判決先例去補述出著作人格的部分以及106A的姓名表示權跟著作內容完整權, 根本不如柏恩公約對於著作人格權要求的完整, 而且這些東西是90年代The Visual Artists Rights Act才弄出來的, 只有針對視覺藝術表演者...至於圖書文學? 抱歉再聯絡所以著作人格權上,這東西是歐陸來的,美國的版權法中, 原則上,你有著作財產權=你有完整的著作權,不會再跑出一個啥著作人格權但是而我們的法規既然採用伯恩公約搞出著作財產權跟著作人格權卻又修法採用(抄襲)美國的....只能說呵呵 (雖然我很贊同美國的著作權法的規定,但是我不能接受這種牛頭接馬尾的立法...) 是說這些同人或二創有沒有影響....沒有阿因為二創同人本來就是游走在既存不法情狀,但是未被告發的灰色空間至於二創拿來營業用合不合法? 我只能說所有未經授權的二創都是盜版,至於盜版合不合法...? 我是知道有一批人很喜歡幫模型Ｏ悟護航說"笨呆又沒動作哪來的非法盜版" -- ▍ ▆▅▂ ▁▃ ▋ ▊▊▋﹨ ▆︼ ▊▎ ▃◥ ▁▅ ▊ ▉ ▊▍ 信 ◥ ▍ ◥ ㄟ ▊▊∥▏\◥▅▃︻— ▊▊▎▲▄▅◣▄▊▋|▊ ▊▍奈丹 ▆ ▆▂ ▏ ▏▏▏ ′′￣ \ ◢▲◥▊▏▎ ∥▋ ▋▋▎の羽 ▉ ︳ ◥▎ ∥▋▎ ▔︼◤◢▼/▊|▉ ▊▉ 野長 ▊ ∥ ∥ ◣◣▍ , ▅︼_▆ ∥ ▋ ▍▊▎ 望秀 ∥ ︳ ∥▉▋▆▃◣ ◢ ▇▎▲▍▍▂ ▍ -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 59.126.55.241 ※ 文章網址: http://www.ptt.cc/bbs/C_Chat/M.1398390211.A.766.html ※ 編輯: belmontc (59.126.55.241), 04/25/2014 09:50:39

→

SCLPAL

04/25 10:30, , 1^F

04/25 10:30, 1^F

推

MIshad

04/25 10:33, , 2^F

04/25 10:33, 2^F

→

SCLPAL

04/25 10:35, , 3^F

04/25 10:35, 3^F