合理使用於數位圖書搜尋之適用—以Google Book Search為中心

Abstract

Google自2004年4月開始推行一項史無前例的大規模圖書數位化計畫—Google Book Search，其藉由與數座大型圖書館合作，將館藏書籍進行全文掃描，並提供使用者於網路上快速搜尋圖書內文之服務。此計畫雖有利於資訊傳播、文化發展與民眾搜尋暨近用著作之權利，惟因Google所數位化重製的著作中，包含了上百萬本仍在著作權保護期間內，且並未獲得授權之圖書，遂引發許多侵權疑慮，美國作家協會與美國出版商協會更於2005年相繼對Google提起侵權之訴，指控Google所為涉嫌「大規模的侵害著作權法」。

本案涉訟3年後，在承審法院尚未就被告Google所為是否構成合理使用下達實體判決前，兩造便於2008年10月達成和解協議，但由於協議內容授權Google利用包括孤兒著作等尚在著作權保護期間內的著作，引發了出版界、著作權人與美國司法部之反對聲浪，因此，Google復於2009年提出修訂後的和解協議，惟法院仍然以其涉嫌違反美國聯邦民事訴訟法第23條、反托拉斯法以及著作權法為由，於2011年3月22日否決了該修訂後的和解協議。

雖然Google Book Search計畫有侵權之虞，但其對於促進學術研究、文化發展與縮小城鄉間智識差距等公益有著極大的助力，本文藉由探討合理使用、DMCA以及延伸性集體授權機制適用於Google Book Search計畫之可行性，對於圖書搜尋計畫未來的發展方向，以及孤兒著作可能的解決之道，提出修法建議，以期作為日後研究之參考。

Since December 2004, Google has undertook an unprecedented, large-scale book digitized project—Google Book Search (GBS), Google has entered into partnerships with the world’s largest and most prestigious libraries with the goal of scanning and digitizing their collections, and offered a convenient online book search services. Even though GBS was conducive to communications, cultural developments and it would benefit the public information-searching rights, there was liability for copyright infringement due to Google's scanning of millions of copyrighted books without the authorization. In 2005, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers (AAP) brought copyright infringement lawsuits against Google, claiming that Google’s use was a “plain and brazen violation of copyright law”.

After three years of litigation, but before the court could rule on the fair use argument, in October 2008, Google and the plaintiffs announced the settlement agreement, but because the settlement would allow Google to use and sell access to millions of copyrighted books, which raised doubts and difficult questions for discussion. In response to objections from publishers, rightholders and the U.S. Department of Justice, Google produced the Amended Settlement Agreement (ASA) in 2009. On March 22, 2011, the district court rejected the ASA because Google was likely to infringe Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, antitrust and copyright laws.

In spite of the suspected infringement of copyright, this project, GBS, would promote the progress of science and the useful arts as well as narrow the knowledge gap between rural and urban areas. By examining the feasibility of the fair use, DMCA and the system of extended collective licensing in GBS case, this article trying to establish what is permissible with respect to book search projects, and suggesting a possible legislative solution to the orphan works problem.