Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Taiwan

This talk page may have a limited number of watchers. Issues concerning the copyright rules of Taiwan may get more attention if a notice of the discussion here is given at a general page like Commons:Village pump/Copyright or Commons talk:Freedom of panorama.

臺灣郵票是否為著作權法之標的？

@Taiwania Justo, Wcam, and 0xbbb6ad: ^^ --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

著作权法律并无针对邮票提出特殊规定，故应与其他著作相同，见[1]。--Wcam (talk) 03:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Consider removing "Louis Vuitton" case under TOO Taiwan or not?

@Wcam: Some months ago, you added this case, now with the consideration of Commons:Deletion requests/File:TWSE logo.svg, I would say, is this really fair? As that bag isn't photographed in Taiwan (but in the Netherlands), as like what I agree 117.136.55.98 said within that DR page, this will lead people to consider Taiwan as "a pirate of TOO in other countries", just image, that if one day UK government judged that Wikivoyage logos are beyond their very low COM:TOO UK, does that mean that we must stop Wikivoyage movements in UK? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: I do not think the Louis Vuitton case needs to be removed, as it can give us a better idea of what the TOO standard in Taiwan is, so the community can assess whether other images from Taiwan exceed TOO. Although Taiwan's judicial system can rule on works not from Taiwan, here we need guidance to judge works from Taiwan and such rulings can be helpful. --Wcam (talk) 12:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Wcam: Well, you cited a Dutch bag as example, to which you pointed to another, and wrong, judicial jurisdiction area, under such cases, It would really be expound to let the Brexit-done United Kingdom to ban Wikivoyage just based on their very low COM:TOO UK (again, fair for you?!). That said, please in the next time, list Taiwanese examples, not citing Dutch examples, thx. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: Let me put it in other words. Next time if we see an image from Taiwan that is very similar to this LV pattern, we would know that the image exceeds Taiwan's TOO. The fact that the LV pattern is not from Taiwan does not really matter. --Wcam (talk) 12:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunatelly, @Wcam: , you really need to read Clindberg's comment on your deletion request: special:diff/560765825, this is an utilitarian, utilitarian and utilitarian bag, so it won't be copyrighted in US. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama for 2D Works

FoP is also applicable to the outdoor 2D artwork. According to Intellectual Property Right Journal (智慧財產權月刊) issue 192, which published by Intellectual Property Office, Ministry of Economic Affairs, the competent authority of copyrights in Taiwan, An article says that base on the 58 Article of Copyright Act (ROC), sell a postcard with photo of outdoor painted doesn't need authorization. (「拍攝彩繪村房舍外牆塗鴉的照片，並製作成明信片販賣，是符合著作權法第58條合理使用之規定，而不用取得塗鴉創作者的授權。」)--Reke (talk) 11:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Reke: Feel free, and be bold to update it, if you believe that that is true. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I've already edited it before I left the message. This is for those who don't know why I did that.--Reke (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Reke, the reasoning of this article is very strange. Isn't selling a postcard with a photo of outdoor graffiti a behavior that reproduces an artistic work for the purpose of selling copies of it (Article 58(4) of Copyright Law of Taiwan)?

FoP provisions in Japan and Taiwan are nearly the same. It is strange that there are different conclusions on 2D art works in Commons.

這篇文章的說理十分奇怪，拍攝彩繪村房舍外牆塗鴉的照片，並製作成明信片販賣，顯然屬於台灣著作權法第58條第4款之例外情形（專門以販賣美術著作重製物為目的所為之重製）。

台灣著作權法的FoP條款幾乎就是日本著作權法第46條的翻版，維基共享資源上對兩地平面藝術作品的處理不同，讓我感到十分詫異。 Teetrition (talk) 09:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

台湾专长智慧财产权的教授章忠信对该情形有不同看法[2]，认为「將戶外塗鴉攝製成APP圖像，是重製或改作之行為」，故以攝影方式拍攝戶外塗鴉非屬「專門以販賣美術著作重製物為目的所為之重製」之行為。--Wcam (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

依该教授该文之观点，至少忠实重制仍不属于合理使用。本项目页面正文似仍须加笔以释明之。

另附日本著作权法第46条之规定供对比：

（英文译本来自“

日本法令外国語訳データベースシステム

”，该站允许在表明出处的情况下自由使用乃至商用其内容。中文为本人所译。）

第四十六条　美術の著作物でその原作品が前条第二項に規定する屋外の場所に恒常的に設置されているもの又は建築の著作物は、次に掲げる場合を除き、いずれの方法によるかを問わず、利用することができる。
四　専ら美術の著作物の複製物の販売を目的として複製し、又はその複製物を販売する場合

Article 46 It is permissible to exploit an artistic work the original copy of which is permanently installed in an outdoor location as provided for in paragraph (2) of the preceding Article or an architectural work, in any way whatsoever except the following:
(iv) reproducing an artistic work for the purpose of selling copies of it, or selling those copies.

第四十六条　于前条第二项所规定的（译者注，即街道、公园等向其他向公众开放或建筑物外壁等一般公众容易看见之）户外场所恒常设置之美术作品之原作或建筑作品，除下列情形外，得以任何方法利用之：
四　专门以贩卖美术作品复制物为目的复制，或贩卖该复制物的

Teetrition (talk) 00:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

另外从“其爭執點在於該行為是否屬於第四款所稱之‘專門以販賣美術著作重製物為目的所為之重製’而應另外取得授權”一句来看，至少非忠实重制也是存在争议的。台湾著作权法第65条第2款列举了4项需要考虑的行为，和中国大陆一样为权利限制之行为设置了判断是否合理的基准，某种有严重损害著作权人利益之虞但符合各本条权利限制规定之要件之行为（一般是商用）会不会在台湾法律实务中被认为不属于合理使用仍是需要考虑的问题：

著作之利用是否合於第四十四條至第六十三條所定之合理範圍或其他合理使用之情形，應審酌一切情狀，尤應注意下列事項，以為判斷之基準：
一、利用之目的及性質，包括係為商業目的或非營利教育目的。
二、著作之性質。
三、所利用之質量及其在整個著作所占之比例。
四、利用結果對著作潛在市場與現在價值之影響。

Teetrition (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

章忠信是民間研究學者（儘管他的意見確實對台灣公部門有一定影響力），但《智慧財產權月刊》是由主管此事務的行政機關發行。兩者若有衝突，行政機關解釋效力應該高過其他的文章。而那段文字已經夠清晰，幾乎沒什麼可以歧義的部分。如果有任何問題，或許可以向智慧局詢問。 Reke (talk) 06:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@Reke，感謝閣下回覆，惟須閣下注意，該刊出版機關雖為台灣行政機關，然而該問答欄目亦為該刊編者解答，未經法定程序在效力上仍是非官方解釋，不見得在效力上高於其他學者之解讀。例如閣下所附文章連結所對應刊號的《智慧財產權月刊》第1頁目錄，《專利權之無體性質對專利侵權訴訟程序之影響》一文係張哲倫先生所作，經Google查詢其係台灣理律法律事務所之律師，試問他的文章是否也具有行政機關解釋的效力？答案顯然是否定的。

並且，正如我在之前的討論中所言，這篇文章的說理十分奇怪，台灣著作權法不允許未經授權「專門以販賣美術著作重製物為目的所為之重製」，如果他人忠實重製室外美術作品並販賣之（比如以明信片的形式）顯然構成前述合理使用範圍之外的行為。該文列出了第58條的該例外情況，卻在得出結論時對其視而不見，將其說是編者的疏忽甚至錯誤也不為過。且本項目頁面正文表示「OK for outdoor 2D works」，另一方面又在講「Reproductions of artistic works are thus only for non-commercial purposes」，顯然是自相矛盾。維基共享資源上的資源要求可商用，這是不言而喻的。 Teetrition (talk) 07:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

就我所知，他們這樣解釋的著眼點不在「商用」，而是不認為那是「著作重製物」。對戶外地點的藝術創作，他們對「著作重製物」的解釋上是形式上的重複，例如以建築重現建築、以壁畫方式複製壁畫……所以壁畫被攝影後製成明信片並不被認為是著作的重製物。 Reke (talk) 08:01, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

何為「重製」台灣著作權法第3條已有表述：

本法用詞，定義如下：
五、重製：指以印刷、複印、錄音、錄影、攝影、筆錄或其他方法直接、間接、永久或暫時之重複製作。於劇本、音樂著作或其他類似著作演出或播送時予以錄音或錄影；或依建築設計圖或建築模型建造建築物者，亦屬之。

如果閣下稱第58條第4款之「重製」僅限於形式一致的重複，還請提供出處。 Teetrition (talk) 08:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

沒有文獻，確實這是口頭詢問得知的他們「可能」的想法。目前也沒有確切證據指出該刊物的解釋是錯誤的，但該刊物的表述是很直接，最不需要透過推理來討論能或不能販售的。除非有法院判例更實質的證據，不然我不認為維基人可以用維基人自身對法條的解釋推論而推翻之，逕行認定為編者疏失。 Reke (talk) 08:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

對了，我再看章忠信文章，其實裡面寫的是『所謂「專門以販賣美術著作重製物為目的所為之重製」，應係指應係指將美術著作「原樣重製」後加以販售，而不包括其他「具創作性之重製」。以攝影方式拍攝戶外塗鴉，進一步做成APP圖像，縱有販售行為，應仍非屬「專門以販賣美術著作重製物為目的所為之重製」之行為。』究其主張，著作權上並未違法；至若損失部分可另求賠償，應屬民事範圍；不包括其他具創作性之重製，也符合我說的只有原樣重製（以壁畫重製壁畫…等)才算在58條的負面表列情況中。 Reke (talk) 08:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

另外，如果立法者想要將第58條第4款規定為相同形式的重複，那麼仿照第1款、第2款的格式規定「以相同方式重製美術著作」（或者再加上販賣目的）即可，不必特地再換一種句式。

另外閣下所稱的「以建築重現建築」係第1款之明文規定，閣下是否混淆了編者是在對哪一款進行解釋？

第五十八條　於街道、公園、建築物之外壁或其他向公眾開放之戶外場所長期展示之美術著作或建築著作，除下列情形外，得以任何方法利用之：
一、以建築方式重製建築物。
二、以雕塑方式重製雕塑物。
三、為於本條規定之場所長期展示目的所為之重製。
四、專門以販賣美術著作重製物為目的所為之重製。

至於閣下提到的章之文章，其文所要表述的意思很清楚，即「原樣重製」會構成著作權侵權。文章的案例不是原樣重製，他當然得出的是「非屬……」的結論。我在前面的討論說得很清楚，「至少忠實重製仍不屬於合理使用。本項目頁面正文似仍須加筆以釋明之。」 Teetrition (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

忠實重製就…沒有法律定義。然後章文也沒有冒出這兩個字，加上智慧局刊物就那樣解釋。我現在才想問「忠實重製」是只要用照片拍壁畫就算，還是有什麼法條上的操作定義，可以讓我們據以闡述呢？我還是回頭講，原以為章忠信的文章跟智慧局刊物矛盾，現在看起來並無矛盾。(你要堅持章文沒有直接提到忠實重製，與智慧局刊物指涉不同也行，總之沒有矛盾)我認為加其他的解釋反而是維基人自己過多推論，甚至自行以無專業的解釋去推翻行政機關答覆了。 Reke (talk) 08:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

我所使用的「忠實重製」請直接將其視為章文的「原樣重製」的同義語，亦即沒有創造性的重製（章文亦指出「……應係指應係指將美術著作『原樣重製』後加以販售，而不包括其他『具創作性之重製』」，亦即二者係對義語）。我用「忠實重製」主要是因為維基共享資源的多個模板採用了這個詞（例如{{Licensed-PD-Art}}中的「在多數司法管轄區，忠實重製平面藝術作品的照片……」）。

舉例而言，我正在參與的提刪的天安門毛澤東像就屬於忠實重製，參見File:Mao Zedong portrait.jpg。

另外我也提到了本頁正文中的矛盾之處，可以看出原本添加「Reproductions of artistic works are thus only for non-commercial purposes」一句的維基人同樣認為平面藝術著作不能適用FoP（否則也不會存在閣下對本頁面FoP相關論述的修改）。 Teetrition (talk) 08:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

另已向該刊電郵詢問該問題，如得回覆自是更好。 Teetrition (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

為避免我以無專業的解釋來推翻刊物問答欄目之回答，下面還是再補充一些著書之觀點。

前文重複的「應係指應係指」疑為錄入錯誤，章在其著書中有正確版本：「應係指禁止將美術著作『原樣重製』後加以販售」（章忠信，著作權法逐條釋義，五南圖書出版股份有限公司（下略作「五南」），2019年9月五版，第176頁「四」之第3至4行）。

另有其他著書之觀點供閣下參考，但這些觀點均比章文更激進，有鑒之前討論已形成雕塑可拍照上傳共享資源之共識，此處尚無意推翻之（雖然該共識似乎主要依靠章文）：

• 蕭雄淋、裴騰：以雕塑為主要對象拍照並印於明信片為第4款所不許（蕭雄淋，新著作權法逐條釋義（二），五南，1996年版，第164頁之4；蕭雄淋，著作權法論，五南，2015年八版，第198頁之（四）；裴騰，老師開講 智慧財產權法 科，新保成出版事業有限公司，105年12月六版，第460頁4之①）【蕭雄淋（現任或曾）任律師、國立台北大學法律系兼任副教授、經濟部智慧財產局著作權法修正諮詢委員會委員、同機構著作權審定暨調解委員會委員、著作權法諮詢顧問、修法諮詢小組委員、內政部著作權法修正諮詢委員會委員】
• （考慮到著作權問題此處轉述其觀點）簡啟煜，解釋「專門」一詞時認為，對雕塑攝影對外販賣照片當然屬於第58條第4款之情形；製成明信片且照片面積占絕大比例時亦應與販賣照片等視。（簡啟煜，著作權法案例解析，元照出版有限公司，2017年9月四版，第398頁）
• 林洲富，在解釋第58條第4款時舉例稱，以拍攝雕塑為主要對象並將該照片印於明信片加以販賣，其屬於美術著作重製物。（林洲富，著作權法—案例式，五南，2017年8月四版，第109頁）【林洲富（現任或曾）任智慧財產法院法官、民事智慧財產類型特殊專業法官、台灣高等法院法官、台中地方法院審判長，係國立中正大學法律學研究所博士】

另外如前所述，日本和台灣的FoP規定幾乎一致，前述蕭逐條釋義一書亦引用內政部資料並與德日對比後稱台灣限制（指修改前的舊法）較德日嚴格（同書第162頁）。日語維基百科方針草案（將戶外美術作為攝影對象的照片的使用方針）中「解說」一節之「

次に掲げる場合を除き、いずれの方法によるかを問わず、利用することができる

」（除下列情形外不問何方法均得利用之）部分，亦表明「

日本法においては、屋外美術写真はフリーではない

」（在日本法下，戶外美術作品照片不夠自由）。 Teetrition (talk) 13:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

---

@Reke: 以下內容摘錄自諮詢智慧財產局著作權組後得到的電子郵件回覆，依照其慣例下月（2022年12月）月初即會刊載在此處（屆時閣下可驗證之），而依照同局政府網站資料開放宣告，此處進行註明出處（智慧財產局著作權組）的轉載：

至於如拍攝戶外彩繪牆塗鴉（美術著作）並將其製成明信片販售，是否構成本法第58條第4款「專門以販賣美術著作重製物為目的所為之重製」之情形，原則上如係以特定美術著作作為「攝影主題」或「拍攝重點」，並將該照片印製於明信片上，再加以販售，應屬第58條第4款之情形，利用人不得依本款主張合理使用；惟如係將該等美術著作作為人物照或其他風景照之襯托背景，而該美術著作係屬「附隨存在」於照片內(而非攝影重點)，則有依本法第58條第4款主張合理使用之空間。至於本局智慧財產權月刊192期(第77頁)所述得依本法第58條主張合理使用之情形僅限於上述「附隨利用」他人戶外美術著作之情形，惟為避免造成誤解，本局將撤除本頁相關內容，併予說明。

此時以上討論似可終結且依維基共享資源之方針，平面美術作品不得被作爲攝影主題或拍攝重點上傳，除非方針容忍「專門販賣」這種極端的商業使用行爲。一同ping@Wcam。--Teetrition (talk) 06:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

補足：可參見此處揭載的第192期，可見第77頁已缺位，此處亦已撤下「智慧財產權園地」欄目（日後可能會有更改）。惟閣下最初所給連結還能訪問，然而該連結別處似乎難以找到入口，可能係舊版網站連結。 Teetrition (talk) 07:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

另外再「原創研究」一番：

之前說臺灣的著作權法第58條基本是日本著作權法第46條（法條見前面的討論）的翻版，這句話需要再補充一點。臺灣著作權法第58條之規定是1992年修改成現在這樣的，在當時確確實實是把日本的著作權法第46條直接翻譯了一遍。

然而日本1999年修改了這一條，在第4款（日本稱「號」）中新增了「或販賣該複製物的」。

（參見此處之

同条第四号中「もつぱら」を「専ら」に、「複製する」を「複製し、又はその複製物を販売する」に改める。

（將同條第四號的「專門（

もつぱら

）」改爲「專門（

専ら

）」（此處僅把平假名改成了漢字寫法），「複製」改爲「複製，或販賣該複製物的」。））

究其原因，是因爲原來的條文不能規制第三人甚至重製者本人事後的販賣行爲：

如果A以其他目的重製了戶外美術作品，B將某甲重製的作品予以販賣，那麼A和B的行爲在表面上都符合修改前合理使用的規定（因爲修改前的規定只不允許重製）。

極端一點的情況，如果A以其他目的重製了戶外美術作品並以該其他目的分發之，過了很久A再進行販賣，A本人都能主張其販賣行爲是合法的（因爲當時重製時不是販賣目的，法律又沒有單獨規制販賣）。

這種情況顯然是難以接受且不符合合理使用法理的，因而日本在1999年補上了這個漏洞。然而臺灣似乎並沒有注意到這一點（實際上實務中也鮮有判例，我也看到有其他討論提到了這一點），在其著作權法中維持了其1992年翻譯的日本的舊法。

如果要依照此番說理認爲，由於用戶上傳到維基共享資源時不具有販賣目的，而其他人的販賣在法律上並未得到明文規制，因而平面美術著作也是完全符合維基共享資源的方針的，此時我也只好使用臺灣著作權法第65條之四款通行的判斷標準（實際上這個標準是把美國版權法的合理使用標準原封不動翻譯了一遍）進行反駁了。

當然，要說這個反駁是無力的我也接受，畢竟第58條講了「得以任何方法利用之」。惟願諸君注意，日本著作權法並無中國大陸、臺灣地區這樣列舉情形之後還須檢驗通行標準（不通過時仍不是合理使用）的條款，因此其全景自由條款明言「得以任何方法利用之」，原因在於其詳細規定了例外情況。然而臺灣原原本本把這幾個字抄過來，又規定通行標準，實在是在繼承域外立法時不加仔細研究、不顧條文邏輯的結果。臺灣既要檢驗通行標準，又講「得以任何方法利用之」，這樣矛盾的立法，實在教人莞爾。（針對本段（「惟願諸君注意」起），當該問題已在2014年修正（ref, pp.11-12），筆者發言時失察，但不影響其他觀點。增補於03:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)）

以上「原創研究」，若諸君認爲有理自是榮幸。 Teetrition (talk) 09:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Teetrition如果按閣下的說法，恐怕西班牙也將無法避免。 Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226 我不太明白，阁下所给的西班牙的页面不正是注明了“不确定”并且还举出了法院实际的案例吗？ Teetrition (talk) 05:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Teetrition他們的法院說不允許將相關條款解釋為可以商業使用，這不正是臺灣面臨的問題嘛？ Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226 您好，您提及“如果按閣下的說法，恐怕……”，因此我理解为您认为我的说法存在某些问题，您这么一提，我理解这不是反而在支持我的观点吗。台湾在共享资源上此前的FoP的政策便是解释为允许美术作品的FoP商业使用，在我与其他用户的提议后，现在按照不允许美术作品FoP的商用来执行，进而这些内容不能被上传到共享资源上。 Teetrition (talk) 05:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

所以我現在的要求是通過討論達成共識，顛覆閣下此前逼問誘答形成的阻礙性觀點，進而重新允許本站上傳臺灣地區美術作品，這有問題麼？ Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

没有问题，如社群能就此讨论形成新的共识，我不会有任何异议。如阁下愿意发起讨论，请您自便。 Teetrition (talk) 08:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Old photographs

According the versions of copyright law of Republic of China, if a work has been in PD before the version changed, it is still in PD by old Version.

So the old photographs "registered and taken before July 9th 1975, or unregistered and published before July 9th 1964, under jurisdiction of the Government of Republic of China", have been in PD by old version of copyright law of Republic of China. (10 years protected). These old photographs were in PD before URAA restoration date‌.

I've listed concerning articles in {{PD-ROC-oldphoto}}.--祥龍 (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I also refer to the book 《著作權法逐條釋義》（ISBN 978-957-11-7561-4）.--祥龍 (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Ditto, as Taiwanese URAA date is later than most countries. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Interior architecture, OK?

@Wpcpey: said at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Interior of Taipei 101 that freedom of panorama applies also to interior architecture, despite the law stating that the exception only applies to works "displayed on a long-term basis on streets, in parks, on outside walls of buildings, or other outdoor locales open to the public." Two sources from Taiwan Intellectual Property Office were cited: [3] and [4].

Are building interiors (not including sculptural or graphic art works within), like elaborate ceilings, staircases, and columns, covered by this FOP exception?

Pinging @Solomon203, KOKUYO, Taiwania Justo, Reke, and 廣九直通車: for some opinion or inputs. Also ping @Liuxinyu970226, A1Cafel, Ox1997cow, and Jeff G.: for additional inputs.

Translating the relevant part of the first webpage via Google Translate yields: "The second question asked is that when shooting landmarks such as the 101 building or the Taichung National Opera, in accordance with the above-mentioned Article 58 of the Copyright Law, fair use [sic/ may be the article meant panorama freedom?] can also be claimed, and there is no infringement of the copyright property rights of such architectural works, but the copyright should be followed. Article 64 of the Law stipulates that the source should be indicated."

I cannot access the second one; instead the mobile browser just made a download (in a same manner as clicking a pdf file link), and when opened I cannot see anything. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: To be honest, I previously have some lengthy discussion between Kai3952 and Reke regarding Taiwanese FOP. While Reke said that Taiwanese copyright law did leave some leeway in interpreting some ambiguous provisions, the exclusion in Section 58 of the Copyright Act is really explicit.

於街道、公園、建築物之外壁或其他向公眾開放之戶外場所長期展示之美術著作或建築著作，除下列情形外，得以任何方法利用之：
Artistic works or construction works at streets, parks, facade of buildings or any other outdoor premises open to public on a long-term basis can be exploited by any means except for the following situations:

— Article 58, in: Copyright Act

So my opinion is most likely not. Especially when combined with COM:PCP, which requires for the deletion if there are significant doubt to the copyright status of files.廣九直通車 (talk) 05:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: Sorry, I am not interested in repeating to discuss the same topic again and again. If Taiwan people who hostile to me can show more amiable, more friendly, I am happy to help them in any way that I can.--Kai3952 (talk) 06:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

According to Taiwan Intellectual Property Office, they say 拍攝"室內"裝潢的行為是將實施結果的實體物為拍攝，並不涉及著作權之侵害 (translate: The act of shooting "interior decoration is to take the actual object as a result of the implementation and does not involve copyright infringement) , so it is OK for Interior architecture photography/video。--Wpcpey (talk) 06:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Not ok per the actual law and 廣九直通車. The first link boils down to "you can make fair use of it" and the second sends a pdf file which appears to be spaced out punctuation and tables.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 13:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

P.S. Adobe made me install https://helpx.adobe.com/acrobat/kb/windows-font-packs-32-bit-reader.html but I have to run.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

P.P.S. That was about the second link. After returning home and completing mandatory Win10 updates, I will report back on this.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 16:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Here is the text in that PDF, with preservation of some formatting via poem tag:

95.04 智慧財產權月刊88 期 131
專利
􀁺 有關舉發書證之要求，智慧局說明如下：
為使舉發申請案儘早進入實體審查，即日起，有關舉發書證，於程
序審查階段，將不要求申請人必須檢附正本或原本，亦不要求影本
必須證明、釋明。惟實體審查階段，智慧局仍得依專利法施行細則
第4 條規定，請當事人檢附正本或原本，或證明影本與原本或正本
相同。
􀁺 有關申請專利案件閱卷事宜，閱卷申請人資格之限制及可供閱覽之
文件內容，智慧局已公布於網站之最新消息→佈告欄第551 項「專
利閱卷處理原則及附表」，歡迎參閱。
著作權
􀁺 使用台北101 大樓外觀設計所涉及之相關法律問題
建商未經同意以 101 大樓為背景設計房地產廣告，或在101 大樓前
拍攝廣告或將台北101 大樓之造型，作成紀念品販售或民眾自行拍
攝台北101 大樓，以該照片作成明信片，前述行為有無侵害台北金
融大樓股份有限公司之著作權，本局特提出下列說明。
我國著作權法的立法目的在於保障著作人著作權益，調和社會公共
利益，促進國家文化發展（著作權法第1 條參照），與商標法之立
法目的不同。由於著作之使用極為廣泛，可能作為識別商品或服務
來源之商標來使用，所以立體商標的形狀，如果同時符合商標法與
著作權法保護之要件，可同時取得商標權與著作權。
建築物是受著作權法保護著作之一種，如果沒有得到著作財產權人
的同意或授權，除非符合合理使用之規定，否則不能利用。又依建
築設計圖或建築模型建造建築物，或將建築物拍攝照片、做成模型
等，都是屬於著作權法所規定的「重製」行為。
132 智慧財產權月刊88 期 95.04
著作權法基於公益考量，定有許多合理使用的條文，其中針對建築
著作，在第58 條規定，於街道、公園、建築物之外壁或其他向公
眾開放之戶外場所長期展示之美術著作或建築著作，除（一）以建
築方式重製建築物。（二）以雕塑方式重製雕塑物。（三）為於本條
規定之場所長期展示目的所為之重製。（四）專門以販賣美術著作
重製物為目的所為之重製外，得以任何方法「利用」之。也就是說，
如果在向公眾開放之戶外場所長期展示之建築著作，以前述4 款方
式以外的方式利用著作時，利用人都可主張合理使用。
綜合以上說明可知，向公眾開放建築著作之合理使用空間相當寬
廣，利用著名建築物（包括著名之101 大樓）作成紀念品，或拍攝
照片、製成明信片、紙雕或海報及拍攝戲劇入鏡或做為背景等，均
屬上述四款以外的「合理使用」，均不會認為違反著作權法，不會
有著作權侵權的問題。
95.04 智慧財產權月刊88 期 133
經濟部智慧財產局台北服務處
95 年04 月份專利商標代理人義務諮詢服務輪值表
諮詢服務時間 諮詢服務項目 義務代理人
4/03(一)09:30-11:30 商標 陳雅玲
4/04(二)09:30-11:30 商標 林存仁
4/06(四)09:30-11:30 專利 甘克迪
4/07(五)14:30-16:30 專利、商標鄭憲存
4/10(一)09:30-11:30 商標 駱娟英
4/11(二)09:30-11:30 專利 金鋒琦
4/12(三)09:30-11:30 專利 陳昭誠
4/13(四)09:30-11:30 專利 王明昌
4/14(五)09:30-11:30 商標 蘇玉峰
4/17(一)09:30-11:30 商標 張文彬
4/18(二)09:30-11:30 商標 林存仁
4/19(三)09:30-11:30 專利 陳翠華
4/20(四)09:30-11:30 專利 甘克迪
4/21(五)09:30-11:30 專利、商標鄭憲存
4/24(一)09:30-11:30 商標 洪鳳儀
4/25(二)09:30-11:30 專利、商標林金東
4/26(三)14:30-16:30 專利、商標張世娟
4/27(四)09:30-11:30 專利 宿希成
4/28(五)14:30-16:30 專利、商標鄭振田
134 智慧財產權月刊88 期 95.04
經濟部智慧財產局台中服務處
95 年04 月份專利商標代理人義務諮詢服務輪值表
諮詢服務時間 諮詢服務項目 義務代理人
4/03(一)14：30─16：30 專利楊建信
4/04(二) 14：30─16：30 商標陳建業
4/06(四) 14：30─16：30 專利郭夔忠
4/07(五) 14：30─16：30 商標陳逸芳
4/10(一) 09：30─11：30 商標林鐘靈
4/12(三) 14：30─16：30 專利陳鶴銘
4/14(五) 14：30─16：30 專利施文銓
4/17(一) 09：30─11：30 商標、專利黃照雄
4/19(三) 14：30─16：30 商標吳宏亮
4/21(五)14：30─16：30 商標黃麗美
4/24(一)14：30─16：30 專利趙元寧
4/25(二)14：30─16：30 專利、商標韓瑞杰
4/26(三)14：30─16：30 專利、商標林永生
4/27(四)14：30─16：30 專利許正宜
4/28(五)14：30─16：30 專利楊崇銘
95.04 智慧財產權月刊88 期 135
經濟部智慧財產局高雄服務處
95 年04 月份專利商標代理人義務諮詢服務輪值表
諮詢服務時間 諮詢服務項目 義務代理人
4/03(一)14:30-16:30 專利、商標趙正雄
4/04(二)14:30-16:30 專利、商標陳明財
4/06(四)14:30-16:30 專利、商標楊家復
4/10(一)14:30-16:30 專利、商標李榮貴
4/11(二)14:30-16:30 專利、商標李德安
4/12(三)14:30-16:30 專利、商標王增光
4/13(四)14:30-16:30 商標 劉建萬
4/17(一)14:30-16:30 專利、商標郭同利
4/18(二)14:30-16:30 專利、商標劉永裕
4/19(三)14:30-16:30 專利 賴建良
4/20(四)14:30-16:30 商標 喬琍琍
4/24(一)14:30-16:30 專利、商標楊欽堯
4/25(二)14:30-16:30 專利、商標林進福
4/26(三)14:30-16:30 專利、商標黃茂明

And now in English:

95.04 Intellectual Property Rights issue 88 131
patents
􀁺 related to cite the requirements made the documentary evidence, the intelligence bureau as follows:
For expositions application into the real review as soon as possible, with immediate effect, the relevant expositions documentary evidence, in the process
sequence the review stage, will not require the applicant must check The original or original copy is attached, and the photocopy is not required
. Proof or explanation is required. However, at the stage of substantive examination, the Smart Office still has to
comply with Article 4 of the Enforcement Rules of the Patent Law , requesting the parties to attach the original or original, or to certify that the copy is the
same as the original or original .
􀁺 matters concerning patent marking cases, limit the eligibility of applicants for marking and reading the
contents of the documents, wisdom Bureau announced on the website of the latest news → bulletin board Item 551 "special
interest grading principles and Schedule" Welcome to see .
Copyrights .
Legal issues related to the use of the exterior design of the Taipei 101 Building
. The builders designed real estate advertisements using the 101 Building as a background without permission, or
shot advertisements in front of the 101 Building, or used the shape of the Taipei 101 Building as souvenirs for sale or by the public. Take a
photo of the Taipei 101 building and use the photo to make a postcard. Whether the aforementioned actions have infringed
the copyright of Taipei Financial Building Co., Ltd., the Bureau hereby presents the following explanation.
The legislative purpose of China's copyright law is to protect copyrights of copyrights, reconcile social public
interests, and promote the development of national culture (refer to Article 1 of the Copyright Law),
which is different from the legislative purpose of the trademark law. Since works are widely used and may be used as
trademarks to identify the source of goods or services , the shape of a three-dimensional trademark
can obtain trademark rights and copyrights at the same time if the shape of a three-dimensional trademark meets the requirements of trademark law and copyright law.
A building is a type of work protected by the Copyright Law. If it is not approved
or authorized by the copyright owner , it cannot be used unless it complies with the regulations on fair use. Building
buildings based on architectural design drawings or architectural models, or taking photos and making models of buildings
, are all acts of "reproduction" stipulated by the Copyright Law.
132 88 95.04 intellectual property rights issue
of copyright law on public welfare considerations, given there are many provisions of fair use, which for the construction
works, in article 58, the outer wall on the streets, parks, buildings or other of the male
public opening of the outdoor venues Art works or architectural works displayed for a long time, except for (1)
Reproduction of buildings in an architectural way. (2) Reproduce sculptures in a sculptural way. (3)
Reproduction for the purpose of long-term display in the places specified in this article . (4)
Reproductions made specifically for the purpose of selling reproduced art works can be "utilized" in any way. In other words,
if an architectural work displayed for a long time in an outdoor place open to the public
is used in a way other than the aforementioned 4 methods, the user can claim fair use.
Based on the above description, it can be seen that the reasonable use of architectural works open to the public is quite wide
. Famous buildings (including the famous 101 building) are used to make souvenirs, or to take
photos, make postcards, paper sculptures or posters, and take dramas into the mirror. As a background etc., it
is a “fair use” other than the above four paragraphs, and it will not be considered as a violation of the copyright law, and
there will be no copyright infringement.
95.04 Intellectual Property Rights Monthly Issue 88 Issue 133
Taipei Service Office
, Intellectual Property Bureau, Ministry of Economic Affairs
Consultation Service Time Consultation Service Project Voluntary Agent
4/03 (Mon) 09:30-11:30 Trademark Chen Yaling
4/04 ( Tue ) 09:30-11:30 Trademark Lin Cunren
4/06 (Thursday) 09:30-11 :30 Patent Gan Kedi
4/07 (Friday) 14:30-16:30 Patent, trademark Zheng
Xiancun 4/10 (Mon) 09:30-11:30 Trademark Luo Juanying
4/11 ( Tue ) 09:30-11:30 Patent Jin
Fengqi 4/12 (Wednesday) 09:30-11:30 Patent Chen Zhaocheng
4/13 (Thursday) 09:30-11:30 Patent Wang Mingchang 4/14
(Friday) 09:30-11:30 Trademark Su Yufeng
4/17 (1) 09:30-11:30 Trademark Zhang Wenbin
4/18 (Tuesday) 09:30-11:30 Trademark Lin Cunren
4/19 (Wednesday) 09:30-11:30 Patent Chen Cuihua
4/20 (Thursday) 09: 30-11:30 Patent Gankedi
4/21 (Friday) 09:30-11:30 Patent and trademark Zheng
Xiancun 4/24 (Mon) 09:30-11:30 Trademark Hong Fengyi
4/25 ( Tue ) 09:30-11 :30 Patent and trademark Lin Jindong
4/26 (Wednesday) 14:30-16:30 Patent and trademark Zhang Shijuan
4/27 (Thursday) 09:30-11:30 Patent Su Xicheng
4/28 (Friday) 14:30- 16:30 Patent, Trademark Zheng Zhentian
134 Intellectual Property Rights Monthly Issue 88 95.04
Taichung Service Office, Intellectual Property Bureau, Ministry of Economic Affairs
In April of 1995, the duty schedule of patent and trademark agents' voluntary consulting services.
Consulting service hours. Consulting service items. Voluntary agents.
4/03 (1) 14:30-16:30. Patent Yang Jianxin
4/04 (2) 14:30-16:30 Trademark Chen Jianye
4/06 (Thursday) 14:30─16:30 Patent Guo Kuizhong
4/07 (Friday) 14:30─16:30 Trademark Chen Yifang
4/10 ( Mon ) 09:30─11:30 Trademark Lin Zhongling
4/ 12(Wed) 14:30─16:30 Patent Chen Heming 4/14
(Friday) 14:30─16:30 Patent Shi Wenquan
4/17(Mon) 09:30─11:30 Trademark, Patent Huang Zhaoxiong
4/19 (3) 14:30─16:30 Trademark Wu Hongliang
4/21 (Friday) 14:30─16:30 Trademark Huang Limei
4/24 (Mon) 14:30─16:30 Patent Zhao Yuanning
4/25 ( Tue ) 14: 30─16:30 Patent and trademark Han Ruijie
4/26 (Wednesday) 14:30─16:30 Patent and trademark Lin Yongsheng
4/27 (Thursday) 14:30─16:30 Patent Xu Zhengyi
4/28 (Friday) 14 ：30-16:30 Patent Yang Chongming
95.04 Intellectual Property Rights Monthly Issue 88 Issue 135
Kaohsiung Service Office
, Intellectual Property Bureau, Ministry of Economic Affairs , September 1995, and April, 1995. Patent and Trademark Agent Voluntary Consultation Service Rotation Schedule
Consultation Service Time Consultation Service Project Voluntary Agent
4/03(一)14:30-16:30 Patent and trademark Zhao Zhengxiong
4/04 (Tue) 14:30-16:30 Patent, Trademark Chen Mingcai
4/06 (Thursday) 14:30-16:30 Patent, Trademark Yang
Jiafu 4/10 (Mon) 14:30-16:30 Patent, Trademark Li Ronggui
4/11 (Tue) 14:30-16:30 Patent and trademark Li De'an
4/12 (Wednesday) 14:30-16:30 Patent and trademark Wang Zengguang
4/13 (Thursday) 14:30-16:30 Trademark Liu
Jianwan 4/17 (1) 14:30-16:30 Patent, trademark Guo Tongli
4/18 (2) 14:30-16:30 Patent, trademark Liu Yongyu
4/19 ( Wed ) 14:30-16: 30 Patent Lai Jianliang
4/20 (Thursday) 14:30-16:30 Trademark Qiao Lili
4/24 (Monday) 14:30-16:30 Patent and trademark Yang
Qinyao 4/25 (Tue) 14:30-16:30 Patent and trademark Lin Jinfu
4/26 ( Wed ) 14:30-16:30 Patent and trademark Huang Maoming

translator: Google Translate via   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 23:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 23:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• • Please notes that in Taiwan, fair use means allow commercial uses.--Wpcpey (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

    @Wpcpey and Jeff G.: this reminds me of a similar discussion last year for mainland China's FOP. See Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/China#FoP: court rules use of photo of an outdoor sculpture on postcards as infringement. It seems that in some "areas" or "places" (not necessarily countries, territories, or jurisdictions), freedom of panorama is a form of.... fair use(???). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: I don't know about Taiwanese copyright law. Ox1997cow (talk) 03:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The first two links (including the PDF) mainly say that photos of buildings are free to use including commercial use. Although they do not specifically mention it, it is implied that they are talking about the exterior of buildings. The third link says that taking photos of interior decor (meaning mere designs, including dimensions, specifications, and structure) is not infringement. Note that these pages are not the law; they are merely the interpretation by the Intellectual Property Office, and the judicial system may or may not rule differently. --Wcam (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

According to the law, the FoP covers outdoors only, and according to TIPO photographing merely interior decor is also OK, which by no means extends FoP to indoors. If an indoor photo contains 2D or 3D artwork, it still infringes the artwork's copyright if used commercially. --Wcam (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)