2012 Min Zhu Shang Yi Zi No. 5
|Decision No.||2012 Min Zhu Shang Yi Zi No. 5|
|Date||June 13, 2013|
1.On January 10th, 2006, the Association of Mineral Oil (hereinafter referred to as “AMO”) delegated the Chia Nan University of Pharmacy and Science (hereinafter referred to as “CNU”) to conduct the research plan in dispute, titled “The Investigation of the Sustainable Use of the Mineral Oil Resource and the Construction of the Database”. The appellee was the principle investigator (PI) of this project, proven by a letter of appointment for the research plan attached to the volume, with AMO as Party A and CNU as Party B. The aforementioned fact is undisputed and may be regarded as truth.
2.Moreover, the cost of CNU to conduct the research plan was NTD 637,500, funded by AMO, and was received by CNU with a receipt held by AMO. The fact is also undisputed. After the research project was completed, CNU, the implementer of this project, offered the final report. This can be proved by the final report of the research plan, offered by the appellee. Therefore, the work in dispute was funded by AMO and created by CNU. If their agreement stipulates that the commissioning party is the author, then the author of the work is AMO in this case. Otherwise, the commissioned CNU shall be the author of the work. Therefore, pursuant to Article 12 Paragraph 1, we can confirm that appellee may not be the author of the work.
3.In addition, pursuant to Article 12 Paragraph 1, 2 of the Copyright Act (modified on January 21, 1998), if the commissioned CNU is the author, economic right to such work shall be assigned through contractual stipulation to either the commissioning or commissioned party. Where no such stipulation has been made, the economic right shall belong to the commissioned person, CNU in this case. Therefore, the economic right of the work belongs to either the commissioning or commissioned party, i.e. AMO or CNU. There is no reason for the economic right to belong to the appellee.
II.If the commissioning party-AMO is not the author of the work, then the author could only be the commissioned party-CNU, not the appellee, as mentioned above. It is confirmed by both parties that the appellee conducted the commissioned research program in performance of his job duties. Thus we can infer that the work is completed by the employee within the scope of employment. Pursuant to Article 11 Paragraph 1 of the Copyright Act, the appellee is the author of the work. However, there was no stipulation regarding the enjoyment of economic right made by the commissioned party and the appellee. This can be proven by the document offered by CNU on May, 9 2013, and is not in dispute. Thus pursuant to Article 11 Paragraph 2 of the Copyright Act (modified on January 21, 1998), if the employee is the author of a work, the economic right to such work shall be owned by the employer. According to the facts of this case, CNU did not make any agreement stipulating that the economic right to such work shall be owned by appellee. Therefore the economic right of the work cannot be owned by the appellee, pursuant to Article 11 Paragraph 1 & 2 of the Copyright Act (modified on January 21, 1998). Hence, there is no reason that the appellee could claim that the economic right is infringed and request for compensation, pursuant to Article 88 Paragraph 1, 3 of the Copyright Act (modified on July 9, 2003) and Article 184 Paragraph 1 of the Civil Law.
Work Completed Within the Scope of Employment
|Relevant statutes||Article 11 and 12 of the Copyright Act Amended on 1998, Jan, 21|
- Release Date:2020-11-13