Newsletter
QUANTITY PRODUCED NOT RELEVANT TO ARTWORK'S COPYRIGHT STATUS
In an interpretation dated 20 November 1992, the Ministry of the Interior (MOI) stated that an art or craft product is a single physical creation by which thoughts or emotions can be expressed, and if it is produced by means of molds or manufactured using machinery and can be pro-duced in large numbers, then it is an industrial product, and not a work within the meaning of Article 3, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Copyright Law; and that as such it cannot be considered to be an art or craft product or, therefore, an artistic work.
In another interpretation dated 29 April 1997, the MOI expanded the interpretation as follows: An artistic work is a creation that expresses lines, shading, or form by means of graphic or plastic artistic techniques such as drawing, coloration, writing, carving, or shaping, is characterized by aesthetic qualities, and expresses thoughts or emotions. To determine whether an item is an artistic work (or, in the broader sense, an art or craft product) it is necessary to determine whether it is an expression of artistic technique. If an item does not express thought or emotions through artistic technique, that is to say, if it does not express creative artistic technique, it cannot be considered an artistic work. Because an item produced entirely by the use of molds or ma-chinery does not give expression to artistic technique, it should not be considered an artistic work. Whether the author of a work intended from the beginning to produce the item in large numbers is not a basis for protection under the Copyright Law, and is irrelevant as to whether a work is an artistic work. The MOI's interpreta-tion dated 20 November 1992, that if an item is produced by means of molds or manufactured using machinery and can be produced in large numbers, it is an industrial product and not an artistic work, refers to the above situation; it does not make the intention not to mass-produce an art or craft product a condition for protection.
In a recent Supreme Court judgment concerning a sculpted work designed from a photograph and sculpted in the form of a student wearing the uniform of the Chung-Cheng Armed Forces Preparatory School (the "Chung-Cheng Baby"), the Court held, on the basis of the above 1997 MOI interpretation, that the lower court's holding that the purpose of the appellant in making the Chung-Cheng Baby was to produce it in large numbers, and that therefore the Chung-Cheng Baby model should be considered an industrial product rather than an artistic work, was clearly inconsistent with the 1997 MOI interpretation. Therefore the Supreme Court reversed the original judgment and remanded the case back to the high court.