Mere facts do not possess originality. Therefore, they are not protected by copyright. However, if an author completes the work by incorporating its literary descriptions into selected facts, the work will not lack originality, and will meet the elements of the Copyright Act protection. Despite the defendant’s argument, the parts related to the craftsmen’s backgrounds and introductions of their arts in the disputed work, were all created by the plaintiff who had added its own polishing words to the fundamental facts. These are not mere facts. Furthermore, the contents in the disputed work were copied by “Travel with Craft Arts / Northern Taiwan” and “Travel with Craft Arts / Southern Taiwan”. It is not mere similarity of facts, but verbatim reproduction. As a result, the defendant infringes the copyright of the plaintiff. The defendant contends that, the copyright of the contents the craftsmen addressed, belongs to the craftsmen instead of the plaintiff. Nevertheless, when it comes to literary works of interview, the content of the interview itself is part of the creative materials. Moreover, oral expression and literary expression are not the same. The plaintiff did not merely convert the craftsmen’s speech and oral expressions to written words. Instead, the parts related to craftsmen’s expression in the disputed work, were filtered, reorganized and polished by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has incorporated his/her creativity into the work. Thus, the copyrights of these parts belong to the plaintiff.

Literary Works, Originality