Copyright 2023 Comparisons

The Copyright Act is the governing copyright statute in Taiwan. No other principal sources of law regulate copyright.

Taiwan became a member of the WTO in 2002, and as such the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) is directly applied in Taiwan. The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works is also indirectly applied, in accordance with TRIPS.

The Taiwan Copyright Act provides: “Works of foreign nationals that comply with one of the following conditions may enjoy copyright under this Act; provided, where the terms of a treaty or an agreement that has been ratified by resolution of the Legislative Yuan provide otherwise, such terms shall govern: 1. Works that are first published in the territory under the jurisdiction of the Republic of China, or are published in the territory under the jurisdiction of the Republic [of] China within 30 days [of] their first publication in territory outside the jurisdiction of the Republic [of] China; provided, this shall only apply where the country of such foreign national extends protection under identical circumstances to the works of persons of the Republic of China, and such protection has been verified. 2. Where by treaty or agreement, or under the domestic acts, regulations, or standard practice of the home country of the foreign national, works of persons of the Republic of China enjoy copyright in such country” (Article 4). 

The essential elements required for a work to benefit from copyright protection are that it must be: 

• a creation of the human mind; 
• a creation having originality or being an independent creation with at least some minimal degree of creativity; 
• a creation having a specific expression; and 
• a creation presenting the individuality of the author within a literary, scientific, artistic or other intellectual domain. 

These elements apply to all works of art.

No registration or formal requirements are necessary for copyright protection. 

Copyrightable works in Taiwan’s system include: 

• oral and literary works; 
• musical works; 
• dramatic and choreographic works; 
• artistic works; 
• photographic works; 
• pictorial and graphic works; 
• audio-visual works; 
• sound recordings; 
• architectural works; and 
• computer programs. 

The above list is exemplary for types of copyrightable works established by Article 5(1) of the Copyright Act. Specifically, the law recognises protection for non-categorised works of art, provided that they meet the general requirements for protection. 

Protection is not limited to fixed works. For example, speech, performance and choreography can be directly protected under the Taiwan Copyright Act. 

Copyright Protection

Software benefits from copyright protection and may be a derivative variety of copyright. Accordingly, the requirements for software are not the same in nature as those for other types of copyrights. Any part of software, such as the object code or source code of a program or compiler, may be protected either by computer programs or by literary work. Certainly, the visual results shown by a program are similar to pictorial and graphic works or audio-visual works, which are eligible for copyright protection.

Invention Patent, Design Patent or Trade Secret

Software may also be protected in forms of the invention patent, design patent or trade secret. For example, a novel and inventive computer program that has technical characteristics for industrial application may be protected by an invention patent. Likewise, a novel and creative icon or graphical user interface (GUI) that has artistic characteristics for industrial application may be protected by a design patent. For copyright protection, software does not require higher standards of novelty, inventiveness and industrial applicability. A program, either in object code or source code, may be protected by trade secret if it may be used in the course of production, sales or operations, and if it meets the following requirements: 

• it is not known to persons generally involved in information of this type; 
• it has economic value, actual or potential, due to its secretive nature; and 
• its owner has taken reasonable measures to maintain its secrecy. 

While the object code and source code of a program are both copyrightable and may cumulate to gain overlapping protection for software, it may be interesting or controversial to consider whether software is protectable under different categories of copyright.

Cumulation of Protection

While the differences between protections of patent and copyright for software may be readily identifiable, it is easy to imagine that their protections may cumulate when specific software has both technical characteristics and artistic characteristics. The demarcation between the icon or GUI design patent and graphic copyright, however, may be fairly vague when it comes to determining how their protections may differentiate from or cumulate with each other. The delimitation between trade secret and copyright may be directly inferred from their legal requirements and it may be easy to deploy their protections in cumulation.

Computer Programs as an Exception

Specific features are applicable to software rights – eg, the author’s exclusive right to reproduce the works does not apply to the transient and incidental temporary reproduction required in a technical operation process without independent economic significance where the sole purpose is lawful network relay transmission or lawful use of a work. However, this rule does not apply to computer programs (Article 22(3), Copyright Act). The owner of a legal copy of a computer program may alter the program where necessary for utilisation on a machine, or may reproduce the program as necessary for back-up; although this is limited to the owner’s personal use (Article 59(1), Copyright Act). Normally, owners of originals or lawful copies of works may rent out such original works or copies; this rule does not, however, apply to computer programs (Article 60(1), Copyright Act).

Protection as a Literary Work or Compilation

Databases benefit from copyright protection in the form of a literary work or compilation work. Article 7(1) of the Copyright Act provides that “[a] compilation work is a work formed by creative selection and arrangement of materials, and shall be protected as an independent work”. Article 7(2) provides that “[p]rotection of a compilation work shall not affect the copyright in the work from which the material was selected and arranged”. Therefore, the requirements are the same as those for a literary work or compilation work. 

Protection Under the Fair Trade Act

If a database simply collects some pure information or uncopyrightable works and cannot be characterised as a literary work or compilation work, it might be protected under the Fair Trade Act, in which Article 25 provides: “In addition to what is provided for in this Law, no enterprise shall otherwise have any deceptive or obviously unfair conduct that may affect trading order.” Under this article, the database owner may claim injunctive relief or damages only when the whole or a substantial part thereof has been misappropriated without authorisation.

Protection Under Copyright Law and Unfair Competition Law

The protections for a database under copyright law and unfair competition law may cumulate because when there is some creativity in the selection, compilation or arrangement of related information in the database, either copyright law or unfair competition law may be used to deal with the plagiarism on the database.

Some types of industrial designs may benefit from copyright protection, but the designs per se should not be used to perform technical functions, while the idea of the design creation is easily separable from the expression of the copyrighted work. In Taiwan, industrial designs are mainly protected in the form of design patents, which require higher standards of novelty, inventiveness and industrial applicability in comparison to the originality required for copyright. In addition, a similar or identical industrial design may infringe a design patent even though the industrial design is independently designed, but it will not infringe copyright because an independently designed work cannot constitute copying. Accordingly, cumulative protection between a design patent and a copyright is possible. 

The author is the person who creates the copyrightable work, and is normally the first owner of copyright. Where a person’s name or a pseudonym familiar to the public is represented in a normal way as the author on the original of a work, or on a published copy of the work, or in connection with the public release of a work, the person will be presumed to be the author of the work. 

A joint work is a work that has been completed by two or more persons where the creation of each person cannot be separately exploited (Article 8, Copyright Act). In other words, where the creation of one or more persons on a work completed by two or more persons may be separately exploited, the work may not be a joint work but a set of different works. 

Article 19 of the Copyright Act provides as follows: “Moral rights in a joint work may not be exercised without the consent of all the joint authors. A joint author shall not refuse consent without a legitimate reason. Authors of a joint work may select an author from among the joint authors to be their representative for the purpose of exercising moral rights. Limitations imposed on the representative powers of the representative referred to in the preceding paragraph will not be effective against a third party acting in good faith”. 

Under Article 40 of the Copyright Act, it says: “In the case of a joint work, each author’s share of the ownership of such a work shall be as stipulated by the joint authors; where no stipulation has been made, ownership shares shall be determined according to the degree of each author’s creative contribution. Where the degree of each author’s creative contribution is not clear, it shall be presumed that each author owns an equal share. Where an author of a joint work abandons its share of the ownership of the work, that share shall be apportioned among the other joint authors in proportion to their respective shares. The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall apply mutatis mutandis where the author of a joint work dies with no successor or is extinguished with no receiver”.

Under Article 16 of the Copyright Act, the author of a work shall have the right to indicate their name, a pseudonym, or no name on the original or copies of the work, or when the work is publicly released. The author has the same right to a derivative work based on their original work. 

Currently, there is no provision regarding orphan works. Nevertheless, on 9 September 2016, the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) sent a draft amendment of the Copyright Act to the Executive Yuan for preliminary examination as a formal draft bill before the Legislative Yuan. The draft amendment includes a provision related to a compulsory licence for works where the property rights owner is unknown. 

In addition, under Article 24 of the Development Act of Culture and Creation Industries, if a copyright user fails to obtain authorisation for a published work despite exhaustive efforts to identify the copyright owner or their location, the user shall present their case before the TIPO to obtain a licence to utilise the work within the scope on remuneration for its use.

Article 7 of the Copyright Act provides the following: “A compilation work is a work formed by the creative selection and arrangement of materials, and shall be protected as an independent work. Protection of a compilation work shall not affect the copyright in the work from which the material was selected and arranged”. 

A corporate body can be the author of a work. For example, when a work is completed by an employee within the scope of employment, if an agreement stipulates that the employer is the author, this agreement shall govern. In addition, when a work is completed by a person under commission, if an agreement stipulates that the commissioning party is the author, this agreement shall also govern. 

Article 11 of the Copyright Act provides the following: “Where a work is completed by an employee within the scope of employment, such employee is the author of the work; provided, where an agreement stipulates that the employer is the author, such agreement shall govern. Where the employee is the author of a work pursuant to the provisions of the preceding paragraph, the economic rights to such work shall be enjoyed by the employer; provided, where an agreement stipulates that the economic rights shall be enjoyed by the employee, such agreement shall govern. The term ’employee’ in the preceding two paragraphs includes civil servants”. 

Under Article 12 of the Act: “Where a work is completed by a person under commission, except in the circumstances set out in the preceding article, such commissioned person is the author of the work; provided, where an agreement stipulates that the commissioning party is the author, such agreement shall govern. Where the commissioned person is the author pursuant to the provisions of the preceding paragraph, enjoyment of the economic rights to such work shall be assigned through contractual stipulation to either the commissioning party or the commissioned person. Where no stipulation regarding the enjoyment of economic rights has been made, the economic rights shall be enjoyed by the commissioned person. Where the economic rights are enjoyed by the commissioned person pursuant to the provisions of the preceding paragraph, the commissioning party may exploit the work”. 

The agreements mentioned above are not required to conform to specified standards.

Authors’ and Performers’ Rights

Authors have the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, publicly broadcast, publicly transmit and rent their works. Authors of oral and literary works have the exclusive right to recite their works publicly. Authors of audio-visual works have the exclusive right to present their works publicly. Authors of oral and literary, musical and dramatic/choreographic works have the exclusive right to perform their works publicly. Authors may claim payment for use from the persons who publicly perform a sound recording. Authors of unpublished fine art or photographic works have the exclusive right to display the original and copies of their works publicly. Authors of works have the exclusive right to adapt their works into derivative works or to compile their works into compilation works. Performers have the exclusive right to reproduce their performances by means of sound recording, video recording or photography. Performers have the exclusive right to distribute, transmit publicly and rent their performances reproduced in sound recordings. Performers have the exclusive right, by means of loudspeakers or other equipment, to perform their works publicly; however, this does not apply to public performances by means of loudspeakers or other equipment after that performance has been reproduced or broadcast publicly.

Economic Rights

Just as categories for works under Article 5(1) are merely exemplary, the above is a comprehensive list of economic rights established by law under Article 22(1) stipulating that “the author exclusively enjoys the rights of reproducing its work unless otherwise provided in this Act”, which means that the author exclusively enjoys the rights of reproducing their work in whatever form, medium or channel unless expressly limited or provided in the Act. Accordingly, new rights that are not currently listed in the law but may arise due to technological progress will certainly be vested in the author automatically. 

Economic rights generally last for the life of the author, plus 50 years after their death. If a work is first publicly released between the 40th and 50th years after the author’s death, the economic rights will last for a term of ten years beginning from the time of the public release. The economic rights in a work authored by a juristic person last for 50 years after the public release thereof, but if the work is not publicly released within 50 years from completion of the creation, the economic rights will subsist for 50 years after its completion. 

In addition, the economic rights for photographic works, audio-visual works, sound recordings and performances last for 50 years after the public release of the work. As in the case of a juristic person, however, if the work is not publicly released within 50 years from completion of the creation, the economic rights will subsist for 50 years after its completion. 

There is no circumstance allowing for the non-consensual termination of grants and/or recapture of economic rights. 

The Taiwan Copyright Act establishes different terms mostly according to the author(s), and to some degree, according to the type of copyrighted work.

Economic rights may be transferred in whole or in part to another person and may be jointly owned with other persons. The transferee of economic rights obtains economic rights within the scope of the transfer. The transfer scope of the economic rights is to be stipulated by the parties; rights not clearly covered by such stipulations shall be presumed as not having been transferred. Specifically, although there is no express formal requirement, clear stipulation of an economic rights transfer between or among parties is required for a successful or exact transfer. 

The economic rights-holder may license others to exploit the work. The territory, term, content, method of exploitation and other particulars of the licence will be stipulated by the parties; particulars not clearly covered by such stipulations will be presumed as not having been licensed. Again, although there is no express formal requirement, clear or exact stipulation of the copyright licence between the parties is required for a licence to be effective as intended.

Since economic rights are a type of property, upon the death of the economic rights-owner, the heirs of the owner will jointly own the economic rights according to general rules provided in the Civil Code. Joint economic rights in a work will not be exercised except with the consent of all the joint economic rights-holders; no economic rights-holder may transfer their share to another person or establish a pledge of their share in favour of a third party without the consent of all the other joint economic rights-holders. However, a joint economic rights-holder may not refuse consent without a legitimate reason.

There is no minimum age requirement to enjoy copyright protection. Nevertheless, minors under the age of 20 years have limited capacity and need a statutory agent to act on their behalf for valid exercise of the transfer/licence/sale of copyrights (Article 13, Civil Code). There is no other applicable provision regarding competency. There is no provision for specific types of contracts for the transfer/licence/sale of copyright. Nevertheless, there are regulations for recording plate rights to obtain a locus standi to act against a third party.

A person who has obtained ownership of an original or lawful copy of a work within the territory under ROC jurisdiction may distribute it by means of transfer of ownership (Article 59 semel, Copyright Act). Owners of originals or lawful copies of works may rent out such originals or copies; however, this does not apply to sound recordings or computer programs (Article 60(1), Copyright Act). 

Normally, importing an original or any copy of a work legally reproduced abroad without the authorisation of the economic rights-holder will be an infringement. This rule does not, however, apply if the original or a specified number of copies of a work are imported for the private use of the importer and not for distribution, or if such an importation occurs because the original or copies form part of the personal baggage of a person arriving from outside this territory (Article 87 semel, Copyright Act).

Moral rights include the right to: 

• release the work publicly; 
• indicate the author’s name, a pseudonym, or no name on the original or copies of the work, or when the work is publicly released; or 
• prohibit others from distorting, splitting, tampering or otherwise changing the content, form or name of the work, thereby damaging the author’s reputation. 

The list above is a comprehensive list established by law (Article 17, Copyright Act). 

Even though an author has died or been extinguished (eg, when the author is a company), the protection of moral rights will be as valid as if the author was living or in existence, and may not be infringed upon by any person. That is, the moral rights will last forever. 

Moral rights belong exclusively to the author and are not alienable (Article 21, Copyright Act). 

Moral rights belong exclusively to the author and are also not transmissible upon death.

“Technological protection measures” refers to equipment, devices, components, technology or other technological means employed by copyright owners to effectively prohibit or restrict others from accessing or exploiting works without authorisation (Article 3(1)(XVIII), Copyright Act). 

Article 80 bis(1–4) of the Copyright Act provides as follows: “Technological protection measures employed by copyright owners to prohibit or restrict others from accessing works shall not, without legal authorisation, be disarmed, destroyed, or by any other means circumvented. Any equipment, device, component, technology or information for disarming, destroying, or circumventing technological protection measures shall not, without legal authorisation, be manufactured, imported, offered to the public for use, or offered in services to the public. The provisions of the preceding two paragraphs shall not apply in the following circumstances: 

1. where to preserve national security; 

2. where done by central or local government agencies; 

3. where done by file archive institutions, educational institutions, or public libraries to assess whether to obtain the information; 

4. where to protect minors; 

5. where to protect personal data; 

6. where to perform security testing of computers or networks; 

7. where to conduct encryption research; 

8. where to conduct reverse engineering; 

9. where to exploit works of others in accordance with the provisions of Articles 44 through 63 and Article 65; and 

10. under other circumstances specified by the competent authority. 

The content in the subparagraphs of the preceding paragraph shall be prescribed and periodically reviewed by the competent authority”. 

Article 96 semel of the Act provides: “In any of the following circumstances a sentence of up to one year imprisonment or detention shall be imposed, or in lieu thereof or in addition thereto, a fine of not less than TWD20,000 and not more than TWD250,000: 

1. violation of Article 80 semel; and 

2. violation of paragraph 2 of Article 80 bis”.

“Electronic rights management information” means electronic information presented on the original or copies of a work, or at the time of communication of the content of a work to the public, sufficient to identify the work, the name of the work, the author, the economic rights-holder or person licensed thereby, and the period or conditions of exploitation of the work, including numbers or symbols that represent such information (Article 3(1)(XVII), Copyright Act). 

Electronic rights management information put in place by a copyright owner may not be removed or altered except in the following circumstances: 

• where removal or alteration of electronic rights management information of the work is unavoidable in the lawful exploitation of the work, given technological limitations at the time of the act; or
• where the removal or alteration is technically necessary to conversion of a recording or transmission system (Paragraph 1). 

Whoever knows that electronic rights management information of a work has been unlawfully removed or altered may not distribute it or, with intent to distribute it, import or possess the original or any copy of such work. Such person also shall not publicly broadcast, publicly perform, nor publicly transmit the same (Paragraph 2, Article 80 semel, Copyright Act). 

Where the provisions regarding electronic rights management information and technological protection measures are violated, a sentence of up to one year’s imprisonment or detention will be imposed, or in lieu thereof or in addition thereto, a fine of not less than TWD20,000 and not more than TWD250,000 (Article 96 semel (I), Copyright Act).

Economic rights-holders may, with the approval of the competent agency in charge of copyright matters, establish copyright collective management organisations (CMOs) for the purpose of exercising rights or collecting and distributing remuneration for use. Exclusive licensees may also join copyright collective management organisations. Approval for establishment and organisation and capacities of the organisations, as well as supervision and guidance thereof, are regulated under the Copyright Collective Management Organisation Act or CCMOA (Article 81, Copyright Act). 

Taiwan’s system allows for the existence of several collecting societies. CMOs provide copyright collective management services, including those for the management of economic rights on behalf of multiple economic rights-holders, in which uniform royalty rates and methods for distribution of royalties are adopted as the basis for collection and distribution of royalties, and in which licence agreements with users are established in the name of those providing the management (Articles 3(1) and 3(2), CCMOA). A CMO may prepare an individual licence agreement, under which the exploitation of specific economic rights under management of the CMO is licensed to a user in return for remuneration (Article 3(3), CCMOA). Likewise, a CMO may prepare a blanket licence agreement, under which all economic rights under management of the CMO are licensed to a user for a specific period without restriction on usage (Article 3(4), CCMOA). A CMO may also prepare an agreement on the management of economic rights and the distribution of the fees for usage awarded to their rights-holder(s) (Article 3(5), CCMOA).

A CMO’s powers and functions are as follows: 

• a CMO will provide collective management services for members, and collect management fees at the stipulated rate or in the stipulated amount (Articles 23(1) and 23(2), CCMOA); 
• a CMO will stipulate rates for usage and dates for implementation thereof for the forms of exploitation of economic rights under its management (Article 24(1), CCMOA); and 
• when a blanket licence agreement is involved, a CMO will provide users with a choice of fee-collection methods of either a fixed sum or ratio and an amount set on a per use, per work basis (Article 24(2), CCMOA). 

Examples of CMOs are as follows: 

• the Music Copyright Society of Chinese Taipei (MUST) for musical works – management of the rights of public broadcast, public performance and public transmission; 
• the Association of Recording Copyright Owners (ARCO) for sound recordings – management of the rights of public broadcast and the necessary reproduction for their public broadcast, remuneration claim for the public performance, rights of public transmission and the necessary reproduction for their public transmission, and for audio-visual works, management of the rights of public broadcast, public presentation, public transmission, and the necessary reproduction for their public transmission; and 
• the Recording Copyright and Publications Administrative Society of Chinese Taipei (PART) for sound recordings – management of the rights of public broadcast and remuneration claims for public performance.

Synchronisation rights are part of the rights of reproduction and public transmission, provided these will not apply when a broadcaster communicates to the public through public broadcasting or synchronous public transmission an advertisement in which a work has been reproduced under authorisation (Article 37(6)(IV), Copyright Act). 

Taiwan’s system provides both a general clause and a list dealing with exceptions to copyright. Article 65(1) of the Copyright Act provides that fair use of a work will not constitute infringement of the economic rights in the work, while Article 65(2) of the Act provides that in determining whether the exploitation of a work complies with the reasonable scope referred to in the provisions of Articles 44–63 of the Copyright Act or other conditions of fair use, all circumstances will be taken into account. The statutory list, namely Articles 44–63 of the Copyright Act, is comprehensive but not exhaustive. 

The following should be considered in determining whether the use of a work in a particular case is fair or allowable without the copyright holder’s consent: 

• the purposes and nature of the exploitation, including whether such exploitation is of a commercial nature or for non-profit educational purposes; 
• the nature of the work; 
• the amount and substantiality of the portion exploited in relation to the work as a whole; and 
• the effect of the exploitation on the work’s current and potential market value (Article 65(2), Copyright Act). 

The list, namely Articles 44–63 of the Copyright Act, provides types of exceptions of copyrights, each of which is related to one or more copyrights.

To a reasonable extent, central or local government agencies may reproduce the work of another person if it is considered necessary for internal reference for the purpose of legislation or administration (Article 44, Copyright Act). To a reasonable extent, and for the sole purpose of use necessary for judicial proceedings, the works of another person may be reproduced (Article 45(1), Copyright Act). To a reasonable extent, and where necessary for the purpose of teaching in schools, all levels of legally established schools and their teachers may reproduce the works of another person that have already been publicly released (Article 46(1), Copyright Act). To a reasonable extent, and for the purpose of preparing pedagogical texts for which review and approval by an education administrative agency are required by act or regulation, or where an education administrative agency prepares pedagogical texts itself, the works of another person that have been publicly released may be reproduced, adapted, or compiled (Article 47(1), Copyright Act). The owner of the original legal copy of an artistic work or photographic work, or a person authorised by the owner, may publicly display such original or legal copy of the work (Article 57(1), Copyright Act). The owner of a legal copy of a computer program may alter the program where necessary for utilisation on a machine used thereby, or may reproduce the program as necessary for back-up; however, this is limited to the owner’s personal use (Article 59(1), Copyright Act). Owners of originals of works and lawful copies of works may rent out such original works or copies; however, this does not apply to sound recordings and computer programs (Article 60(1), Copyright Act). 

Artistic works or architectural works displayed on a long-term basis on streets, in parks, on the outside walls of buildings, or other outdoor spaces open to the public, may be exploited by any means except under the following circumstances: 

• reproduction of a building by means of construction; 
• reproduction of a work of sculpture by means of sculpture; 
• reproduction for the purpose of long-term public display in spaces specified in this article; and 
• reproduction of artistic works solely for the purpose of selling copies (Article 58, Copyright Act).

Connection Service Provider

A connection service provider will not be liable for damages for infringement of the copyright or plate rights of another by a user of its service if: “1. the transmission of the information was initiated by or at the request of the user; and 2. the transmission, routing, provision of connections, or storage is carried out through an automatic technical process, without any selection of the material or modification of its content by the connection service provider” (Article 90 quinquies, Copyright Act).

Caching Service Provider

A caching service provider will not be liable for damages for infringement of the copyright or plate rights of another by a user of its service if: “1. the service provider does not make any modification to the cached information; 2. when the person who made the original information available subsequently updates, deletes, or blocks access to it, the cached information is done in the same way as a result of an automatic technical process; and 3. the service provider responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the allegedly infringing content or related information upon notification by a copyright holder or plate rights-holder of the alleged infringement by the user of the service provider” (Article 90 sexies, Copyright Act).

Information Storage Service Provider

An information storage service provider will not be liable for damages for infringement of the copyright or plate rights of another by a user of its service if the service provider: “1. does not have knowledge of the allegedly infringing activity of the user; 2. does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity of the user; and 3. responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the allegedly infringing content or related information upon notification by a copyright holder or plate rights-holder of the alleged infringement by the user of the service provider” (Article 90 septies, Copyright Act).

Search Service Provider

A search service provider will not be liable for damages for infringement of the copyright or plate rights of another by a user of its service if the service provider: “1. does not have knowledge that the searched or linked information may be infringing; 2. does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity of the user; and 3. responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the allegedly infringing content or related information upon notification by a copyright holder or plate rights-holder of the alleged infringement by a user of the service provider” (Article 90 octies, Copyright Act).

Internet Service Provider

An internet service provider will not be liable for damages to the allegedly infringing user if the service provider: “1. removes, or disables access to, the allegedly infringing content or related information in accordance with Articles 90 sexies to 90 octies; or 2. upon obtaining knowledge of suspected infringement by the user, acts in good faith to remove, or disable access to, the allegedly infringing content or related information” (Article 90 decies, Copyright Act).

Taiwan does not establish an exception to copyright for satire and/or parody. The TIPO has proposed to add these exceptions into an amendment draft in the past, but the proposal was protested by many copyright owners because they are unwilling to have their works altered, distorted or mutilated. Finally, the TIPO withdrew the relevant proposal, so satire and/or parody still need to be dealt with under general fair-use provisions. 

In Taiwan’s system, when there is a violation of freedom of speech/right of information/other human rights, this is mainly evaluated under general fair-use provisions, as discussed in 7.5 Satire and Parody. The Copyright Act also provides that to a reasonable extent, works that have been publicly released may be quoted where necessary for reports, comment, teaching, research, or other legitimate purposes (Articles 44–47 and 52, Copyright Act).

Protections of neighbouring rights for performers, producers of phonograms and broadcasting organisations are not implemented through an independent chapter or regime, but through independent articles or paragraphs in the Copyright Act (eg, for a performance work, Articles 7 semel, 22(1), 24(1), 26(2), 26b(2), 28b(2) and 29(2) of the Copyright Act). 

Since neighbouring rights are protected as regular copyrights, their protection for economic/moral rights is basically the same as that of regular copyrights. Accordingly, they are alienable, and transmissible on death. Nevertheless, they are subject to some exceptions – ie, some rights are relatively restricted. For example, while performers have the exclusive right to publicly perform using loudspeakers or other equipment, this does not apply to public performances using loudspeakers or other equipment after that performance has been reproduced or publicly broadcast (Article 26(1), Copyright Act). 

There are societies that specifically manage neighbouring rights: 

• the Association of Recording Copyright Owners (ARCO) for sound recordings, which manages rights of public broadcast and necessary reproduction for the purpose of public broadcast, remuneration claims for public performance, rights of public transmission and necessary reproduction for the purpose of public transmission; and 
• the Recording Copyright and Publications Administrative Society of Chinese Taipei (PART) for sound recordings, which manages rights of public broadcast and remuneration claims for public performances.

Since neighbouring rights are protected as regular copyrights in Taiwan, there are no specific types of contracts to transfer, license or sell neighbouring rights, in view of the fact that some specific exceptions have been explicitly provided in the Copyright Act. 

Since neighbouring rights are protected as regular copyrights in Taiwan, exceptions to copyright are generally applicable to neighbouring rights.

The following cases constitute an infringement of copyright: 

• to release a work publicly without the consent of the author (Article 15(1), Copyright Act); 
• to indicate or not indicate the name of the author of a work on an original or any copy thereof, or when the work is publicly released without the consent of the author (Article 16(1), Copyright Act); 
• to distort, split, tamper with or otherwise change the content, form or name of a work, thereby damaging the author’s reputation (Article 17, Copyright Act); 
• to reproduce a work without the consent or licence of the economic rights-holder (Article 22(1), Copyright Act); 
• to publicly recite an oral and literary work without the consent or licence of the economic rights-holder (Article 23, Copyright Act); 
• to publicly broadcast a work without the consent or licence of the economic rights-holder (Article 24(1), Copyright Act); 
• to publicly present an audio-visual work without the consent or licence of the economic rights-holder (Article 25, Copyright Act); 
• to publicly perform an oral and literary, musical or dramatic/choreographic work without the consent or licence of the economic rights-holder (Article 26(1), Copyright Act); 
• to publicly transmit a work without the consent or licence of the economic rights-holder (Article 26-1(1), Copyright Act); 
• to publicly display an original or any copy of unpublished fine art or photographic work without the consent or licence of the economic rights-holder (Article 27, Copyright Act); 
• to adapt a work into a derivative work or to compile works into a compilation work without the consent or licence of the economic rights-holders (Article 28, Copyright Act); 
• to distribute a work through transfer of ownership without the consent or licence of the economic rights-holder (Article 28 semel(1), Copyright Act); and 
• to rent out a work without the consent or licence of the economic rights-holder (Article 29(1), Copyright Act). 

The following cases are also deemed an infringement of copyright (Article 87(1), Copyright Act): 

• to use a work in such a way as to damage the reputation of the author; 
• to import a copy of a work reproduced without the licence of the economic rights-holder; 
• to import the original or a copy legally reproduced abroad of a work without the licence of the economic rights-holder; 
• to use a copy of a computer program that infringes on the economic rights therein for business purposes; 
• to distribute articles that are known to infringe on economic rights by any means other than transfer of ownership or rental, or to publicly display or possess such articles with intent to distribute; 
• to provide public computer programs or other technology that can be used to transmit or reproduce a work publicly, with the purpose of allowing the public to infringe economic rights by means of public transmission or reproduction of the work through the internet, without the consent or licence of the economic rights-holder, and to receive benefit thereby; 
• to provide the public with access to works on the internet, knowing that broadcasting or transmitting the works publicly in such a way infringes economic rights, with the following intent and to receive benefit therefrom:
1. to provide the public with computer programs which have aggregated the Internet Protocol Addresses of such works;
2. to direct, assist or preset paths to the public for using computer programs in the preceding item; and/or
3. to manufacture, import or sell equipment or devices preloaded with the computer programs of the first item.

In addition, privacy is basically protected by civil law (Articles 184(1) and 195(1), Civil Code). It may play a role in relation to copyright infringement because in some respects, privacy is similar to the moral rights of a copyright. Specifically, the author enjoys the right to disclose their work publicly under Article 15(1). Accordingly, if a strict privacy policy were to be applied, a work could not be disclosed and infringement could occur. Likewise, privacy plays a role in the information society since, if civilisation is advanced by the disclosure of a work, human history may not evolve at the present pace if such a strict privacy policy is exercised.

The defences against infringement can generally be categorised into the following two types. 

• Defences against infringement of moral rights: These normally apply to situations where the author does not own the copyright. For example, a public servant authors a work owned by the agency (Article 15(1), Copyright Act). There are ownership transfers before a work is published (Articles 15(2) and 15(3), Copyright Act). For the purposes or methods of using a work, the interests of an author are not damaged (Article 16, Copyright Act). There is a situation where it is presumed not to be in violation of the author’s will (Article 18, Copyright Act). 
• Defences against infringement of economic rights: These relate mainly to the fair use of works. For example, Articles 22(2), 44–63, 65 and 87 semel(1) of the Copyright Act.

The following kinds of proceedings are available to the author or economic rights-holder of a work: 

• proceedings to claim stopping of infringement (Article 84, Copyright Act); 
• proceedings to claim prevention of infringement (Article 84, Copyright Act); 
• proceedings to claim mental damage compensation (Article 85(1), Copyright Act); 
• proceedings to claim indication of the author’s name, correction of content, or adoption of other appropriate measures necessary for restoration of the author’s reputation (Article 85(2), Copyright Act); 
• proceedings to claim property damage compensation (Article 88(1), Copyright Act); 
• proceedings to claim destruction of infringing articles (Article 88 semel, Copyright Act); 
• proceedings to claim publication of the judgment (Article 89, Copyright Act); 
• proceedings to request customs seizure (Article 90(1), Copyright Act); 
• proceedings to request issuance of a payment order (Articles 508(1) and 510, Code of Civil Procedure; Article 21, Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act); and 
• proceedings to request a preliminary injunction (Articles 522(1), 532(1) and 538(1), Code of Civil Procedure; Article 22, Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act). 

According to Article 7 semel of the Copyright Act, a performance by a performer of a pre-existing work or folklore creation will be protected as an independent work. Therefore, a performer of a work will be protected as an independent author (economic rights-holder) of a work, and neighbouring rights (economic rights of a performer) thereof will be protected as independent rights (economic rights). The same remedies and judicial procedure applicable to copyrights will apply mutatis mutandis to neighbouring rights. 

Moral rights are protected in Taiwan (Articles 15(1), 16(1) and 17(1), Copyright Act) and can be enforced by the author (moral rights-holder) in court proceedings (Article 85, Copyright Act).

Plate Rights

There is a particular type of copyright that has a different regime, namely plate rights. Specifically, for a literary or artistic work having no or extinguished economic rights, a plate-maker, who arranges and prints the literary work or reproduces it by photocopy, print or the like and first publishes the original artistic work, and causes it to be recorded in accordance with this Act, will have the exclusive rights to reproduce the plate by photocopy, print or the like under Article 79(1) of the Copyright Act. Accordingly, the burden of proof for plate rights in infringement proceedings may be heavier, but it is nonetheless clear cut in curbing any rights dispute. The regulations governing recordation of plate rights, their transfer, their trust, and other requisite matters is prescribed by the competent authority (Article 79(5), Copyright Act). Without such recordation, the plate-maker has no locus standi to act against a third party (Article 79(4), Copyright Act). Under a different regime, the plate rights may only be enjoyed for ten years (Article 79(2), Copyright Act). 

The alleged infringer is allowed to file non-declaratory infringement proceedings (Article 247(1), Code of Civil Procedure). 

Disputes arising from property rights (including copyrights) where the amount or value of the disputed subject is less than TWD500,000, will be subject to mediation by the court before an action is initiated (Article 403(1)(XI), Code of Civil Procedure). Formal cease-and-desist letters are popular, although not required. 

The first or second instance normally takes around six months to one year, and the third instance takes about one year for a formality-dismissing decision and may take two or more years for a substantive decision.

The judges of the Intellectual Property Court are equipped with competent IP knowledge. Accordingly, a copyright holder normally initiates infringement proceedings before the Intellectual Property Court (Article 3(1), Intellectual Property Court Organisation Act; Article 7, Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act). However, a copyright holder may either initiate infringement proceedings before a common court (ie, a district court), or the copyright holder (plaintiff) and the alleged infringer (defendant) may designate a common court to exercise jurisdiction by a written agreement (Article 24, Code of Civil Procedure). That is, it is not mandatory to initiate copyright infringement proceedings before a specialised court, such as the Intellectual Property Court. 

The necessary parties to infringement proceedings are summarised as follows. 

For moral rights infringement proceedings, the necessary parties to the proceedings are the author (moral rights-holder, plaintiff) and the alleged infringer (defendant) (Articles 84 and 85, Copyright Act). For economic rights infringement proceedings, the necessary parties to the proceedings are outlined as follows: 

• where no licence has been issued, the necessary parties to the proceedings are the author (economic rights-holder, plaintiff) and the alleged infringer (defendant) (Articles 84 and 88, Copyright Act); 
• where a non-exclusive licence has been issued, the necessary parties to the proceedings are the author (economic rights-holder, plaintiff) and the alleged infringer (defendant) – the non-exclusive licensee is not allowed to file infringement proceedings in their own name within the scope of the licence under Article 37(3) of the Copyright Act, but they are allowed to participate in the proceedings under Article 58(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure; and 
• where an exclusive licence has been issued, the necessary parties to the proceedings are the exclusive licensee (plaintiff) and the alleged infringer (defendant) within the scope of the licence – the exclusive licensee is allowed to file infringement proceedings in their own name within the scope of the licence, while the author (economic rights-holder) is not allowed to file infringement proceedings in their own name within the scope of the licence (Article 37(4), Copyright Act).

According to Article 63 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a third party involved in the proceedings (the intervener – eg, a non-exclusive licensee) will not argue the appropriateness of a decision made in the action against the assisted party (eg, the author), except where the intervener has been denied a means of attack or defence either due to the phase of the litigation at the time of the intervention or by an act of the assisted party, or where the assisted party has wilfully, or through gross negligence, failed to employ certain means of attack or defence unknown to the intervener (Article 63(1), Code of Civil Procedure). In addition, this rule shall apply mutatis mutandis to the assisted party with respect to the intervener.

Urgent measures (interim or preliminary injunctions) are available for rights-holders. They include “provisional attachments” (Article 522(1), Code of Civil Procedure), “provisional injunctions” (Article 532(1), Code of Civil Procedure) and “injunctions maintaining a temporary status quo” (Article 538(1), Code of Civil Procedure). Urgent measures may be requested before filing infringement proceedings on the merits (Articles 529(1), 533 and 538-4, Code of Civil Procedure).

Requirements to File Urgent Proceedings

Provisional attachment

A creditor may apply for a provisional attachment with regard to a monetary claim or claim changeable into a monetary claim for the purpose of securing satisfaction of a compulsory execution (Article 522(1), Code of Civil Procedure). No provisional attachment will be granted unless the impossibility or extreme difficulty in satisfying the claim by a compulsory execution in the future can be shown (Article 523(1), Code of Civil Procedure). 

Provisional injunction

A creditor may apply for a provisional injunction with regard to non-monetary claims for the purpose of securing satisfaction of a compulsory execution (Article 532(1), Code of Civil Procedure). No provisional injunction will be granted unless the impossibility or extreme difficulty in satisfying the claim by a compulsory execution in the future due to a change in the status quo of the claimed subject can be shown (Article 532(2), Code of Civil Procedure). 

Injunction maintaining temporary status quo

For injunctions maintaining a temporary status quo, wherever necessary for the purpose of preventing material harm, imminent danger or other similar circumstances, an application may be made for an injunction maintaining a temporary status quo with regard to the disputed legal relationship (Article 538(1), Code of Civil Procedure). A ruling for an injunction maintaining a temporary status quo may be issued only where the disputed legal relationship may be ascertained in an action on the merits (Article 538(2), Code of Civil Procedure).

Expert testimony or surveys are used as a kind of evidence in proceedings, including copyright proceedings. In making a judgment, the court will, taking into consideration the entire import of the oral argument and the result of investigation of the evidence, determine the facts by discretional evaluation (Article 222(1), Code of Civil Procedure). Specifically, expert testimony and surveys are normally helpful evidence for the court in making a judgment, but are not compulsory in or binding on the court. They are not generally used by the courts when dealing with protection and/or infringement of copyrighted works because judges have the right of independent trial or judgment and are usually autonomous. However, exceptions apply in specific situations, such as when a software source code or object code or the methodology in an IC chip or module needs to be decrypted, which generally cannot be touched by bare hands or seen by the naked eye.

There are provisions for customs seizures of counterfeits and parallel imports. That is, the import and export of counterfeits and parallel imports are both illegal (Articles 87(1)(III) and 87(1)(IV), Copyright Act). A customs seizure procedure for counterfeits and parallel imports is typically as follows: 

• the customs authority finds that the imported or exported articles are likely to be counterfeits or parallel-import infringing articles; 
• the customs authority presents a notice to the economic rights-holder or its representative or agent in Taiwan and requests its appearance before the customs for identification, while giving a notice to the importer or exporter at the same time, requesting its provision of relevant evidence of non-infringement; 
• the economic rights-holder identifies the articles as counterfeits or parallel imports and provides relevant evidence of infringement; 
• the importer or exporter provides relevant evidence of non-infringement; 
• the economic rights-holder files an application with the customs authority for seizure of the articles; 
• the customs authority seizes the articles; and 
• the economic rights-holder brings a copyright infringement action before the Intellectual Property Court and gives a notice to the customs authority.

Preservation of Evidence

Under Taiwan’s legal system, a party to a copyrights matter may obtain relevant information and evidence from the other party or a third party by way of evidence preservation. Specifically, whenever it is likely that evidence may be destroyed or its use in court may become difficult, with the consent of the opposite party, the party may move the court for preservation of such evidence. Where necessary, the party which has legal interest in ascertaining the status quo of a matter or object may move for expert testimony, inspection or preservation of documentary evidence (Article 368(1), Code of Civil Procedure; Article 1, Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act). Where no action on the merits has been initiated, a motion for preservation of evidence will be made before the court where the action is to be brought; where the action has been initiated, such motion will be made before the court where the action is pending (Article 18(1), Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act).

Seizure or Attachment

The rights-holder may request the urgent seizure of the infringers’ goods and bank accounts if there is a danger that it may not be possible to recover the amount due for compensation for damages. Specifically, the rights-holder may apply for a provisional attachment with regard to its damages claim, which is a monetary claim. The rights-holder is required to show the impossibility or extreme difficulty in satisfying the claim by a compulsory execution in the future (Article 523(1), Code of Civil Procedure).

Urgent Measures Addressing Intermediaries

The intermediaries – either distributors or internet service providers or the like – who are involved in the infringing activities may be addressed with urgent measures as requested by the rights-holder, if the measures are proper and there is a balance of rights’ protections between the rights-holder and the involved intermediary.

Penalties

A person (natural person or legal person) who infringes on the copyrights of another person is subject to criminal penalties (eg, fixed-term imprisonment, detention, fine or confiscation). The detailed types of offence and relevant penalties are set out in Chapter 7 of the Copyright Act.

Copyright infringement may additionally constitute either a criminal offence to be pursued through criminal proceedings (Chapter 7, Copyright Act), or an administrative offence to be enforced through administrative means (Article 97-1, Copyright Act).

Criminal Offence

The following steps are possible in criminal proceedings: 

• the author (copyright holder) files a complaint with a judicial police officer; 
• the judicial police officer sends the result of their investigation to a public prosecutor; 
• the public prosecutor initiates a public prosecution with a district court; 
• the district court hands down a judgment of guilty; 
• the accused or alleged infringer appeals to the Intellectual Property Court; 
• the Intellectual Property Court refuses the appeal of the accused infringer; 
• the accused infringer appeals to the Supreme Court; and 
• the Supreme Court refuses the appeal of the accused infringer.

Administrative Offence

As for administrative penalties, according to Article 97 semel of the Copyright Act, when an enterprise, by means of public transmission, infringes on the economic rights of another person and is convicted by a court, it must immediately cease such activities. If not, the competent authority, after inviting specialists, scholars and related enterprises to find that there is a serious infringement significantly affecting the rights and interests of the economic rights-holder, will prescribe a period of one month for the enterprise to take corrective action. Should the enterprise fail to do so, the competent authority may order suspension or compulsory termination of the enterprise’s business.

Enforcement of Decisions

Decisions in copyright-infringement proceedings (civil proceedings) are enforced by a common court – ie, a district court, rather than the Intellectual Property Court (Article 1(1), Compulsory Enforcement Act). This differs from the enforcement of decisions in administrative proceedings, which are subject to the jurisdiction of the IP Court (Article 3(3), Intellectual Property Court Organisation; Article 31(1), Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act). In addition, a civil compulsory enforcement is subject to the jurisdiction of the court of the place where the object to be enforced is located or the place where the enforcement actions will be conducted (Article 7(1), Compulsory Enforcement Act). For the purpose of moving for a compulsory enforcement, the creditor (eg, copyright holder) must submit a brief manifesting the following particulars to the competent court: (a) parties and their statutory agents; and (b) claims requested to be realised (Article 5(1), Compulsory Enforcement Act).

There are special provisions concerning the appellate procedure for copyright proceedings in respect of the jurisdiction. Courts having jurisdiction to hear an appeal in copyright proceedings are as follows: 

• civil litigation: 
1. second instance (first appeal) – Intellectual Property Court (Article 3(1), Intellectual Property Court Organisation Act; Article 19, Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act); and 
2. third instance (second appeal) – Supreme Court (Article 20, Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act); or 
• criminal litigation: 
1. second instance (first appeal) – Intellectual Property Court (Article 3(2), Intellectual Property Court Organisation Act; Article 25(1), Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act) or collegiate bench of the District Court (Article 455 semel(1), Code of Criminal Procedure; Article 1, Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act); and 
2. third instance (second appeal) – Supreme Court (Article 26, Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act).

Civil Cases

For civil cases, in the second instance (first appeal), there are both factual and legal reviews, and this is subject to a successive review. Specifically, the parties may present additional means of attack or defence, including additional arguments or defences, additional facts and/or additional evidence (eg, new documents). The appellate court, however, does not review evidence that was presented and investigated in the first instance; it also does not review arguments or defences or facts that were presented and investigated in the first instance, if no extra supplemental evidence is presented in the second instance (Article 447(1), Code of Civil Procedure; Article 1, Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act). In the third instance (second appeal), there is only legal review.

Criminal Cases

For criminal cases, in the second instance (first appeal), there are both factual and legal reviews, too, and this is subject to a repetitive review. Specifically, the parties may present additional means of attack or defence, including additional arguments or defences, additional facts and/or additional evidence (eg, new documents). The appellate court also reviews arguments or defences, facts and/or evidence that were presented and investigated in the first instance (Article 364, Code of Criminal Procedure; Article 1, Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act). In the third instance (second appeal), there is only legal review.

Court fees should be paid by the party to the proceedings. The court fees for every instance of a civil litigation (eg, copyright infringement action) can be calculated by using a calculating programme (see www.judicial.gov.tw/assist/count.html). 

The losing party is responsible for paying the court fees (Article 78, Code of Civil Procedure). As for attorney’s fees, the parties are responsible for paying their own. Specifically, the losing party is not required to reimburse the prevailing party for their attorney’s fees.

For some disputes, alternative dispute resolution is compulsory (Article 403, Code of Civil Proceedings). Nevertheless, alternative dispute resolution is currently neither a common way nor a compulsory element of settling a copyright case in Taiwan, although the parties or the court may make an attempt to use it.