General exception concerning reproduction rights - the “three-step test”

關於重製權的一般性例外規定－「三步驟檢驗」

The relevant provision is Article 9(2) of the Berne Convention, which provides as follows:

相關規定為伯恩公約第 9 條第 2 項，其規定如下：

11See Ricketson supra at 14-15.

“(2) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to permit the reproduction of such works in certain special cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.”

「上開著作得重製之特定特殊情形，依本聯盟各會員國之法律定之，惟所為重製 ， 不得牴觸著作之正常利用，亦不得不當損害著作人正當利益。」

Article 9(2) stipulates three distinct conditions that must be complied with before an exception to the reproduction right can be justified under national law:

以會員國法律正當化重製權例外規定之前，應先滿足第 9 條第 2 項所規定的三個 不同條件：

– Limitation of application to “certain special cases”;

– “Does not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work”;

– “Does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author”.

– 限於「特定特殊情形」；

– 「不得牴觸著作之正常利用」；

– 「不得不當損害著作人正當利益」。

Given the general application of this test in international law and the range of rights which it covers, the construction of the test is of major importance. There is however a paucity of case law on its interpretation; a summary of the leading case follows.

鑑於這項檢驗標準在國際法當中的普遍適用性，以及其包含的權利範圍，這項檢 驗標準的解釋事關重大。然而關於其解釋的案例法卻少見；這些重要案例摘要如下：

In June 2000 the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled on a dispute initiated by the European Union on behalf of the Irish performing rights organization. The complaint asserted that the United States of America was in contravention of its obligation under Article 13 of the TRIPS Agreement to “confine limitations or exceptions to exclusive rights to certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder.” The subject of the complaint was section 110(5) of the United States Fairness in Music Licensing Act of 1998.

This provision purported to exclude a broad range of retail and restaurant establishments from the need to obtain authorization for the public performance of musical works on their premises via radio and television transmissions. The European Union asserted that the section 110(5) exemptions violated the United States’ TRIPS obligations because they conflicted with Articles 11(1)(ii) and 11bis (1)(iii) of the Berne Convention (incorporated through Article 9(1) of TRIPS).

於 2000 年 6 月，世界貿易組織(WTO)對於歐洲聯盟代表愛爾蘭表演權利組織所提 出的爭端作出了決定。本案指控主張美國違反了 TRIPS 協定第 13 條的義務「就專屬權 所為限制或例外之規定，應以不違反著作之正常利用，且不至於不合理損害權利人之 正當利益之特殊情形為限」。本案指控標的是美國 1998 年音樂公平授權法(Fairness in Music Licensing Act of 1998)第 110 條第 5 項。據稱，該條規定對於範圍廣泛的零售業 與餐飲業，使其在場所範圍內不須取得授權，而以收音機與電視公開播放音樂著作。

歐洲聯盟主張，第 110 條第 5 項的這些例外規定違反美國的 TRIPS 義務，因為這些例 外規定抵觸了（TRIPS 第 9 條第 1 項所納入的）伯恩公約第 11 條第 1 項第 2 款及第 11 條之 2 第 1 項第 3 款。

According to the Panel’s decision, in order for a member of the WTO to avoid having an exception invalidated under TRIPS Article 13, the member must establish:

根據爭端解決小組的決定¹²，WTO 會員為避免其例外規定抵觸 TRIPS 第 13 條而 無效，該會員必須確立：

(1) That the exception is limited to a narrow and specifically defined class of uses.

(However, the member does not need to explain the local policy upon which the exception is based);

(1) 該例外規定僅限於狹窄而特定的使用種類（不過，該會員無須解釋該例外規 定的當地政策依據）；

(2) That the use conducted pursuant to the exception does not compete with actual or potential economic gain that the right holders would derive from normal exercise of the right in question; and

(2) 根據該例外規定所為之使用，不影響權利人正常行使系爭權利可得之實際或 潛在經濟收益；且

(3) That the use conducted pursuant to the exception does not unreasonably damage an interest of the right holder, such interest being derived from and compatible with general copyright objectives; the provision by the member of a compulsory license or

12 WTO Panel on United States-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Report of the Panel, WT/DS/160/R, June 15, 2000.

other compensation mechanism could be instrumental in defeating a finding of unreasonableness.

(3) 根據該例外規定所為之使用，不至於不合理損害權利人之利益，而此等利益 來自於且符合於著作權之一般性目的；會員所提供的強制授權或其他補償機制，

有助於推翻不合理之認定。

The WTO dispute resolution panel determined that the United States had, in respect of section 110(5) (B), failed to establish any of the above.

關於第 110 條第 5 項，WTO 爭端解決小組決定美國未能確立以上任何一點。

The case is of importance in the context of this study in relation to at least two questions:

在本項研究中，本案至少在二個問題上具有重要性：

– How are exceptions in national law to be applied to new uses and practices facilitated by technology and which prima facie fall within the scope of established exceptions?

– 國內法之例外規定，如何適用於科技帶來的新興使用與實務？何種例外

規定初步屬於被確立的範圍？

– Does the impact of digital reproduction and distribution technology – e.g. low marginal and transaction costs – support a reduction in the scope of exceptions where the uses they cover might conflict with a new potential market opportunity for the rights holder?

– 數位化重製與散布科技所帶來的衝擊─例如邊際成本與交易成本降低─

是否足以支持例外規定範圍減少？這些例外規定所包含的使用情形，是否與 著作權利人的新興潛在市場機會有所衝突？

The Panel Decision does not provide definitive answers to these questions but does provide some clues as to how they might be resolved. Within the context of the case in issue, the Panel conducted an extensive review of the elements of the three-step test.

對於這些問題，本案爭端解決小組的決定並未提供確定答案，不過提供了解決問 題的某些線索。在系爭本案中，對於三步驟檢驗的內容，爭端解決小組進行了廣泛的 審查。

It is noted that the three-step test is a hierarchical proposition in that compliance has to be found with each of the elements in order:

應注意的是，三步驟檢驗是一種階層性的陳述命題，是否符合必須依序認定。

– Is there a “special case” exception?

– 例外規定是否為「特殊情形」？

– If so, does the use contemplated by the exception conflict with normal exploitation?

– 若是，該例外規定的使用情形是否抵觸了正常利用？

– If not, does the use unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rights holder?

– 若否，則該使用是否不合理傷害著作權利人的正當利益？

“Certain special cases”

「特定特殊情形」

The Panel held that the scope of the exception must be well-defined (“certain”), and narrowly limited (“special”). The Panel considered whether “special” also involved a requirement that the exception relate to some worthy public purpose, but declined to undertake the evaluation of local public policy that such an interpretation requires. The Panel

“rejected interpretative tests based on the subjective aims of the national legislation.”

爭端解決小組認為，例外規定的範圍必須明確界定（特定性），且必須狹窄限制

（特殊性）。關於「特殊性」要件，該小組曾經考慮，例外規定所牽涉的公共目的是 否應當具有相當的價值，然而該小組並不願從事此等解釋所要求的當地公共政策評價 工作。該小組「拒絕以國內法主觀目的為基礎的檢驗標準解釋」。

The Panel referenced specific business statistics in determining that the exception in question could not be regarded as “narrow”: e.g. in the United States of America, 73 % of all eating establishments, 70% of all drinking establishments, and 45% of all retail establishments, fall below section 110(5)(B)’s size limits, and therefore benefit from the exemption.

爭端解決小組參考了特定的商業統計資料，以認定系爭例外規定可否被視為「狹 窄」：例如在美國之中，73%的進餐場所，70%的飲料場所，以及 45%的零售場所，屬 於第 110 條第 5 項規範之下的場地規模，因此由這項免除規定而受益。

The Panel acknowledged the possibility that new technologies could impact determination of what constituted “certain special cases,” but restricted its assessment of the exception in the particular case by reference to the capabilities of current technology.

對於新科技影響認定「特定特殊情形」的可能性，爭端解決小組加以承認，但是 在本案關於例外規定的評估，卻侷限於參考當前的科技能力。

“Does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work”

「是否抵觸著作的正常利用」

The Panel considered the term “normal” from the perspective of both actual use and potential use.

爭端解決小組由實際使用與潛在使用的觀點考量「正常」一詞。

In respect of the actual use, the Panel rejected the United States’ argument that the Panel should have regard to the bundle of rights in the work as a whole, as opposed to individual rights in isolation. The Panel stated that “possible conflict with a normal exploitation of a particular exclusive right cannot be counterbalanced or justified by a mere fact of the absence of conflict with a normal exploitation of another exclusive right, even if the exploitation of the latter right would generate more income.”

關於實際使用，爭端解決小組拒絕接受美國的論點，美國主張爭端解決小組應當將 著作的各種權利組合視為一個整體加以觀察，而非以個別權利孤立觀察。爭端解決小 組表示：「在某一項特定排他權利用上的可能抵觸情形，不因另一項排他權正常利用 未受抵觸的事實，而得以平衡或正當化，即使後者權利的利用會產生更多收益。」

As to the relationship between potential use and “normal exploitation,” the Panel referenced preparatory materials for the 1967 Stockholm Revision Conference which formulated Article 9(2) of the Berne Convention. Here it found support for the proposition that the disputed exception “should not enter into economic competition” with the right holder: according to a report of the Swedish government and BIRPI (Bureau for the Protection of Intellectual Property, the predecessor organization to WIPO), “all forms of

exploiting a work, which have, or are likely to acquire, considerable economic or practical importance, must be reserved to the authors.” The Panel went further: “Thus it appears that one way of measuring the normative connotation of normal exploitation is to consider, in addition to those forms of exploitation that currently generate significant or tangible revenue, those forms of exploitation which, with a certain degree of likelihood and plausibility, could acquire considerable economic or practical importance.”

關於潛在使用與「正常利用」之關係，爭端解決小組引用了制訂伯恩公約第 9 條 第 2 項的 1967 年斯德哥爾摩修正會議預備資料。爭端解決小組在此發現支持系爭例外 規定與著作權利人「不得有經濟競爭」的主張：根據一份瑞典政府與智慧財產保護局

（Bureau for the Protection of Intellectual Property，WIPO 組織前身）的報告，「具有或 可能有相當經濟利益的一切利用著作方式，應保留予作者。」爭端解決小組進一步表 示：「因此顯示，除了目前產生顯著或實質收益的利用方式之外，考慮在一定程度機 會與可能性時能獲得相當經濟上或實務上重要性的利用方式，是衡量正常利用規範內 涵的一個方式。」

The Panel then concluded on this point as follows: “We believe that an exception or limitation to an exclusive right in domestic legislation rises to the level of a conflict with a normal exploitation of the work (…) if uses, that in principle are covered by that right but exempted under the exception or limitation, enter into economic competition with the ways that right holders normally extract economic value from that right to the work (…) and thereby deprive them of significant or tangible commercial gains.”

關於這一點，爭端解決小組結論如下：「如果原本由某個排他權所涵蓋的使用情 形，因例外或限制規定而受到免除，以致與權利人由該著作權得正常收取的經濟利益 有經濟競爭…因此使權利人喪失顯著或實質商業收益，則我們認為，國內法中對於某 個排他權的一項例外或限制規定抵觸了該著作的正常利用。」

Professor Ginsburg comments on this finding as follows:

針對這項認定，Ginsburg 教授¹³評論如下：

“The panel indicated that current licensing practices do not necessarily define the normal extraction of economic value. These practices would not afford a “sufficient guideline” if, for example, the law of the country at issue does not confer exclusive rights in a particular use, or where, “due to lack of effective or affordable means of enforcement, right

“The panel indicated that current licensing practices do not necessarily define the normal extraction of economic value. These practices would not afford a “sufficient guideline” if, for example, the law of the country at issue does not confer exclusive rights in a particular use, or where, “due to lack of effective or affordable means of enforcement, right