權利耗盡原則與所有權取得

Abstract

由智慧財產法院97年度刑智上易字第43號與智慧財產法院98年度刑智上易字第32號二則判決可見，出租權是否因權利耗盡原則而耗盡，端視著作原件或合法重製物之持有人是否為所有權人，而所有權人之認定，智慧財產法院於判決中指出，須依物權法之規定判斷，並承認基於善意取得之所有權人，亦適用權利耗盡理論。值得探究的是出租權耗盡原則與善意取得之適用是否有所扞格，詳言之，權利人若未同意重製物流通於交易市場，而持有該重製物者卻因善意取得之規定享有所有權，此時如適用權利耗盡規定，是否符合權利耗盡原則之精神。我國權利耗盡原則規定於著作權法第59條之1與第60條，二者均以「著作原件或其合法著作重製物之所有人」為適用要件，立法例上係參照美國著作權法第109條而來。有別於此，德國著作權法中關於權利耗盡原則之規定，係以「經散布權人之同意」為適用要件，其運作模式與立法精神或有不同，故本文選擇以德國立法例作為比較法之研究對象，期能自不同面向探究權利耗盡原則之基本精神，從而對我國權利耗盡原則提供參考與建議。

It is mentioned in the two judgments of the Intellectual Property Court of Taiwan that the exhaustion doctrine for the rental right depends on whether the holder of the original work or lawful copy is owner. The ownership is determined in according to the property law, so that the provision of gaining property with good faith is also applicable for the exhaustion doctrine. Therefore, if the lawful copy is available in the market without the agreement of the copyright holder, the holder of the lawful copy will become owner and can sell the copy legally without gaining the agreement of the copyright holder. This article will exam whether this explanation is in line with the purpose to protect distribution right. Furthermore, in view of the different legislation of the exhaustion of Copyright in Taiwan and Germany, this article attempts to pursue the meaning and purpose of exhaustion doctrine and makes some suggestions for the legislation and application of exhaustion doctrine.