㐃⥆௻⏬㸸Ḣᕞ࠿ࡽࡳࡓࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫࡢἲ⌮ࡢᚓኻ ࡑࡢ㸯ɶఋСࡇƷ௩᠂҄̿഑߸ᓸ˺ೌඥƷ᧏્Jonathan GRIFFITHSᇛᡤ ᒾ⏕ ヂ せ⣙㸸ⴭసᶒࡢ㝈⏺࡜ไ㝈ࡢศ㔝࡟࠾ࡅࡿḢᕞ㐃ྜࡢ❧ἲⓗ࢖ࢽࢩ࢔ࢸ࢕ࣈ࡟ࡼ
ࡗ࡚ࠊࡑࢀࡲ࡛ຍ┕ᅜ࡟୚࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡓᨻ⟇ୖࡢ⮬⏤ᗘࡀ኱ᖜ࡟ไ⣙ࡉࢀ࡚ࡋࡲࡗ
ࡓࠋⴭసᶒἲࡣࠊ⮬⏤࡟ㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿ⾜Ⅽࡢ⠊ᅖࢆᣑᙇࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࠊࡲࡍࡲࡍ㞴ࡋࡃ࡞ࡗ࡚ࡁ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑ࠺ࡋࡓᣑᙇࡀࠊ♫఍ⓗࠊᢏ⾡ⓗ࡞≧ἣࡢኚ໬࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㐺ษ࡞ᑐᛂ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞ሙྜ࡛ࡍࡽࠊᣑᙇࢆㄆࡵ࡞࠸ഴྥ࡟࠶ࡿࠋᮏㄽᩥࡣࡑ
ࡢཎᅉࢆᴫほࡋࠊゎỴ⟇ࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠋ୍ࡘࡢゎỴ᱌ࡣࠊྜ⾗ᅜⴭసᶒἲ➨᮲࡟
㢮ఝࡋࡓࠊ࣮࢜ࣉࣥ࠿ࡘせ⣲࣮࣋ࢫࡢࣔࢹࣝࡢ᥇⏝࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡣࡶࡗ࡜┿๢࡟᳨ウࡉࢀࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿ࡟ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎࠊ᳨ウࡉࢀ࡚ࡇ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫࡢࣃ
ࣛࢲ࢖࣒ࡣࠊ㐣ᗘ࡟ண୙ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠊᅜ㝿ἲ࡟㐪཯ࡍࡿࠊࡲࡓ㸭࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣᩥ໬ⓗ࡟␗㉁࡛࠶ࡿࠊ࡜ࡢ⌮⏤࡛ᣄྰࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋᮏㄽᩥࡣࠊ┤㏆ࡢࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫ◊✲࡟ࡶ࡜࡙࠸࡚ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢḞⅬࡀ㄂ᙇࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃࡢࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫ࣭
ࣔࢹࣝ㛤Ⓨࡢࡶࡓࡽࡍྍ⬟ᛶࡣ᳨ウ࡟್ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࠊࢆᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࠋ
࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸ⴭసᶒࠊไ㝈ࠊ㝈⏺ࠊࢫ࣮࣭ࣜࢫࢸࢵࣉ࣭ࢸࢫࢺࠊࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫࠊ
Wittem ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ
©ࢪࣙࢼࢧ࣭ࣥࢢࣜࣇ࢕ࢫ
ᮏㄽᩥࡣ Digital Peer Publishing Licence (DPPL) ࡢ᮲௳࡟ࡶ࡜࡙࠸࡚㟁Ꮚⓗ࡟㡺ᕸࡋࠊࢲ࣮࢘ࣥࣟࢻ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࣛ࢖ࢭࣥࢫࡉࢀࡓㄽᩥࡢࢥࣆ࣮ࡣ http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:
nbn:de:0009-dppl-v3-en8࠿ࡽධᡭ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
᥎ዡࡉࢀࡿᘬ⏝㸸 Jonathan Griffiths, “Unsticking the centre-piece-the liberation ofEuropean copyright law?” [2010] 1 JIPITEC 87, para 1.
▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   㐃⥆௻⏬

୰᰾ไᗘࡢᰂ㌾໬̿Ḣᕞⴭసᶒἲࡢ㛤ᨺ 㻳㼞㼕㼒㼒㼕㼠㼔㼟 ࡣࡌࡵ࡟㻌㸿㸬ၥ㢟࣮୰᰾ไᗘࡢ◳┤໬㻌 ᮏㄽᩥࡣࠊࠕࢥࣔࣥࢬࠊ࣮ࣘࢨ࣮ࠊࢧ࣮ࣅࢫ࣭ࣉࣟࣂ࢖ࢲ࣮ࠖ఍㆟࡛ ࢔࣭࢟ࢥ࣑ࣗࣀࢸ࣮ࣝ㸦the acquis communautaireヂὀ㸸㻱㼁 ἲయ⣔ࡢ

ࡢⓎ⾲ㄽᩥࢆࡶ࡜࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋJournal of Intellectual Property Information⥲య㸧࡟ࡼࡗ࡚☜❧ࡉࢀࡓไ㝈ࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡣࠊከࡃࡢᢈุࡀ࠶

ࠕไ㝈㸸Technology and e-Commerce ࡀ๰หࡉࢀࡓ఍㆟࡛࠶ࡿࠋㄽᩥࡣࠊ

ࡿࠋ᝟ሗ♫఍ᣦ௧ Information Society Directive ࡢ୰࡟᮲ᩥ໬ࡉࢀࡓ

ⴭసᶒࡢ୰᰾つᐃࡢ◳┤໬ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࢱ࢖ࢺ࡛ࣝⓎ⾲ࡉࢀࡓࠋࡇࡢ⾪ᧁⓗἲᚊ࡟ࡣࠊ≉࡟ᙉ࠸ᢈุࡀ࠶ࡿࠋᣦ௧ࡣࡼࡃ▱ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ୍㐃࡞࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡣࠊ௨๓࡟ࡣ༑ศ࡞₶⁥Ἔࡢാࡁ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ⮬⏤࡟⛣ືࡋ࡚ࡢᗈ⩏࡟ᐃ⩏ࡉࢀࡓᶒ฼ࢆタᐃࡋࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢᶒ฼ࢆไ㝈࡛ࡁࡿሙྜࢆ

࠸ࡓᖹ⾮⥔ᣢࡢ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࡀࠊ⌧ᅾ࡛ࡣ೵Ṇࡋࠊ୍⟠ᡤ࡟ᅛᐃࡉࢀ࡚ࡋ

ิᣲࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋไ㝈ࡣᩘࡇࡑከ࠸ࡀࠊ࢜ࣉࢩࣙࢼ࡛ࣝࠊไ㝈ࢆ᥇⏝ࡍࡿࡲࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ♧၀ࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢ♧၀ࡣࠊ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃࡢⴭసᶒἲࡢ㝈⏺࡜ไ

㝈࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ⌧≧ࢆࠊṇ☜࡟⾲⌧ࡍࡿẚ႘ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡑࢀࡲ࡛ࠊ



Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer pro-ຍ┕ᅜ࡟ㄆࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡓᰂ㌾ᛶࡀⴭࡋࡃไ㝈ࡉࢀࠊⴭసᶒἲࡀ⮬⏤࡟チ

grams, Arts 5, 6; Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right andᐜࡉࢀࡿ⾜Ⅽࡢ⠊ᅖࢆᑡࡋ࡛ࡶᣑᙇࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡍࡽ㞴ࡋࡃ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑ

on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (codified by Di-

࠺ࡋࡓᣑᙇࡀ♫఍ⓗ࣭ᢏ⾡ⓗ࡞ኚ໬࡟ᑐᛂࡍࡿࡢ࡟㐺ᙜ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽ

rective 2006/115/EC) Art 10; Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of theࢀࡿሙྜ࡛ࡶࠊ୙ྍ⬟࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᮏㄽᩥࡣࠊࡇࡢၥ㢟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊᗈ
ࡃㄆ㆑ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿཎᅉࢆᴫほࡋࠊ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡢゎỴ⟇ࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠋ୍ࡘࡢ
ゎỴ⟇ࡣࠊྜ⾗ᅜⴭసᶒἲ➨᮲࡟㢮ఝࡋࡓࠊ࣮࢜ࣉࣥ࠿ࡘせ⣲࣮࣋Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, Art 6; Directive 2001/29/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonization ofcertain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, Arts 5, 6(4).ᮏㄽᩥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࠕไ㝈 exceptions ࠖ࡜࠸࠺⏝ㄒࡣྛᅜࡢᅜෆἲ࡛ࠕไ㝈ࢫࡢࣔࢹࣝࡢ᥇⏝࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡣࡶࡗ࡜┿๢࡟᳨ウࡉࢀࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿ࡟

exceptions ࠖࠊࠕ 㝈 ⏺ limitations ࠖࠊࠕ チ ྍ ࡉ ࢀ ࡓ ⾜ Ⅽ permitted acts ࠖࠊࠕ ᢠ ᘚࡶ࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎࠊ᳨ウࡉࢀ࡚ࡇ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫࡢࣃࣛࢲ࢖࣒ࡣࠊ

defenses ࠖ࡞࡝ࡢᵝࠎ࡞つᐃࢆᣦࡍࠋࡇࡢ⏝ㄒࡢ㑅ᢥ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ
ࠕไ㝈ࠖࢆࠊసᐙ

㐣ᗘ࡟ண୙ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠊᅜ㝿ἲ࡟㐪཯ࡍࡿࠊࡲࡓ㸭࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣᩥ໬ⓗ࡟

␗㉁࡛࠶ࡿࠊ࡜ࡢ⌮⏤࡛ᣄྰࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋᮏㄽᩥࡣࡇࢀࡽࡢḞⅬࡀ㄂ᙇࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࠋ
ࡸⴭసᶒಖ᭷⪅ࡢᶒ฼࡟ᑐࡍࡿཝᐦ࡟㝈ᐃࡉࢀࡓࠕไ㝈ⓗ࡞ࠖ౵ධ incursions ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゎ㔘ࡍࡿ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࢆ㑅ዲࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍពᅗࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢⅬ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ
࿨ྡ័⾜࠾ࡼࡧᨻ἞ຊᏛࡢ㆟ㄽ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊsee A Kur, “Of Oceans, Islands and Inland
Water – How Much Room for Exceptions and Limitations under the Three-Step Test?” inMax Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition & Tax Law Research Paperヂὀ㸸ཎᩥࡣྛᅜἲ࡛౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ exceptions, limitations, permitted acts, de-Series No. 08-04 (available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1317707).

fenses ࡜࠸࠺⏝ㄒࢆ exceptions ࡛௦⾲ࡉࡏ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ὀ  ཧ↷㸧ࠋࡇࡢࡓࡵࠊ



exceptions ࡀ㢖ฟࡍࡿࡀࠊlimitations ࡶࡲࢀ࡟౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ᪥ᮏࡢⴭసᶒἲ

the harmonization of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information soci-Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 onࡣࠊ➨  ❶➨  ⠇➨  Ḱࢆࠕⴭసᶒࡢไ㝈ࠖ࡟࠶࡚࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
ࠕไ㝈ࠖ࡜

ety (“Information Society Directive”). ࠸࠺ゝⴥࡣ౑ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ
ࠕ౛እࠖ࡜࠸࠺ゝⴥࡣ౑ࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢࡓࡵࠊ࿴

ヂࡣ᪥ᮏἲ࡟ྜࢃࡏ࡚ࠊexception ࢆ㸦ࠕ౛እ࡛ࠖࡣ࡞ࡃ㸧ࠕไ㝈ࠖࠊlimitationࢆ

“Billowing White Goo” [2008] Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 587; M Senftleben,ࠕ㝈⏺ࠖ࡜ࡋࡓࠋ

“Overprotection and Protection Overlaps in Intellectual Property Law – the Need for Hori-᤼௚ⓗᶒ฼ࡢ⠊ᅖࡀᣑᙇࡉࢀࡓ࡜ࡢពぢ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊsee, for example, J Litman,

zontal Fair Use Defenses” in Horizontal Issues in Intellectual Property Law: Uncovering
the Matrix, ed A Kur (Edward Elgar, 2010) 6-7. ࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊcf J Ginsburg, “Recent


Institut für Rechtsinformatik, Leibniz Universität Hannover, March 17-18, 2010.

 ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO  

Developments in US Copyright Law – Part II, Caselaw: Exclusive Rights on the Ebb?”[2009] Revue Internationale du Droit d’Auteur.

▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   㐃⥆௻⏬

୰᰾ไᗘࡢᰂ㌾໬̿Ḣᕞⴭసᶒἲࡢ㛤ᨺ 㻳㼞㼕㼒㼒㼕㼠㼔㼟 ࡟ࡣࠕࢫ࣮࣭ࣜࢫࢸࢵࣉ࣭ࢸࢫࢺࠖࢆ‶ࡓࡍᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿ㹿ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊไ

㐺⏝ࡣࠊྛᅜࡢ❧ἲ⪅ࡢࡳ࡟ྥࡅࡽࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゎ㔘ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࠊࡀ

㝈ࢆ⚗Ṇࡍࡿዎ⣙࠾ࡼࡧ㸭࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣᢏ⾡ⓗ᪉ἲࢆ᥇⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ

⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊInfopaq International A/S v. Danske Dagblades ุỴ࡚ࠊไ㝈ࢆ↓ຠ࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࡛ࡁࡿࠋLucie Guibault ࡣࠊ㻶㻵㻼㻵㼀㻱㻯 ࡢᮏྕ

ࡣࠊ㏫࡟Ḣᕞⴭసᶒἲࡢ୰᰾つᐃࢆࡇࢀࡲ࡛௨ୖ࡟◳┤໬ࡉࡏࡿ᪉ྥ࡟
㉮ࡽࡏ࡚ࡋࡲࡗࡓࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ᥖ㍕ࡢㄽᩥ࡛ࠊ᝟ሗ♫఍ᣦ௧ࡢ⟇ᐃ㐣⛬࡛ࠊ❧ἲ⪅ࡀୗࡋࡓุ᩿ࡀࡶࡓ
ࡽࡍྰᐃⓗ࡞ᙳ㡪ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋGuibault ࡣ≉࡟ࠊࠕ㛢㙐ⓗ࡞ࠖไ

㝈ࢆవࡍ࡜ࡇࢁ࡞ࡃิᣲࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࠊ㝞⭉໬ࡍࡿഴྥࡀ㑊ࡅࡽࢀ࡞࠸࡜ࡋ

 Infopaq ஦௳࡛ࡣࠊ⿕࿌ࡢ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔࣭ࣔࢽࢱ࣮௦⌮ᗑࡣࠊࢹ࣐࣮ࣥࢡ

࡚࠸ࡿ㹿Martin Senftleben ࡣࠊຍ┕ᅜࡢ⿢ุᡤࡀࠕࢫ࣮࣭ࣜࢫࢸࢵࣉ࣭

ࡢ᪂⪺࠿ࡽ㑅ࢇࡔグ஦ࢆせ⣙ࡋ࡚ࠊ㢳ᐈ࡟ᥦ౪ࡋࡓࠋ௦⌮ᗑࡣࠊ㑅ࢇࡔࢸࢫࢺࠖࢆ┤᥋㐺⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊࡇࡢࢫ࣮࣒࢟ࡢྰᐃⓗ࡞ഃ㠃ࡀグ஦඲యࢆࢫ࢟ࣕࣥࡋ୍࡚᫬ⓗ࡟ಖᏑࡋࠊグ஦ࡢ୍㒊࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣᜏஂⓗᙉㄪࡉࢀࠊᰂ㌾ᛶࡶἲⓗᏳᐃᛶࡶ࡞࠸ⴭసᶒࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࠊ➃ⓗ࡟ゝ࠼ࡤࠊ࡟ಖᏑࡍࡿࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆ⮬ື໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ⿢ุᡤࡀ᳨ウࡋࡓ୺࡞ㄽⅬࡣ㸹ࠕ᭱ᝏࡢࢣ࣮ࢫࠖࢆ⏕ࡳฟࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㹿 ϸ ࠕ඲యࡲࡓࡣ୍㒊ࡢ」〇ࠖ㸦➨  ᮲㸧ࡢᴫᛕࢆ࡝࠺ゎ㔘ࡍࡿ࠿ࠊ Ϲⴭస≀ࡢ୍᫬ⓗ」〇ࡢᢠᘚࡀ⿕࿌࡟㐺⏝࡛ࡁࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࠊ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋุ
ヂὀ㸸࣋ࣝࢾ᮲⣙➨  ᮲➨  㡯ࡣࠊ」〇ᶒ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࢫ࣮࣭ࣜࢫࢸࢵࣉ࣭ࢸ

Ỵࡣⴭసᶒἲᑓ㛛ᘚㆤኈ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࠊ㔜せ࡞ព࿡ࢆᣢࡕࠊࡇࡢ஧ࡘࡢㄽⅬࢫࢺ࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿ  せ௳㸦≉ูࡢሙྜ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊⴭస≀ࡢ㏻ᖖࡢ฼⏝ࢆጉࡆࡎࠊ

ࢆ㉸࠼ࡓ࢖ࣥࣃࢡࢺࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࠶ࡽࡺࡿᙧែࡢⴭస≀࡟㐺⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡑࡢⴭస⪅ࡢṇᙜ࡞฼┈ࢆ୙ᙜ࡟ᐖࡋ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜㸧ࢆ‶ࡓࡏࡤࠊᅜෆἲ௧࡛ไ

ࠕ๰సᛶࠖࡢᇶ‽࡜ࠊุỴࢆ㛫᥋ⓗ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ㄪ࿴ࡍࡿ࠿࡟㛵ᚰࡀ㞟㝈つᐃࢆᐃࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࢆㄆࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

 ࡇࢀࡣཝࡋ࠸⌧ᐇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࡟ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎࠊ஦ែࡣࡉࡽ࡟ᝏ໬ࡋ࡚࠸

ࡲࡗࡓ㹿ࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊࢃࢀࢃࢀࡀࡇࡇ࡛ᠱᛕࡍࡿࡢࡣࠊ ϸ ➨  ᮲ࡿࠋ⌮᝿ⓗ࡟ࡣࠊ⿢ุᡤࡀࡇࡢ❧ἲࡢ₯ᅾⓗ࡞▷ᡤࢆ⦆࿴ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ⪃〇ࠖ࡟ᙜࡓࡿ࠿ྰ࠿ࡀᣦ௧࡟ࡶ࡜࡙࠸࡚࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ุ᩿ࡉࢀࡿ࠿ࠊ࡟ࡘ

࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊḢᕞ㐃ྜࡢἲไᗘࡢࡶ࡜࡛チࡉࢀࡿไ㝈ࡣࠊ㐺ᙜ࠸࡚⿢ุᡤࡀ☜❧ࡋࡓ୍⯡ⓗ࡞࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࡛࠶ࡿ㹿࡜ㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿሙྜ㸦ࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊ࣮ࣘࢨ࣮ࡢᇶᮏⓗ࡞ᶒ฼ࢆ⪃៖ࡍࡿሙྜࠊ࡟つᐃࡉࢀࡓไ㝈࡜㝈⏺ࢆ࡝࠺ゎ㔘ࡍࡿ࠿ࠊ࠾ࡼࡧࠊ Ϲ ࠕ ୍㒊ࡢ 」

࠾ࡼࡧ㸭࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣᢏ⾡ࡢⓎᒎࢆಁ㐍ࡍࡿሙྜ㸧࡟ࡣᗈ⩏࡟ゎ㔘ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࠊ ไ㝈࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ⿢ุᡤࡣ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟㏙࡭ࡿ㸸࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊᣦ௧➨  ᮲  ࡟ࡶ࡜࡙ࡃࠕࢫ࣮࣭ࣜࢫࢸࢵࣉ࣭ࢸࢫࢺࠖࡢ

ࠕ͐ᣦ௧ࡀᐃࡵࡓ୍⯡ཎ๎࠿ࡽ㐓⬺ࡍࡿᣦ௧ࡢ᮲㡯ࡣࠊཝ᱁࡟ゎ㔘ࡉࢀ
See, Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer

programs (“Computer Programs Directive”), Art 6(3); Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19November 1992 on rental right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of[2009] ECDR 16.

intellectual property (codified by Directive 2006/115/EC) (“Rental Right Directive”), Art

10(3); Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996

Wonderful or Worrisome? The Impact of the ECJ Ruling in Infopaq on UK Copyright Law”

on the legal protection of databases (“Database Directive”), Art 6(3); Information Society[2010] EIPR 2010 247; M Handig, “Infopaq International A/S v. Danske Dagblades

Directive, Art 5(5).

Forening (C-5/08): is the term ‘work’ of the CDPA 1988 in line with the European Direc-Infopaq International AS v. Danske Dagblades Forening (C-5/08), 16th July 2009 (ECJ)See, for example, E Derclaye, “International A/S v. Danske Dagblades Forening (C-5/8):

L Guibault, “Why Cherry-Picking Never Leads to Harmonisation: The Case of the Limi-tives?” [2010] EIPR 53.tations in Copyright under Directive 2001/29/EC” [2010] 1 JIPITEC 55.

M Senftleben, “The International Three-Step Test: A Model Provision for EC Fair Use

prudence: IceTV in the light of Infopaq” [2010] Oxford University Commonwealth Law

Legislation” [2010] 1 JIPITEC 67.Journal (forthcoming). ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO  

On (ii), see J Pila, “An Australian Copyright Revolution and its Relevance for UK Juris-▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   㐃⥆௻⏬

୰᰾ไᗘࡢᰂ㌾໬̿Ḣᕞⴭసᶒἲࡢ㛤ᨺ 㻳㼞㼕㼒㼒㼕㼠㼔㼟 ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸͐㺁 ⿢ุᡤࡀࠊࡇࡢุỴࢆᨭᣢࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠕࢫ࣮࣭ࣜࢫࢸࢵࣉ࣭ࢸࢫࢺࠖ

࡟౫ᣐࡋࡓࡢࡣㄗࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡣࠊἲไᗘࡢ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࢆ኱ࡁࡃ␗࡞ ࡇࡢ஦௳࡛ࡣࠊᣦ௧࡟ࡼࡾㄆࡵࡽࢀࡓᶒ฼ࡣࠕ୍⯡ⓗཎ๎࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࡇ

ࡿᶵ⬟࡜ΰྠࡉࡏ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺㹿  ࣋ࣝࢾ᮲⣙࠾ࡼࡧ 㼀㻾㻵㻼㻿 ༠ᐃ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ

࡜ࠊࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊไ㝈ࡣ⊃ࡃゎ㔘ࡉࢀ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࠊࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡓࠋࠕࢫ࣮࣭ࣜࢫࢸࢵࣉ࣭ࢸࢫࢺࠖࡢᶵ⬟ࡣࠊࡑࡢ᮲௳࡟㐺ྜࡋ࡞࠸ไ㝈ࢆ⿢ุᡤࡣࡲࡓࠊࡇࡢゎ㔘ࡀࠊไ㝈ࢆࠕ➨  ᮲  ࡟↷ࡽࡋ࡚ゎ㔘ࡍࡿࠖᑟධࡍࡿྛᅜࡢ❧ἲ⪅ࡢᶒ㝈ࢆᢚไࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࠶ࡿ㹿᝟ሗ♫఍ᣦ௧➨ᚲせᛶ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᨭᣢࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿ㹿ࡇࡢゎ㔘ࡣࠊ୍㒊ࡢຍ┕ ᮲  ࡟ࡶ࡜࡙ࡅࡤࠊࡇࡢᙺ๭ࡣ⿢ุᐁࡀࠕࢸࢫࢺࠖࢆ‶ࡓࡉ࡞࠸᪉ἲ

ᅜࡀఏ⤫ⓗ࡟᥇⏝ࡋ࡚ࡁࡓไ㝈ࢆ⊃ࡃゎ㔘ࡍࡿཎ๎ࢆ୍⯡໬ࡋࠊࡑࡢ⤖࡛ࠊไ㝈ࢆࠕ㐺⏝ࡍࡿࠖࡢࢆ㜼Ṇࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡲ࡛ᣑᙇࡉࢀࡓ࡜࠸࠺㆟ㄽᯝࠊ᫂ࡽ࠿࡞ၥ㢟ࢆᥦ㉳ࡍࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊᇶᮏⓗ࡞ၥ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊⴭసᶒἲࡢ

ࡶ࠶ࡾ࠺ࡿ㹿࡟ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎࠊࡇࡢᣑᙇࡉࢀࡓᙺ๭࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊࡑࡢ㔜せ࡞ഃ㠃ࢆࠊᣦ௧⮬య࡟ྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸࡟ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎᐦ࠿࡟ㄪᩚࡍ

ᶵ⬟ࡣࠊไ㝈ࢆⴭసᶒಖ᭷⪅࡟᭷฼࡟ゎ㔘ࡍࡿሙྜ࡟ࠊ⿢ุᡤ࡟⩏ົ࡙ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊẸ୺୺⩏࡟཯ࡍࡿࠋ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃࡢ୍㒊ࡢᅜ࡛ࡣࠊ⌧ᅾࡲ࡛ࠊࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ⊃⩏ゎ㔘ࡢཎ๎࡜ྠࡌ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࠕࢫ࣮࣭ࣜࢫࢸࢵࣉ࣭ࢸ

ࡲࡗࡓࡃ␗࡞ࡿゎ㔘ࡀࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓ㹿 ࡇࢀࡽࡢᡭ⥆ⓗ࡞ၥ㢟࡟ຍ࠼࡚ࠊ

ࢫࢺࠖࡢ࡝ࡢࣂ࣮ࢪࣙࣥࡢⲡ᱌సᡂ᫬࡟ࡶࠊࢸࢫࢺ࡟ࡇࡢᣑᙇࡉࢀࡓᙺ

ࡇࡢุỴ࡟ࡣᐇែⓗ࡞཯ᑐࡶከ࠸ࠋไ㝈ࡀ࣮ࣘࢨ࣮ࡲࡓࡣᕷẸࡢᇶᮏⓗ๭ࢆㄢࡑ࠺࡜ࡋࡓ࡜ࡍࡿᣦ᦬ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ

ᶒ฼ ࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊࢽ࣮ࣗࢫሗ㐨ࠊࣃࣟࢹ࢕࣮ࡲࡓࡣᘬ⏝ ࡟ࡶ࡜࡙࠸࡚

࠸ࡿሙྜࠊ⊃⩏ࡢゎ㔘ࡣ㐺ษ࡜ࡣᛮࢃࢀ࡞࠸࡜ࡍࡿ཯ᑐ࡛࠶ࡿ㹿ࡋ࠿

 Infopaq ุỴࡣࠊ⊃⩏ゎ㔘ࡢ࣮ࣝࣝࢆタᐃࡋࡓࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊᮏㄽᩥ

ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊࡼࡾ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ࡣࠊࡑ࠺ࡋࡓᩍ᮲ⓗ࡞࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡣ㈼࡛᫂࠶ࡿ

ࡢ᭱ึ࡟ᴫほࡋࡓᅔ㞴ࢆቑᖜࡉࡏࡓࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿ㹿ࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ

࡜ࡣᛮࢃࢀ࡞࠸ࠋⴭసᶒἲࡀつไࡍࡿ≧ἣࡣከᵝ࡛࠶ࡾࠊẁ㝵ⓗ࡞ゎỴྰᐃⓗ࡞ᙳ㡪ࡣࡑࢀ࡟࡜࡝ࡲࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ⿕࿌ࡀసရࡢࠕ඲㒊ࡲࡓࡣ୍㒊ࠖ⟇ࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋఏ⤫ⓗ࡞⎔ቃࡢࡶ࡜࡛ࡣࠊ㧗ᗘࡢ๰సᛶࢆ୺ᙇࡍࡿⴭ

ࢆ」〇ࡋࡓ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࢆỴࡵࡿ㐺ษ࡞᪉ἲ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ⿢ุᡤࡢุ᩿ࡣࠊࣚ

⪅ࡢ฼┈ࡣ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ᨭᣢࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡑ࠺ࡋࡓ≧ἣୗ࡛㛤Ⓨࡉࢀࡓつ๎࣮ࣟࢵࣃࡢⴭసᶒࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡟ṧࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓᰂ㌾ᛶࢆࡶ㝖ཤࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺

ࡣࠊᶒ฼ࡀᣑᩓࡋࠊ㔜」ࡍࡿ⌧ᅾࡢ≧ἣୗ࡛ࡣࠊ㐺ษ࡞ࡶࡢ࡜ࡣᛮࢃࢀ

࠾ࡑࢀࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢⅬ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⿢ุᡤࡣḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟㏙࡭ࡿ㸸࡞࠸ࠋࠕⴭస⪅ே᱁ᶒࠖࡢఏ⤫ࢆᣢࡘᅜࡢ⿢ุᡤࡢุỴ࡛ࡶࠊࡇࡢ⤖ㄽࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㹿ᢏ⾡≧ἣࡀᛴ㏿࡟ኚ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ⌧≧࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ࠸

ࠕಖㆤࡉࢀࡓసရࢆᢤ⢋ࡋ࡚」〇ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊᢤ⢋㒊ศࡀⴭ⪅⮬㌟ࡢ▱࠿࡞ࡿ≧ἣ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊ⣮தࡢ୍᪉ᙜ஦⪅࡟᭷฼࡞≧ἣࢆ࠶ࡽ࠿ࡌࡵస



ࡾฟࡍࡇ࡜ࡣ↓ㅛ࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ



R Hilty, “Declaration on the ‘Three-Step Test’: Where do we go from here?” [2010] 1

JIPITEC 83.



Berne Convention, Art 9(2); TRIPS Agreement, Art 13.[2009] ECDR 16, para 56.For discussion, see J Griffiths, “The ‘Three-Step Test’ in European Copyright Law –Ibid, para 58.

Problems & Solutions” [2009] IPQ 428.

See, for example, Pro Sieben Media v. Carlton UK Television [1999] FSR 610 (CA,

United Kingdom).
ࡇࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ≉ᐃࡢࢣ࣮ࢫ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊྛᅜࡢ⿢ุᡤࡀไ㝈ࢆᰂ㌾࡟㐺⏝ࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࡀࠊḢᕞ⿢ุᡤࡀ᥇⏝ࡋࡓゎ㔘࡜ᩚྜࡍࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࡣ␲ၥ࡛࠶ࡿࠋSee, forC Geiger, “Implementing an international instrument for interpreting copyright limita-

example, Re the Supply of Phtocopies of Newspaper Articles by a Public Library [2000]

tions and exceptions” [2009] IIC 627.

ECC 237(Supreme Court, Germany); ProLitteris v. Aargauer Zeitung AG [2008] 39 IIC 990

See, for example, Bild-Kunst v. Focus [2005] ECDR 6 (BGH, Federal Supreme Court,(Federal Court, Switzerland); Buren [2005] IIC 869 (Supreme Court, France); Dior v. Evora

Germany), para 10.[1996] NJ 682 (Supreme Court, Netherlands). ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO  ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   㐃⥆௻⏬

୰᰾ไᗘࡢᰂ㌾໬̿Ḣᕞⴭసᶒἲࡢ㛤ᨺ 㻳㼞㼕㼒㼒㼕㼠㼔㼟 ⓗ๰సࢆ⾲⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜࡣࠊᣦ௧➨  ᮲࡟ព࿡ࡍࡿ㒊ศⓗ」

ⲡࡋ┤ࡍࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋṧᛕ࡞ࡀࡽࠊࡇࡢࣉࣟࢪ࢙ࢡࢺ࡟ࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡞㞀ᐖ〇ࢆᵓᡂࡍࡿ͐ ࠖࡀከࡃᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋ➨୍࡟ࠊࡇࡢศ㔝ࡢ❧ἲ㐣⛬ࡣ஘ᭀ࡛ࠊ࠿ࡘ㐜࠸ࡢ࡛᭷ྡ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ➨஧࡟ࠊຍ┕ᅜࡢከࡃࡣࠊࡸࡗ࡜᭱㏆࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ࠊ᝟ሗ♫఍ 」〇ࡣಖㆤࡉࢀࡓ๰సⓗ࡞せ⣲ࢆྵࡴሙྜ࡟ࡢࡳ౵ᐖ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ⾲㠃ⓗᣦ௧ࡢせồࢆᅜෆἲ໬ࡋࡓࡤ࠿ࡾ࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡢ㔜せ࡞ぢ┤ࡋ࡟෌࡟ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡣⴭసᶒᑓ㛛ᘚㆤኈ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚㆟ㄽࡢవᆅࡀ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡟ࡳ࠼

ᗘ✚ᴟⓗ࡟ྲྀࡾ⤌ࡴ࡜ࡣ⪃࠼ࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ➨୕࡟ࠊ⥅⥆ⓗ࡞ᢏ⾡㐍Ṍ࡟┤㠃ࡋ࡚ࠊࡑ࠺ࡋࡓ෌⪃ᐹࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࡣᐃᮇⓗ࡟⧞ࡾ㏉ࡉࢀࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡿ㹿 ๰స⪅࡟ࡼࡿࠕ࢖ࣥࣉࢵࢺࠖ࡜⿕࿌࡟ࡼࡿࠕዣྲྀ taking ࠖ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀࡢ᳨ウࡣࠊࡍ࡭࡚ࡢຍ┕ᅜ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ౵ᐖศᯒࡢఏ⤫ⓗ࡞࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ

ࡢ୍⎔࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡣ࠿࡞ࡾ㧗ࡑ࠺࡛࠶ࡿ㹿ࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊࡇ

ࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡟ᆒ⾮ࢆᅇ᚟ࡉࡏࡿࡑࡢ௚ࡢᥦ᱌ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢᥦ᱌ࡣࠊ

ࡢุỴࡀࠊ㒊ศⓗ࡞౵ᐖࡀⓎ⏕ࡋࡓ࠿ྰ࠿ࢆỴᐃࡍࡿ㝿ࡢࠊ၏୍ࡢ㐺ษ◳┤໬ࡋࡓ 㻱㼁㻌ἲయ⣔ࡢᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶ୍ഃ㠃ࡢゎỴࡣヨࡳ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡓ࡜࠼

࡞ᇶ‽࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊ㔜኱࡞⤖ᯝࢆᣍࡃ࠾ࡑࢀࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ

ࡤࠊከࡃࡢຍ┕ᅜ࡛ࠊዎ⣙࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ไ㝈ࡀኚ᭦ྍ⬟࡞ࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡶࡓ

ࢻ࢖ࢶࡢ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊ
ࠕࣇ࣮࣭࣮ࣜࣘࢫࠖࡢ᮲㡯ࢆ㐺⏝ࡍࡿ㝿࡟㺂 ⿕࿌ࡀࡽࡉࢀࡿࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡢ୙ᆒ⾮ࢆࠊไ㝈ࡢ୍㒊ࡶࡋࡃࡣ඲㒊ࢆࠊኚ᭦୙ྍ⬟ࠕዣྲྀࠖࡋࡓⴭ⪅ࡢࠕ࢖ࣥࣉࢵࢺࠖ㔞ࡢࡳ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ⿕࿌ࡀసရ࡟ࠕ㏣ຍࠖ

࡞ࡶࡢ࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ゎỴࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿᥦ᱌࡛࠶ࡿ㹿ྠᵝ࡟ࠊไࡋࡓ㔞ࡶ⪃៖ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋInfopaq ஦௳ࡢ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊ౵ᐖ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࡢ

㝈ࢆᢏ⾡ⓗᡭẁ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᅇ㑊ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠊࡼࡾຠᯝⓗ࡞㜵ᚚ⟇ࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࢆ┤᥋᥇⏝ࡋ࡚ࡣ࠸࡞࠸ࡀࠊࡇࡢุỴ࡜ࢻ࢖ࢶࡢ⿢ุᡤࡢ᥇

ᥦ᱌ࡶࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㹿ࡲࡓ➨  ᮲  ࡟᮲ᩥ໬ࡉࢀࡓࠕࢫ࣮࣭ࣜࢫࢸࢵ

⏝ࡍࡿཎ๎࡜ࡣㄪ࿴ࡋ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢศᯒࡀṇࡋࡅࢀࡤࠊ

ࣉ࣭ࢸࢫࢺࠖࢆࠊࡼࡾࠕࣂࣛࣥࢫࡢ࡜ࢀࡓࠖゎ㔘ࢆࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ

Infopaq ุỴࡣࠊḢᕞⴭసᶒไᗘࡢࠕ୰᰾ไᗘࠖࢆࡉࡽ࡟◳┤໬ࡋ࡚ࡋ

Senftleben ࡀᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࠕ᭱ᝏࡢࢩࢼࣜ࢜ࠖࢆᅇ㑊ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿᥦ᱌ࡶ࠶

ࡲ࠺ࠋ

ࡿ㹿



㹀㸬ྍ⬟࡞ゎỴ⟇࣮୰᰾ไᗘࡢᰂ㌾໬㻌࡝࠺ࡍࢀࡤࠊḢᕞࡢⴭసᶒไ㝈ࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡟ࠕᆒ⾮㺁࡜ᰂ㌾ᛶࢆᅇ᚟࡛
ࡁࡿࡔࢁ࠺࠿㸽 ᫂☜࡞᪉ἲࡢ୍ࡘࡣࠊ᪤Ꮡࡢไ㝈ࣜࢫࢺࢆᑂᰝࡋࠊ㉳
logue: Remarks on the Concept of Balance in Copyright Law” [2009] Journal of Corporation Law 991.
See, for example, M van Eechoud et al, Harmonizing European Copyright Law – theChallenges of Better Lawmaking (Kluwer Law International, 2009) 106-109.



[2009] ECDR 16, para 48.

Gates in the Territory of Literary, Musical and Artistic Creation” in Research Handbook onࡓࡔࡋࠊసရࡢ≉ᐃ࡞ഃ㠃࡟ࠕ๰సᛶࠖࢆㄆࡵࡿ࡜࠸࠺⪃࠼࡟ࡣ␲ၥࢆᢪࡃㄽ⪅See, for example, M-C Janssens, “The Issue of Exceptions: Reshaping the Keys to thethe Future of EU copyright, P Torremans ed (Edward Elgar, 2009) 340-344.

ࡶ࠸ࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ

ࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊⱥᅜ㈗᪘㝔㸦House of Lords,ヂὀ㸸᭱㧗ྖἲᶵ㛵ࡢᙺ๭ࡶྜࢃࡏᣢࡗ

‘Three-Step Test’ in Copyright Law” [2008] 39 IIC 707; see also C Geiger, J Griffiths & R࡚࠸ࡿ㸧ࡣࠊDesigners Guild Ltd v. Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd [2000] 1 WLR 2416 ஦

Hilty, “Towards a Balanced Interpretation of the ‘Three-Step Test’ in Copyright Law”௳࡛ࠊࡇࡇ࡛ㄝ᫂ࡋࡓࡢ࡜ࡲࡗࡓࡃఝ㏻ࡗࡓ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࢆ᥇⏝ࡋࡓࠋ[2008] EIPR 489. Declaration ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ௨ୗ࡟ࡶ㆟ㄽࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋH He, “Seeking a

C Geiger, J Griffiths & R Hilty, “Declaration on a Balanced Interpretation of theCopyright Act 1965, Art 24.Balanced Interpretation of the Three-Step Test: an Adjusted Structure in View of Divergent▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲࡢࠕࣂࣛࣥࢫࠖࡢẚ႘࡟ᑐࡍࡿᢈุ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊsee G Dinwoodie, “TheApproaches” [2009] IIC 274; R Wright, “The ‘Three-Step Test’ and the Wider Public Inter-

WIPO Copyright Treaty: Transition to the Future of International Copyright Lawmaking?”

est: Towards a More Inclusive Interpretation” [2009] Journal of World Intellectual Prop-[2007] Case Western Reserve Law Review 751; A Drassinower, “From Distribution to Dia-

erty 600; W Patry, “The Declaration on the Three-Step Test” The Patry Copyright Blog, ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO  ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   㐃⥆௻⏬

୰᰾ไᗘࡢᰂ㌾໬̿Ḣᕞⴭసᶒἲࡢ㛤ᨺ 㻳㼞㼕㼒㼒㼕㼠㼔㼟 ௨ୖࡢᥦ᱌ࡣࡍ࡭࡚ࠊୖグࡢࢩࢫࢸ࣒඲యࢆ◳┤໬ࡉࡏ࡚࠸ࡿಶูࡢࡤチᐜࡉࢀࡿࠋ㛵㐃ࡋࡓไ㝈࡟ᑐᛂࡋࡓせ௳ࢆ‶ࡓࡍࡇ࡜ࠊࡑࡢ౑⏝ࡀၥ㢟࡟ᑐࡍࡿᑐ⟇࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃࡢⴭసᶒࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࢆࡼࡾ⥲ྜⓗ࡟

సရࡢ㏻ᖖࡢ౑⏝࡟཯ࡋ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࠊ➨୕⪅ࡢྜἲⓗ࡞฼┈ࢆ⪃៖ࡋ࡚ࠊ෌ㄪᩚࡍࡿᥦ᱌ࡶᩘከࡃ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊἲᚊࡣ฼⏝⪅ࡸ୍⯡ⴭ⪅ࡲࡓࡣⴭసᶒಖ᭷⪅ࡢྜ⌮ⓗ࡞฼┈ࢆ୙ᙜ࡟ᦆ࡞ࢃ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࠊࡀࡑ

኱⾗ࡢᇶᮏⓗ࡞ᶒ฼ࢆㄆࡵࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿᥦ᱌࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᭱㏆ࡢᶒ฼

ࡢせ௳࡛࠶ࡿ㹿㺁⪅࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࡓᒎ㛤࡟ᑐᢠࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ⾲⌧ࡢ⮬⏤ࡸ᝟ሗ࠾ࡼࡧࣉࣛ

࢖ࣂࢩ࣮ࡢ⮬⏤ࡢᶒ฼ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠊᙉຊ࡞ᶒ฼ࢆㄆࡵࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿ

ไ㝈ࡀࠊ ϸ ⌧⾜ἲࡢไ㝈࡟㐺ྜࡍࡿሙྜࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ Ϲ ෌㉳ⲡࡉࢀࡓࡼࡾไ㝈ࡢ⦆ࡸ࠿࡞ࠕࢫ࣮࣭ࣜࢫࢸࢵࣉ࣭ࢸࢫࢺࠖ࡟㐺ྜࡍࡿሙྜࠊ

୺ᙇ࡛࠶ࡿ㹿 ࡇࢀࡽࡣࠊ㔜せ࠿ࡘ౯್࠶ࡿᥦ᱌࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ
࠸ࡎࢀࡶᰂ㌾ᛶࡢḞዴ࡜࠸࠺ᵓ㐀ⓗ࡞ၥ㢟࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠊ⥲ྜⓗ࡞ゎỴ⟇ࢆ࡟❧ἲ⪅࡟᪂ࡓ࡞ไ㝈᮲㡯ࢆ㏣ຍࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆㄆࡵࡿᥦ᱌࡛࠶ࡿࠋ௨ୗࡣ

ᥦ౪ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋᇶᮏⓗ࡞ᶒ฼ࡢᑟධࡶࠊⴭసᶒἲࡢ㐺⏝࡟ࡘ࠸ࡑࡢ᰿ᣐ࡛࠶ࡿ㸸࡚ࠊ᪂ࡋ࠸ၥ㢟ࡀⓎ⏕ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿศ㔝࡟ᑐࡍࡿ࢞࢖ࢲࣥࢫࢆᥦ౪ࡍࡿࡶࡢ

ࠕไ㝈ࢆつᐃࡍࡿ᮲㡯ࡢ❶ࡣࠊไ㝈ࡀ࣮࢜ࣉ࣭࢚ࣥࣥࢻࡢࢥ࣭࣮ࣔࣥࣟ

࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ

ᆺ࡜ࠊไ㝈ࢆవࡍ࡜ࡇࢁ࡞ࡃิᣲࡍࡿᡂᩥἲᆺࢆ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍

᪉࡛ࠊྠ✀ࡢ౑⏝࡬ࡢᣑ኱ࡣࠊไ㝈ࢆṇᙜ໬࡛ࡁࡿ≧ἣࢆࡍ࡭࡚ண

ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᵓ㐀ࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟࠾ࡅࡿኚ᭦ࡢᥦ᱌ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊWittem

ࡍGroup ࡣࠊᑗ᮶࡟࠾ࡅࡿㄪ࿴ࡢ࢖ࢽࢩ࢔ࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭ࣔࢹࣝࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣཧ

ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ୙ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇ࡟↷ࡽࡍ࡜ࠊࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡟୙ྍḞ࡞ᰂ㌾⪃ࢶ࣮ࣝ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃⴭసᶒἲ඾ࡢⲡ᱌ࢆබ⾲ࡋࡓ㹿ࡇࡢⲡ᱌

ᛶࢆ୚࠼ࡿࠋ௚᪉ࠊྍ⬟࡞ᰂ㌾ᛶࡣ஧ࡘࡢ᪉ἲ࡛⊃ࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ➨୍࡟ࠊ࡛ࡣࠊ෌㉳ⲡࡉࢀࡓ㸦ࡑࡋ࡚ᙉไⓗ࡞㸧ಶูࡢไ㝈ࡢࣜࢫࢺࡀᥦ᱌ࡉࢀ

ᣑ኱ࡣ᫂♧ⓗ࡟ิᣲࡉࢀࡓไ㝈࡜ྠ✀ࡢ౑⏝࡟㝈ࡽࢀࡿ͐ࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊ
ิᣲࡉࢀࡓไ㝈࡟ᑐࡋ࡚つ⠊ⓗ࡞ຠᯝࡀᤵ୚ࡉࢀࡿ͐➨஧࡟ࠊࡑ࠺ࡋࡓ㹿 ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡢไ㝈ࡣࠊྖἲᗓࡀኚ໬ࡍࡿ≧ἣ࡟ᰂ㌾࡟ᑐᛂ࡛ࡁࡿࡼ
࠺ࠊẚ㍑ⓗ࣮࢜ࣉࣥ࡞ᙧ࡛㉳ⲡࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㹿 ⲡ᱌ࡣࡲࡓࠊ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺

ࡓྠ✀ࡢ౑⏝ࡣࠊసရࡢ㏻ᖖࡢ౑⏝࡜┦཯ࡏࡎࠊࡲࡓ➨୕⪅ࡢྜἲⓗ࡞࡞࣮࢜ࣉࣥ࡞ࠕᢳ㇟ᗘࢆ㧗ࡵࡓไ㝈ࠖ META Exception ࡶྵࢇ࡛࠸ࡿ㸸฼┈ࡶ⪃៖ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊⴭ⪅ࡲࡓࡣⴭసᶒಖ᭷⪅ࡢྜἲⓗ࡞฼┈ࢆ୙ᙜ࡟ᦆ࡞ࢃ࡞࠸㹿㺁ࠕิᣲࡉࢀࡓ౑⏝࡜▩┪ࡋ࡞࠸࠶ࡽࡺࡿ௚ࡢ౑⏝ࡣ͐ḟࡢせ௳ࢆ‶ࡓࡏ

ࡑ࠺ࡋࡓつᐃࡢᑟධࡣࠊࡑࢀ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ቑࡍᰂ㌾ᛶࡀࠊኚ໬ࡍࡿ≧ἣ࡟

23rd July 2008, http://william-patry.blogspot.com/2008/07/declaration-on-three-step-test.

ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊẚ㍑ⓗ㏿ࡸ࠿࡛ࠊ㔮ࡾྜ࠸ࡢ࡜ࢀࡓᑐᛂࢆㄆࡵࡿⅬ࡛ព⩏ࡀ࠶

html; see M Ficsor, “The ‘Three-Step Test’ – De Lege Lata – De Lege Ferenda”, paperࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊつᐃࡀຍ┕ᅜ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣḢᕞ㐃ྜࣞ࣋ࣝࡢ❧ἲ⪅ࡢࡳ

delivered at the Fordham International Intellectual Property Law and Policy Conference,࡟ྥࡅࡽࢀࡓሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊࡑࡢᰂ㌾ᛶࡣࠊ኱ࡁࡃᦆ࡞ࢃࢀࡿࠋ࡞ࡐ࡞ࡽࠊ

Cambridge 2009, http://iplj.net/blog/page /2; A Lucas, “For a Reasonable Interpretation of฼⏝⪅ࡣ౫↛࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊືࡁࡀ㐜ࡃࣟࣅ࣮άືࡢ⃭ࡋ࠸❧ἲ㐣⛬࡟౫Ꮡࡏ

the Three-Step Test” [2010] EIPR 277.


See, for example, C Geiger, “Fundamental Rights, a Safeguard for the Coherence ofIntellectual Property Law” [2004] IIC 268.

ࡊࡿࢆᚓ࡞࠸࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋḢᕞ㐃ྜࡢⴭྡ࡞ⴭసᶒᏛ⪅ࡢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉࠋ



www.copyrightcode.eu.





See Chapter 5.

Art 5.5.



See, notably, Art 5.4.



The Wittem Project, European Copyright Code 19, n 48. ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO  ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   㐃⥆௻⏬

୰᰾ไᗘࡢᰂ㌾໬̿Ḣᕞⴭసᶒἲࡢ㛤ᨺ 㻳㼞㼕㼒㼒㼕㼠㼔㼟 ⴭసᶒᏛ⪅ࡢ୰࡟ࡣࡉࡽ࡟㋃ࡳࡇࢇ࡛ࠊ❧ἲᗓࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊྖἲᗓ

↷㸧࡟ࡼࡿ࡭ࡁࡔ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋࡑࢀ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ
ࠕࢸࢫࢺࠖࡢᶵ⬟ࢆྰᐃ

࡟ࡶᰂ㌾࡞ᑐᛂࢆồࡵࡿ⪅ࡶ࠸ࡿࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊ⌧⾜ࡢไ㝈࡟ࡼࡗ࡚࢝ࣂ

ⓗ࡞ไ⣙࠿ࡽࠊ⫯ᐃⓗ࡞࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒࡟ಟṇࡋࠊ㺀ࢸࢫࢺ㺁ࡢ᮲௳࡜ᑐ❧ࡋ࣮ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡞ⴭస≀ࡢ౑⏝ࢆチྍࡍࡿᶒ㝈ࢆࠊ⿢ุᐁ࡟ࡶ୚࠼

࡞࠸ࡍ࡭࡚ࡢ౑⏝ࢆㄆࡵࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿࠋ

ࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿ୺ᙇ࡛࠶ࡿ㹿 ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃ࡛ࡣࠊMartin Senftleben ࡣୗグࡢᥦ᱌ࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㸸ࠕࢫ࣮࣭ࣜࢫࢸࢵࣉ࣭ࢸࢫࢺࠖ᪉ᘧࢆࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙧ࡛ࠊ᥇⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡞฼Ⅼࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࢸࢫࢺࡢせ௳ࡣᅜ㝿ⓗ࡟ㄆࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࣚ

ࠕ᪂ࡋ࠸࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࢿࢵࢺ⏘ᴗࡀⓎᒎࡋࠊࡑࡢ⤒῭ⓗྍ⬟ᛶࢆ᭷ຠά⏝ࡍ࣮ࣟࢵࣃ࡛ࡣࠊ⡿ᅜࡢࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫ࣭ࣔࢹࣝࡼࡾࡶᨻ἞ⓗ࡟ཷࡅධࢀ

ࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊⴭసᶒไ㝈ࡢ୰࡟༑ศ࡞ᜥᢤࡁࡢవᆅࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᚲ

ࡽࢀ᫆࠸࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ➹⪅ࡀูࡢሙ࡛ㄽࡌࡓࡼ࠺࡟㺂ࡇ࠺

せ୙ྍḞ࡛࠶ࡿ͐ࡇ࠺ࡋࡓၥ㢟ࢆ⪃៖ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊࢫ࣮࣭ࣜࢫࢸࢵࣉ࣭ࢸࢫ

ࡋࡓᙧ࡛㐺⏝ࡍࡿࡢࡣၥ㢟ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࢸࢫࢺࡢඖ᮶ࡢᶵ⬟ࡣไ㝈࡛࠶ࡾࠊࢺࡢᘓタⓗ࡞౑⏝࡟┠ࢆྥࡅࡿᶵࡣ⇍ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࡳ࠼ࡿࠋ㏆௦ⴭసⴭస≀ࡢ⮬⏤࡞౑⏝ࢆไ㝈ࡍࡿᙺ๭ࢆᯝࡓࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊࡑࢀ

ᶒἲࡣࢸࢫࢺࢆࠊไ㝈ࢆ⥾ࡵࡘࡅࡿࡓࡵ࡟౑⏝ࡍࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊಶࠎࡢ

ࡣࠊࠕࣂࣛࣥࢫࠖࡢ࡜ࢀࡓᙧ࡛㐺ษ࡟ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡓ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊḢᕞࡢⴭసࢣ࣮ࢫࡢಶูࡢ≧ἣ࡟ᑐᛂࡋ࡚ࠊไ㝈ࢆไ⣙ࡋࡓࡾࠊᣑ኱ࡋࡓࡾࡍࡿὙ

ᶒࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡟ࠊࡼࡾ࣮࢜ࣉࣥ࡞ᰂ㌾ᛶࢆᑟධࡍࡿ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ

⦎ࡉࢀࡓẚ㍑⪃㔞ࢸࢫࢺ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ౑⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᥎㐍ࡍࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࡑࢀࡣつ⠊ⓗ࡞࢞࢖ࢲࣥࢫࢆ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ᥦ౪ࡋ࡞࠸ࠋࠕࢸࢫࢺࠖ

❧ἲⓗ㛵ᚰ࡬ࡢ୙ྜ⌮࡞೫ぢ࡜ṇつ࡞౑⏝࡜ࡢ┦ඞ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠊᰂ㌾ᛶࡢࡣࠊ☜❧ࡉࢀࡓព࿡ࢆᣢࡘࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊྛᅜࡢ⿢ุᡤࡀ㐺⏝ࡍࡿሙྜ࠶ࡿ࣮࢜ࣉࣥ࡞ᇶ‽࡟ࡶ࡜࡙࠸ࡓࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫ㺃ࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡢ᥇⏝ࡣࠊ࡟ࠊ௚ࡢᡭẁ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚฿㐩ࡋࡓ⤖ㄽࢆ஦ᚋⓗ࡟ṇᙜ໬ࡍࡿᙺ๭ࡋ࠿ᯝࡓ

ࢫ࣮࣭ࣜࢫࢸࢵࣉ࣭ࢸࢫࢺࡢࡼࡾᰂ㌾࡛ࠊࣂࣛࣥࢫࡢ࡜ࢀࡓ㐺⏝࡬ࡢ㐨ࡋ࡚ࡇ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ

ࢆ㛤ࡃ㹿㺁 ࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ≧ἣୗ࡛ࠊㄽ⪅㐩ࡀ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃࡢⴭసᶒࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࢆࡼࡾᰂ㌾ࡑ࠺ࡋࡓࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫᆺࡢ᮲㡯ࡣࠊ␲࠸࡞ࡃ᪤Ꮡࡢࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡟ᰂ㌾࡞ࡶࡢ࡟ࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢ௦᭰᱌ࠊලయⓗ࡟ࡣ⡿ᅜࣔࢹࣝࢆ࣮࣋ࢫ࡟ࡋࡓࠊせᛶࢆ୚࠼ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊSenftleben ࠾ࡼࡧྠᵝࡢ⪃࠼ࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿேࠎ

⣲࡟ࡶ࡜࡙࠸ࡓࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫ⌮ㄽࡢ᥇⏝ࢆࠊ┿๢࡟᥈ồࡋ࡚ࡇ࡞࠿ࡗ

ࡣࠊᰂ㌾ᛶ࡟ᑐࡍࡿつ⠊ⓗ࡞ไ⣙ࡣࠊ⡿ᅜࡢࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫ⌮ㄽࡢࡼ࠺ࡓࡢࡣ୙ᛮ㆟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫࡣࠊ౯್࠶ࡿᩍカࢆྵࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࡇ࡟せ⣲ࡢࣜࢫࢺ໬࡟ࡼࡿࡼࡾࡶࠊࠕࢫ࣮࣭ࣜࢫࢸࢵࣉ࣭ࢸࢫࢺࠖࡢ᮲௳

࡜ࡀࡋࡤࡋࡤᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾ㺂࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡢᅜࡢ❧ἲ⪅ࡣࠊ᭱㏆ࡇࡢࣔ㸦࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶࢸࢫࢺࡢ➨  ࠾ࡼࡧ➨  せ⣲ࠊヂὀ㸸グ  ࡢヂὀཧ

ࢹࣝࢆ᥇⏝ࡋࡘࡘ࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊㄽ⪅㐩ࡣ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃ࡟ࣇ࢙࢔࣭

࣮ࣘࢫ⌮ㄽࢆ඲㠃ⓗ࡟ᑟධࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟㑊ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿ㹿ࡇࡢ㌋㌉

ࡇࢀࡣẚ㍑ⓗ㝈ᐃࡉࢀࡓ⠊ᅖ࡛ࠊᶒ฼ࡢ஘⏝⌮ㄽࢆᙉ໬ࡍ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ

ࡣṇᙜ໬ࡉࢀࡿࡔࢁ࠺࠿㸽ᇶᮏⓗᶒ฼ࡣࡼࡾᑛ㔜ࡍ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠊ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿᏛ⪅࡟ᅛ᭷ࡢどⅬ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ


M Senftleben, “Fair Use in the Netherlands – a Renaissance?” [2009] AMI 1, 7. See also,

A Christie, “Fine-tuning the System: the Role of Limitations”, paper delivered at ATRIP

J Griffiths, “The ‘Three-Step Test’ in European Copyright Law – Problems & Solutions”

Congress, 21st-23rd July, 2008; D Gervais, “Towards a New Core International Copyright[2009] IPQ 428.

Norm: the Reverse Three-Step Test” [2005] 9 Marquette Ip Law Review 1, 32. Most recent-See, for example, K J Koelman, “Fixing the Three-Step Test” [2006] EIPR 407, 410.

ly, see M Senftleben, “Overprotection and Protection Overlaps in Intellectual Property Law

See, for example, M-C Janssens, “The Issue of Exceptions: Reshaping the Keys to the– the Need for Horizontal Fair Use Defences” in Horizontal Issues in Intellectual Property

Gates in the Territory of Literary, Musical and Artistic Creation” in Research Handbook on

Law: Uncovering the Matrix, ed A Kur (Edward Elgar, 2010).

the Future of EU Copyright, P Torremans ed (Edward Elgar, 2009) 338.

 ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO  ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   㐃⥆௻⏬

୰᰾ไᗘࡢᰂ㌾໬̿Ḣᕞⴭసᶒἲࡢ㛤ᨺ 㻳㼞㼕㼒㼒㼕㼠㼔㼟 㹁㸬ࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫ㺃ࣔࢹ࣮ࣝண ᅔ㞴ᛶࡢၥ㢟㻌せ⣲ࢆཧ⪃࡟ࡋ࡚Ỵᐃࡉࢀࡿࠋิᣲࡉࢀࡓࣜࢫࢺࡑࡢࡶࡢࡶࡑࢀࡽ࡟㝈ࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊᵝࠎ࡞せ⣲ࡢ┦ᑐⓗ࡞࢙࢘࢖ࢺࡶ࠶ࡽ࠿ࡌࡵ

⡿ᅜⴭసᶒἲࡢࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫつᐃࡣࡼࡃ▱ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸸➨᮲㸦ⴭసᶒࡢ࠶ࡿⴭస≀࡟ᑐࡍࡿ᤼௚ⓗᶒ฼㸧࠾ࡼࡧ➨㸿᮲㸦୍Ỵࡵࡽࢀ࡚ࡣ࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢ᮲ࡢつᐃ࡟ࡶ࡜࡙࠸࡚ࠊ⿢ุᡤࡣ≉ᐃࡢ≧ἣୗ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ஦ᐇࢆ⪃៖ࡋ࡚ࠊಶูࡢ஦௳࡟࠾ࡅࡿ฼ᐖࢆ㐺ษ࡟ࣂࣛᐃࡢⴭస⪅ࡢẶྡ⾲♧࠾ࡼࡧྠ୍ᛶಖᣢࡢᶒ฼㸧ࡢつᐃ࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎࠊ

ࣥࢫࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡇࡢᶒ㝈࡟ࡶ࡜࡙࠸࡚ࠊ⡿ᅜⴭసᶒἲࡣⓎᒎࡍᢈホࠊゎㄝࠊࢽ࣮ࣗࢫሗ㐨ࠊᩍᤵ㸦ᩍᐊ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ」ᩘࡢࢥࣆ࣮ࢆసᡂࡍ

ࡿᢏ⾡ⓗ≧ἣࢆ⪃៖࡟ධࢀ࡚ಟṇࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊḢᕞⴭసᶒἲ

ࡿ⾜Ⅽࢆྵࡴ㸧ࠊ◊✲ࡲࡓࡣㄪᰝ➼ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿⴭసᶒࡢ࠶ࡿⴭస≀ࡢไࢆᝎࡲࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ᫬௦㐜ࢀࡢ≧ἣࢆᅇ㑊ࡋ࡚ࡁࡓ㹿ࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫ㸦ࢥࣆ࣮ࡲࡓࡣࣞࢥ࣮ࢻ࡬ࡢ」〇ࡑࡢ௚➨᮲࡟ᐃࡵ

ࡿᡭẁ࡟ࡼࡿ౑⏝ࢆྵࡴ㸧ࡣࠊⴭసᶒࡢ౵ᐖ࡜࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋⴭస≀ࡢ౑⏝ࡶࡕࢁࢇࠊࡇࡢᰂ㌾ᛶࡑࡢࡶࡢ࡟ࡣၥ㢟ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ࣮࢜ࣉࣥ࡞せ⣲ࢆ࣋ࡀࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫ࡜࡞ࡿ࠿ྰ࠿ࢆุ᩿ࡍࡿሙྜ࡟⪃៖ࡍ࡭ࡁせ⣲ࡣࠊ௨࣮ࢫ࡟ࡋࡓᑂᰝࡣࠊ⿢ุᐁ࡟༑ศ᫂☜࡞࢞࢖ࢲࣥࢫࢆ୚࠼ࡎࠊࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ୺ほⓗ࡞Ỵᐃࢆṇᙜ໬ࡍࡿⶸ࠸࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᶵ⬟ࡋ࠿ᯝࡓࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸࡜ࡢ

ୗࡢࡶࡢࢆྵࡴࠋ

ᣦ᦬ࡶ࠶ࡿ㸸ϸ ౑⏝ࡢ┠ⓗ࠾ࡼࡧᛶ㉁㸦౑⏝ࡀၟᴗᛶࢆ᭷ࡍࡿ࠿ࡲࡓࡣ㠀Ⴀ฼ⓗࠕ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊࡲࡎ౑⏝ࡀබṇ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ྰ࠿ࡢ᭱⤊ⓗ࡞ุᐃࢆୗࡋࠊࡑࡢ

ᩍ⫱┠ⓗࢆྵࡴ㸧ᚋ࡟  せ⣲ࢆྍ⬟࡞㝈ࡾ⤖ㄽ࡟㐺ྜࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ㄪᩚࡍࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊ

ᇶᮏⓗ࡟ࡣࠊ せ⣲ࡣศᯒࢆಁ㐍ࡍࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡴࡋࢁࠊࡍ࡛࡟࠶ࡿϹ ⴭసᶒࡢ࠶ࡿⴭస≀ࡢᛶ㉁

⤖ㄽࢆ᥃ࡅࡿࡓࡵࡢ౽฼࡞㔥ࡢᙺ๭ࢆᯝࡓࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㹿㺁Ϻ ⴭసᶒࡢ࠶ࡿⴭస≀඲య࡜ࡢ㛵㐃࡟࠾ࡅࡿ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡓ㒊ศࡢ㔞࠾ࡇ࠺ࡋࡓពᛮỴᐃࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡣࠊ࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘࡢண

ࡼࡧᐇ㉁ᛶ

ᅔ㞴ᛶࢆ⏕ࡳฟࡋࠊ

ⴭసᶒಖ᭷⪅ࡢᶒ฼ࢆ༴㝤࡟ࡉࡽࡍࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ฼⏝⪅ࡢᢠᘚࡢ᭷ຠᛶ

ࡶᦆ࡞࠺࡜ࡢពぢࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ฼⏝⪅ࡣࡑࡢ౑⏝ࡀබṇ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿☜ಙϻ ⴭసᶒࡢ࠶ࡿⴭస≀ࡢ₯ᅾⓗᕷሙࡲࡓࡣ౯್࡟ᑐࡍࡿ౑⏝ࡢᙳ㡪࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ሙྜࠊⴭసᶒ౵ᐖッゴࡢࣜࢫࢡࢆ࡜ࡽ࡞࠸ྍ⬟ᛶࡶ࠶ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛



࠶ࡿ㸸

ୖグࡢࡍ࡭࡚ࡢせ⣲ࢆ⪃៖ࡋ࡚බṇ౑⏝ࡀㄆᐃࡉࢀࡓሙྜࠊⴭస≀ࡀᮍⓎ⾜࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇ⮬యࡣࠊ࠿࠿ࡿㄆᐃࢆጉࡆ࡞࠸㹿 ࠕࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫཎ๎ࡢ᭕᫕ࡉ࠿ࡽࠊࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫࡢᢠᘚࡣ࠿࡞ࡾㄽ

ᮏ᮲ࡣࠊ⿢ุᐁࡀసࡾฟࡋࡓ᪤Ꮡࡢཎ๎ࢆ᮲ᩥ໬ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛ࠊ௚ࡢ᫂☜࡟つᐃࡉࢀࡓࠊࠕࢡ࣮ࣟࢬ࡞ࠖไ㝈࡜୪Ꮡࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ᭱ࡶ㔜せ࡞≉ᚩࡣࠊࡑࡢࠕ࣮࢜ࣉࣥࡉࠖ࡟࠶ࡿࠋつᐃ࡟ヱᙜࡍࡿ౑⏝ࡣࠊవࡍ࡜ࡇࢁ࡞


ࡓࡔࡋࠊ⿢ุᡤࡣิᣲࡉࢀࡓ  せ⣲௨እࡢせ⣲ࡣ㔜どࡋ࡞࠸ഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ



For notable examples, see Sega Enters Ltd v. Accolade Inc 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir,ࡃิᣲࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ౑⏝ࡢබṇࡉ࡞࡝ࡣิグࡉࢀࡓ≉ᐃࡢ

1992); Field v. Google Inc 412 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (D Nev, 2006); Perfect 10 v. Amazon, Incࡇࡢ᭱ᚋࡢࣃࣛࢢࣛࣇࡣᖺ࡟㏣ຍࡉࢀࡓࠋSee Fair Use of Unpublished Works

Act, Pub L No. 102-492, 106 Stat 3145 (1992); HR Rep No. 102-836, at 8 (1992).

 ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO  

487 F.3d 701 (9th Cir, 2007).
D Nimmer, “Fairest of them All and Other Fairy Tales of Fair Use” [2003] 66 Law &Contemp Probs 263, 281.

▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   㐃⥆௻⏬

୰᰾ไᗘࡢᰂ㌾໬̿Ḣᕞⴭసᶒἲࡢ㛤ᨺ 㻳㼞㼕㼒㼒㼕㼠㼔㼟 ◚ྍ⬟࡛ࠊ࠿ࡘࡋࡤࡋࡤ⌮ㄽୖࡢᢠᘚ࡟ࡍࡂ࡞࠸͐ッ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࣜࢫࢡࠊ

ࡇࡢࠕᨭ㓄ⓗ࡞ពぢࠖࡣࡲࡓࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᣦ᦬࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᨭᣢࡉࢀࡿࡇ

࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣッ࠼ࡽࢀࡓሙྜ࡟த࠺ࣜࢫࢡࢆ࡜ࡿࠊ⤒῭ຊࡢ࡞࠸ಶேࡸ㠀ၟ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫࡀண

ᴗⓗ࡞ⴭస≀฼⏝⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡣ≉࡟ࡑ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡑࢀࡣࠊ⾲⌧㢟ࡀ࠶ࡿࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࠕࢫ࣮࣭ࣜࢫࢸࢵࣉ࣭ࢸࢫࢺࠖࡢࠕ≉ู࡞ሙྜ⪅ࡢ୍⯡኱⾗࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㛛ᡞࡢᙺ๭ࢆᯝࡓࡍฟ∧♫ࠊࢫࢱࢪ࢜ࠊᨺ㏦ᒁࠊ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㺁 ࡢ᮲௳㸦ヂὀ㸸グ  ࡢヂὀཧ↷㸧ࢆ‶ࡓࡍࡇ࡜ࢆጉࡆࠊࣇ࢙࢔࣭

࠾ࡼࡧࣞࢥ࣮ࢻ఍♫ࡀࠊࣜࢫࢡᅇ㑊࡟㉮ࡿሙྜ࡟ࡶᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡿࠋⴭసᶒ

࣮ࣘࢫࡢᢠᘚࢆᅜ㝿ⴭసᶒἲࡢᯟእ࡟㏣࠸ࡸࡗ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺࡜ࡍࡿᣦ᦬࡛

ࡢᏳ඲ᘚ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ⾲⌧ࡢ⮬⏤ࡀࠊᜏᖖⓗ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃண

ᅔ㞴࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࠊ

㧗㢠࡞ッゴ㈝⏝࡜┦ࡲࡗ࡚ࠕチㅙࢆᚓࡿ࠿๐㝖ࡍࡿࠖᩥ໬ࢆ⏕ࡳฟࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓᩥ໬ࡢ୰࡛ࡣࠊ㛛ᡞ࡜ࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡍࡿ௰௓⪅̿࠾ࡼࡧᙼࡽ

ᅔ㞴࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊᶒ฼ࡑࡢࡶࡢ࡟ၥ


tory of Literary, Musical and Artistic Creation” in Research Handbook on the Future of EU
Copyright, P Torremans ed (Edward Elgar, 2009) 338 [footnotes omitted].

ࡢ㛫㐪࠸ࠊ࡞ࡽࡧ࡟ಖ㝤ᥦ౪⪅ࡢ↓ど̿ࡣࠊⴭసᶒࢆ౵ᐖࡋ࡞࠸ሙྜࡶ

ྵࡵࠊၥ㢟Ⓨ⏕ࡢ࠾ࡑࢀࡢ࠶ࡿ࠶ࡽࡺࡿ౑⏝࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ฼⏝⪅ࡀ౑⏝チ

Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 75, 116-30; H Cohen Jehoram, “Restrictions onSee, for example, R Okediji, “Toward an International Fair Use Doctrine” [2000] 39

Copyright and Their Abuse” [2005] EIPR 359 㺀௬࡟⡿ᅜࡢࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫࡀ 㼀㻾㻵㻼㼟 ࡢྍࢆྲྀᚓࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ୺ᙇࡍࡿ㹿㺁ࣃࢿ࡛ࣝதࢃࢀࡓ࡜ࡋࡓࡽࠊ⚾ࡣᑒ༳ࡉࢀࡿ࡜ᛮ࠺ࠋࠖ ; G Dworkin, “Copyright,ࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫἲࡢࡇࡢഃ㠃ࡇࡑࠊࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫᆺࣔࢹࣝࡢḢᕞ࡬

The Public Interest and Freedom of Speech: A UK Copyright Lawyer’s Perspective” inࡢᑟධ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ᭱኱ࡢ཯ᑐ⌮⏤࡛࠶ࡿࠋMarie-Christine Janssens ࡣ᭱㏆௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟グࡋࡓ㸸Copyright and Free Speech, J Griffiths & U Suthersanen eds, (OUP, 2005) 153, 162 㺀͐㏻ᖖࡣࣇ࣮࣭࣮ࣜࣘࢫࡢᢠᘚࢆព࿡ࡍࡿࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫࡢᢠᘚࡀࠊⴭసᶒ⪅ࡢṇᙜ࡞ᶒ฼࡜⾪✺ࡋ࡞࠸ࢣ࣮ࢫࡣ⪃࠼࡟ࡃ࠸㹿㺁 ; R Burrell & A Coleman, Copyright Excep-

tions: The Digital Impact (Cambridge University Press, 2005); J Reichman, “Universalࠕࢡ࣮ࣟࢬ࡞ไ㝈ࢆవࡍ࡜ࡇࢁ࡞ࡃิᣲࡍࡿࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡟௦ࢃࡿ᫂☜࡞ࢩ

Minimum Standards of Intellectual Property Protection under the TRIPS Component of theࢫࢸ࣒ࡣࠊࠗࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫ࠘ࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡜ྠ✀ࡢ࣮࢜ࣉࣥ࡞㐺⏝ᇶ‽ࢆ

WTO Agreement” [1995] 29(2) International Lawyer 345, 369; S Ricketson, WIPO Studyᥦ౪ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡣࠊⴭసᶒ౵ᐖ࡟ᑐࡋᰂ㌾࡞ᢠᘚࢆᥦ౪ࡋࠊ
࡟ࢃ࠿௙❧࡚㸦ad hoc㸧ࡢไ㝈ࢆㄆࡵࠊ஦᱌ࡢලయⓗ࡞≧ἣࢆ⪃៖ࡍࡿవᆅࢆ୚࠼ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟㔜せ࡞ࡢࡣࠊࡑࢀࡣ᪂ࡋ࠸ ண࡛ࡁ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ 㐍໬࡟ࡶ㐺⏝࡛ࡁࡿࠋࠕࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫࠖࡣ͐㻵㻼㻌ᑓ㛛ᐙ࡛ࡉ࠼ゎỴᅔ㞴

on Limitations and Exceptions of Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Environment(Geneva: WIPO, 2003); S Ricketson, The three-step test, deemed quantities, libraries andclosed exceptions (Centre for Copyright Studies, 2003), 147-154; T Newby, “What’s Fair
Here is not Fair Everywhere: Does the American Fair Use Doctrine Violate International
Copyright Law?” [1999] Stanford Law Review 1633; P Geller “Can the GATT Incorporate

࡞」㞧࡞ᴫᛕ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡶࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢせ⣲ࡣ༢࡞ࡿ࢞࢖ࢻࣛ࢖࡛ࣥ࠶

Berne Whole?” [1990] EIPR 423.⡿ᅜࡀ 㼀㻾㻵㻼㻿 ࡟ຍ┕ࡋࡓ᫬Ⅼ࡛ࠊࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫ࡜

ࡾࠊ⿢ุᡤࡣࢣ࣮ࢫ࣭ࣂ࢖࣭ࢣ࣮ࢫ࡛⮬⏤࡟᥇⏝࡛ࡁࡿࠋ⥲ᣓࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ

୧❧ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡀ⡿ᅜᨻᗓࡢぢゎࡔࡗࡓ>㺀>㼀㻾㻵㻼㼟@ ࡢ➨᮲ࡣࠊ࣋ࣝࢾ᮲⣙ࡢ➨ࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫ࣭ࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ฼⏝⪅ࡣࢡ࣮ࣟࢬ࡞ࢩࢫࢸ࣒௨ୖ
࡟ࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞౑⏝࡞ࡽチࡉࢀࡿࡢ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ᪉ྥࢆぢኻࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊ㸦㈶ᡂὴࡀ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡟ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎ㸧ᨭ㓄ⓗ࡞ពぢࡣࠊ⣧⢋࡞ࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫᴫᛕࡢ᥇⏝࡟཯ᑐ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ➹⪅ࡣࡑࢀࡀ୙ᖾ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡣᛮࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸㹿㺁 ᮲  ࡢ㐺⏝⠊ᅖࢆࠊⴭసᶒ࠾ࡼࡧ㛵㐃ࡍࡿᶒ฼࡟ᑐࡍࡿࡍ࡭࡚ࡢไ㝈࡟ᣑ኱ࡍࡿ
ࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ㼃㼀㻻 ຍ┕ᅜࡀㄢࡍࡿไ㝈࠾ࡼࡧ㝈⏺ࢆ㎞࠺ࡌ࡚ᅇ㑊ࡋࡓࠋࡇࡢ࢔
ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡣⴭసᶒࡢ࠶ࡿసရࡢࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⡿ᅜⴭసᶒἲ➨᮲࡜୍⮴ࡍࡿࠋࠖ Uruguay Round Agreements Act, Statements of Administrative Action in Relation to Intellectual Property Rights. H R Doc 103-316, 103 Cong 2d Sess 656).@ࠋࣇ࢙࢔࣭
࣮ࣘࢫࡢᢠᘚࡀせồࡍࡿࣂࣛࣥࢫ࣭ࢸࢫࢺࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚ࠊ⡿ᅜἲࡀࢫ࣮࣭ࣜࢫࢸࢵࣉ࣭



ࢸࢫࢺࢆ㑂Ᏺࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿㄽ⪅ࡶ࠸ࡿࠋDan L Burk and Julie E Cohen, “Fair UseN Netanel, Copyright’s Paradox (Oxford University Press, 2008) 66 (footnote omitted).

Infrastructure for Rights Management Systems” [2001] 15 Harvard Journal of Law and

M-C Janssens, “The Issue of Exceptions: Reshaping the Keys to the Gates in the Terri-Technology.

 ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO  ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   㐃⥆௻⏬

୰᰾ไᗘࡢᰂ㌾໬̿Ḣᕞⴭసᶒἲࡢ㛤ᨺ 㻳㼞㼕㼒㼒㼕㼠㼔㼟 ࠶ࡿ㹿ᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ཯ᑐ⪅ࡣࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫࡢ࣮ࣝࣝࢆᣄྰࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࠊࡋࡤࡋ

ࡤ᮲ᩥࡑࡢࡶࡢࡢ᮲௳ࢆ㉸࠼ࡓ㆟ㄽࡣࡋ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ⿢ุᐁࡣࠊ

㹂㸬㏻ᛕ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ␲ၥ㻌➨᮲ࢆ㐺⏝ࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࠊ↓ไ㝈࡞⮬⏤ࢆாཷࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸Ⅼࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ㔜せ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㛗ᖺ࡟ࢃࡓࡗ࡚ࠊ」㞧࡞ุ౛య⣔ࡀ✚ࡳᅔ㞴ࡢၥ㢟ࡣࠊ᫂ࡽ࠿࡞฼Ⅼࡢ࠶ࡿࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊࣚ

㔜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊ㐃㑥᭱㧗⿢ุᡤࡢุỴ࡟ࡶ࡜࡙࠸࡚ࠊᮍබ⾲࣮ࣟࢵࣃࡀ㌋㌉ࡍࡿ᭱኱ࡢ⌮⏤࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ㌋㌉ࡣ࡝ࡇࡲ࡛ṇᙜ໬ࡢసရ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡣࠊබ⾲῭ࡳࡢసရ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡼࡾࡶࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫࡢㄆ

࡛ࡁࡿࡔࢁ࠺࠿㸽ᐃࡀ㞴ࡋࡃ㺂୙฼࡞ᢈホࡀⴭసᶒಖ᭷⪅ࡢᕷሙ࡟ᝏᙳ㡪ࢆཬࡰࡋࡓ࡜

ண



ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊࡑࢀࡣࠊ➨᮲ࡢ➨  せ⣲ ⴭస≀ࡢᕷሙࡲࡓࡣ౯್࡟ᑐࡍࡿ

ࡇࡢၥ㢟ࢆ⪃࠼ࡿ࡟࠶ࡓࡗ࡚኱஦࡞ࡢࡣࠊࡲࡎࠊ᏶඲࡞ᰂ㌾ᛶࢆᣢࡕࠊ

౑⏝ࡢᙳ㡪 ࢆ᳨ウࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࠊⴭసᶒಖ᭷⪅࡟᭷฼࡟ࡣാ࠿࡞࠸㹿ྠ᫬࡟᏶඲࡟ண

ྍ⬟࡞ཎ๎ࢆ᥈ồࡍࡿヨࡳࡣࠊኻᩋ࡟⤊ࢃࡿⅬࢆㄆ㆑ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢㄽᩥࡢෑ㢌࡛ㄝ᫂ࡋࡓ◳┤⑕࡟ྲྀࡾ⤌ࡶ࠺࡜ࡍࢀ
ࡤࠊ࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘࡢண

ᐇ㝿ࠊ⡿ᅜࡢ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊ➨  せ⣲ࢆศᯒࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊࡼࡾᰂ㌾ᛶࡢ࡞࠸ไ㝈つᐃࢆ᥇⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿከࡃࡢᅜࠎ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊྠࡌၥ㢟ࢆゎỴᅔ㞴ᛶࢆチᐜࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ㑊ࡅࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࣇ
࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫࢆࠕ᭱ࡶၥ㢟ࡢከ࠸ཎ๎㺁 ࡜ࡍࡿỴࡲࡾᩥྃ࡟ࡶὀពࡍࡿ

ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࢶ࣮ࣝ࡟ẚ࡭ࡿ࡜ࠊ⢭ᐦ࠿ࡘヲ⣽࡞୍㐃ࡢ๪ḟⓗせ⣲ࢆ㛤Ⓨࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊ⿕࿌࡟ࡼࡿ౑⏝ࡀᕷሙ࠾ࡼࡧ౯್࡟୚


ࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫཎ๎࡜ࠊࠕࢸࢫࢺࠖࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟せồࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࡢ㛫࡟ࡣࠊࡑࡢ௚

࠼ࡿᙳ㡪ࢆホ౯ࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࠊᜏஂⓗ࡟Ⓨ⏕ࡍࡿᚠ⎔ㄽἲࡢၥ㢟ࡣࠊ⡿ᅜࡢࡢ⥭ᙇ㛵ಀࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫࡢᢠᘚࡣࠊⴭస≀ࡀࠕ㏻ᖖࡢ౑⏝࡟⿢ุᡤࡀࡇࡢせ⣲࡟ࡶ࡜࡙࠸࡚ࠊ㛗ᖺ࡟ࢃࡓࡗ࡚Ὑ⦎ࡋ࡚ࡁࡓ㐺ษ࡞㉁཯ࡍࡿࠖࡼ࠺࡞≧ἣࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣⴭస⪅ࡢࠕྜἲⓗ࡞฼┈ࢆ୙ᙜ࡟ᦆ࡞࠺ࠖ≧ἣ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ౑⏝ࢆච㈐ࡍࡿຊࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ⤖ᯝࠊࠕࢸࢫࢺࠖࡢ➨  ࠾ࡼࡧ㸭࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ➨  ࢫࢸࢵࣉ࡟㐪཯ࡍࡿ࠾ࡑࢀࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊ㼃㼀㻻 ࣃࢿࣝࡢ➨  ࢫࢸࢵࣉࡢゎ㔘࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊไ㝈ࡀⴭసᶒಖ᭷⪅࠿ࡽࣛ࢖ࢭࣥࢫྍ⬟࡞ᕷሙࢆዣ࠺ሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊ
ࠕࢸࢫࢺࠖၥ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᅇ㑊࡛ࡁࡿ㸸ࠕࢃࢀࢃࢀࡣ₯ᅾⓗ࡞౑⏝ᩱ཰ධࡢ႙ኻࡀࠊ➨せ⣲ࡢ᳨ウ⤖ᯝࢆཎ࿌࡟
᭷฼࡟ࡍࡿ࠿ྰ࠿ࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿ㝿࡟࠾ࡕ࠸ࡿᚠ⎔ㄽἲࢆㄆ㆑ࡋࡓ͐ၥ㢟࡟㐪཯ࡍࡿ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡶࡋࡇࢀࡀṇࡋ࠸࡜ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫཎ๎ࡢ࠶ࡿ

ࡣ」〇ࡀ⿵ൾ࡛ࡁࡿ࠿ྰ࠿࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࠊࣛ࢖ࢭࣥࢫ཰ධࢆཷࡅࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ

✀ࡢ㐺⏝࡟ࡣ␲ၥࡀ⏕ࡎࡿࠋࠕⴭసᶒࡢ࠶ࡿⴭస≀ࡢ₯ᅾⓗᕷሙࡲࡓࡣ౯್࡟ᑐࡍ
ࡿ౑⏝ࡢᙳ㡪ࠖࡣࠊ➨᮲࡟ࡼࡗ࡚せồࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࣂࣛࣥࢫ࣭ࢸࢫࢺࡢ㠀ᖖ࡟㔜࡜ࡣࠊཎ࿌ࢆ᭷฼࡟ࡍࡿỴᐃⓗ࡞せᅉ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡾ࠼࡞࠸͐ࢃࢀࢃࢀࡣࠊ₯せ࡞せ⣲࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡑࢀࡣ᭱㔜せ࡞⪃ᐹ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊྜ⾗ᅜᅾⓗ࡞ᕷሙ࡬ࡢᙳ㡪ࡢၥ㢟ࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࠊࠗఏ⤫ⓗ࡛ྜ⌮ⓗ࡞ࠊࡲࡓ᭱㧗⿢ࡢࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ┤㏆ࡢุỴ Campbell v. Acuff-Music Inc 510 US 569

ࡣⓎᒎࡢྍ⬟ᛶࡢ࠶ࡿᕷሙࡢࡳ࠘ࢆ⪃៖ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᝏᚠ⎔ࢆ᩿ࡕ

(1994) ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ⿕࿌ࡢ౑⏝ࡀⴭసᶒಖ᭷⪅ࡢᕷሙ࡟୚࠼ࡿᝏᙳ㡪ࡣࠊࡑࡢ౑⏝ࡀࣇ࢙࢔࡛࡞࠸࡜᥎ᐃࡉࡏࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀᙉㄪࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࠕࢫࣜ
࣮࣭ࢫࢸࢵࣉ࣭ࢸࢫࢺࠖࡢ࠶ࡿ∧࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊⴭస⪅ࡢྜἲⓗ࡞฼┈ࢆ୙ᙜ࡟ᦆ࡞

ษࡗ࡚ࡁࡓ㹿㺁ヂὀ㸸஧ḟ฼⏝⪅ࡣ㏻ᖖࠊ౑⏝ᩱࢆᨭᡶࢃ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊⴭసᶒ⪅ࡀ႙ኻࡋࡓ₯ࢃ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ไ㝈ࡶᏑᅾࡋࡓࠋࡇࡢ฼┈ࡢ୰࡟ࡣ⤒῭ⓗ࡞฼┈࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ே᱁ᶒࡶྵ

ᅾⓗ౑⏝ᩱ཰ධࢆ඲㢠⪃៖ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࠊ➨  せ⣲ࡣཎ࿌࡟᭷฼࡟ࡋ࠿ാ࠿࡞

ࡲࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫཎ๎࡛ࡣࠊసရࡢ⤒῭ⓗᶒ฼ಖ᭷⪅࡜ษࡾ㞳ࡉࢀࡓⴭ⪅ࡢ฼┈ࡣࠊ➨᮲࡟ࡶ࡜࡙࠸࡚⾜ࢃࢀࡿ౯್ࡢࣂࣛࣥࢫ࣭ࢸࢫࢺࡢ



㝿࡟ࡣࡲࡗࡓࡃ⪃៖ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋSee, further, S Ricketson, The three-step test, deemedSee Harper & Row, Publishers Inc v. Nation Enters 471 US 539 (1985).

quantities, libraries and closed exceptions (Centre for Copyright Studies, 2003) 147-154.

Campbell v. Acuff Rose Music Inc 510 US 569 (1994).

Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television Inc 126 F.3d 70 (1997) para 49.Dellar v. Samuel Goldwyn Inc 104 F.2d 661, 662 (2d Cir. 1930). ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO  ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   㐃⥆௻⏬

୰᰾ไᗘࡢᰂ㌾໬̿Ḣᕞⴭసᶒἲࡢ㛤ᨺ 㻳㼞㼕㼒㼒㼕㼠㼔㼟 ࠸ࠋࡇࡢࡓࡵࠊ⿢ุᡤࡣࠕఏ⤫ⓗ࡛ྜ⌮ⓗ࡞ࠊࡲࡓࡣⓎᒎࡢྍ⬟ᛶࡢ࠶ࡿᕷ

཯ࡋ࡚ࠊ⿢ุᐁࡀ஦๓࡟Ỵࡵࡓ⤖ㄽࢆṇᙜ໬ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘ

ሙࡢࡳࠖࢆ⪃៖ࡍࡿุ౛ࢆⓎᒎࡉࡏ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࢫࡢせ⣲ࢆ㐺⏝ࡍࡿഴྥࡣ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆド᫂ࡋࡓ㹿  ᙼࡢ඲⯡ⓗ࡞⤖ㄽࡣ㸸ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࡇࡢၥ㢟ࡢ⪃ᐹࡀࠊ≉ᐃࡢ஦౛࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⿕࿌ࡢලయⓗ࡞⾜ືࢆホ౯ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ⿕࿌ࡢ౑⏝ࡀᗈ⠊ᅖ࡟ࢃࡓࡿሙྜ࡟

ࠕ☜࠿࡟ࢹ࣮ࢱࡣࠊࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫཎ๎ࢆᦆ࡞࠺ከࡃࡢ୍⯡ⓗ࡞័⾜ࢆࡣࠊཎ࿌ࡢᕷሙ࡟୚࠼ࡿᙳ㡪ࢆホ౯ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࠊุ౛ࡢ㐍໬ᭀ㟢ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⿢ุᡤࡣせ⣲ࢆᶵᲔⓗ࡟㐺⏝ࡍࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡾࠊࡲࡓ᫬࡟

࡟ࡼࡗ࡚☜❧ࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࠋබṇࡉࡣࠊ⣧⢋࡟ᙜ஦⪅㛫ࡔࡅ࡛⪃៖ࡍ࡭ࡁ࡛

ࡣ┦཯ࡍࡿุỴࢆ౽ᐅⓗ࡟౑⏝ࡍࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣࠊಟṇࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿไࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡼࡾᗈ࠸♫఍ⓗ࡞⫼ᬒࡶ⪃៖ࡍ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟Ὑ⦎ࡉ

ᗘⓗ࡞Ḟ㝗࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ඲యⓗ࡟ࡳࢀࡤࠊከࡃࡢඛᑟⓗ࡛࡞ࢀࡓ」㞧࡞๪ḟⓗつ๎࠾ࡼࡧ๪ḟⓗせ⣲ࡢ㞟኱ᡂࡀࠊ⡿ᅜࡢุ౛ࢆ௚ࡢ

࠸ࢣ࣮ࢫࡣࠊࡑࢀ⮬㌟ඛ౛࡜ࡋ࡚౑⏝ࡍࡿ౯್ࢆᣢࡘࡇ࡜ࡀド᫂ࡉࢀࡓ㹿㺁

ࡼࡾ☜ᐃࡋࡓไ㝈ࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࢆᣢࡘᅜࠎࡼࡾࡶ㐍ࢇࡔࡶࡢ࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㹿 ᐇ㝿ࠊఱே࠿ࡢ⡿ᅜࡢⴭసᶒᏛ⪅ࡣࠊ㐣ᗘࡢணᅔ㞴ᛶ࡟ࡶ࡜࡙ࡃࣇ

Beebe ࡢὀព῝ࡃ⌮⏤࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡓ⤖ㄽࡣࠊPamela Samuelson ࡟ࡼࡿ࢙᭱࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫཎ๎࡟ᑐࡍࡿᢈุࡣࠊ࠿࡞ࡾ㄂ᙇࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿⅬࢆᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚

㏆ࡢⴭస࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡶᨭᣢࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ“Unbundling Fair Use” ࡟࠾࠸࡚㺂

࠸ࡿࠋBarton Beebe ࡣࠊ“An Empirical Study of US Copyright Fair Use

Samuelson ࡣࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫุ౛ࢆ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡟ศ㢮ࡋ࡚࠸

Opinions, 1978-2005”㸦ヂὀ㸸ࡇࡢㄽᩥࡢ࿴ヂ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣᮏㄅྕྕ࡟㐃㍕ࡿࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊྜ⾗ᅜ᠇ἲಟṇ➨  ᮲ࡢ⾲⌧ࡢ⮬⏤࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿࢣ࣮ࢫࠊ

ࡢࠕ⡿ᅜⴭసᶒἲࣇ࢙࢔࣮ࣘࢫุỴ ᖺ ࡢᐇドⓗ◊✲ࠖᇛᡤᒾ⏕ ヂ▱㆑ࡢ๰㐀࡜㡺ᕸࢆ᥎㐍ࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢⴭసᶒࡢ౑⏝࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿࢣ࣮ࢫࠊ࠾ཧ↷ 㸧࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᖺ⡿ᅜⴭసᶒἲࡢⓎຠᚋࡢࡍ࡭࡚ࡢ㔜せ࡞ࣇ࢙ࡼࡧ㆟఍ࡀᖺⴭసᶒἲࢆ❧ἲࡋࡓ㝿࡟ண࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫุỴࡢ⤫ィⓗ࡞ศᯒ⤖ᯝࢆⓎ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㹿Beebe ࡢศᯒ⤖⏝࡟㛵ࡍࡿࢣ࣮ࢫࠊࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟య⣔ⓗ࡟࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜศ

ᯝࡣࠊ➨᮲ࡢ㐺⏝࡟ࡘ࠸୍࡚⯡ⓗ࡞⌮ゎ࡜ࡣ཯ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡓ

ࡅࡋ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫุ౛ࡣண

ᅔ㞴࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿከࡃࡢᢈุ

࡜࠼ࡤࠊ㉁ၥࡀᮏ᮶ⓗ࡟୺ほⓗ࡞ഃ㠃ࢆᣢࡘ⤖ᯝࠊࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫุỴ࡟ࡣ᰿ᣐࡀ࡞࠸࡜ Samuelson ࡣ୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋ≉ᐃࡢࠕࢢ࣮ࣝࣉࠖෆ࡟ࡣࠊ

ࡀࠊ᥍ッ⿢ุᡤ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚そࡉࢀࡿᩘࡣ୙㔮ࡾྜ࠸࡞࡯࡝㧗࠸㹿ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ

ពᛮỴᐃࢆࡍࡿ㝿ࡢ᫂☜࡞ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋ⤖ㄽ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊSamuelson

Beebe ࡣࠊࡑ࠺ࡋࡓ㏫㌿ุỴ࠾ࡼࡧ෌㏫㌿ุỴࡀⓎ⏕ࡋࡓᑡᩘࡢ᭷ྡ࡞

ࡣ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟᥎ዡࡍࡿ㸸ࢣ࣮ࢫࢆ㝖ࡅࡤࠊࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫࡢุ౛ἲࡣ୙㔮ࡾྜ࠸࡞࡯࡝ࡢ㏫㌿ഴྥࡣ♧ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆド᫂ࡋࡓ㹿Beebe ࡣࠊᣦᑟⓗ࡞ㄽ⪅ࡢពぢ࡟ࠕ͐⿢ุᐁ࠾ࡼࡧㄽ⪅ࡣࠊࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫἲࡀ࠸࠿࡟ၥ㢟࠶ࡿ࠿ࢆᙉㄪ
ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆࡸࡵ࡚ࠊ௦ࢃࡾ࡟ࠊࡼࡾண


࡛ࡁ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡼ࠺࡞౑

ࢆᙧᡂࡍࡿᇶ┙࡜࡞ࡿඹ㏻ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࢆࠊࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫุ౛ἲࡢ୰࠿ࡽ

ࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊⱥᅜࡢ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡢ⿢ุᡤࡀ᥇⏝ࡍࡿẚ㍑ⓗつᚊࡢ࡞࠸࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࡜ࠊ

᥈ࡍ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋྠࡌ᪉㔪ࡢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉෆ࡛ࠊ௨๓࡟ฟࡉࢀࡓุỴ࡟↷ࡽ㻯㻰㻼㻭㻌㻝㻥㻤㻤 ࡢࡼࡾไ㝈ⓗ࡞ࠕࣇ࢙࢔࣭ࢹ࢕࣮ࣜࣥࢢࠖ᮲㡯ࢆẚ㍑ࡏࡼࠋSee J Griffiths,ࡋ࡚ࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫࢆศᯒࡍࡿ࡜ࠊࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫࡣࠊᗈ⠊࡞≧ἣ࡟࠾“Comparative advertising and celebrity photographs: fair dealing under the CDPA 1988”[2006] JIPLP 515.



[2008] University of Pennsylvania L Rev 549.



Ibid, 582-591.

Ibid, 574.

Ibid, 622.

Ibid, 574-5.

[2009] 77 Fordham Law Review 2537.

 ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO  ྍ⬟࡞୍㐃ࡢࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫἲ

▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   㐃⥆௻⏬

୰᰾ไᗘࡢᰂ㌾໬̿Ḣᕞⴭసᶒἲࡢ㛤ᨺ 㻳㼞㼕㼒㼒㼕㼠㼔㼟 ࡅࡿᗈ⠊࡞฼ᐖࢆࣂࣛࣥࢫࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢࠊᰂ㌾࡞ᇶ‽࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ౑⏝౯್ࢆኻ࠺ࡇ࡜࡞ࡃࠊࡼࡾつ๎ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ㹿㺁 


㹃㸬⤖ㄽ㻌

⡿ᅜἲ࡜࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃἲࢆ༊ศࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࡣࠊᅛᐃほᛕࢆ㑊ࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ㔜᭱㏆ࡢࡇࡢ◊✲࡟↷ࡽࡏࡤࠊ㐣ᗘ࡟୙☜ᐇ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘ

せ࡛࠶ࡿࠋไ㝈࡟ᑐࡋ࡚᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࠕࢡ࣮ࣟࢬ࡞ࠖ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࢆ᥇⏝ࡍࡿࢫ࣭ࣔࢹࣝ࡬ࡢఏ⤫ⓗ࡞࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃࡢ᢬ᢠࡣࠊ෌⪃ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࡼ࠺

ᅜ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡉ࠼ࠊ㔜せ࡞ᰂ㌾ᛶࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋࡑࢀࡽࡣࠊ⡿ᅜἲࡢࣇ࢙࢔࣭

࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ࣮ࣘࢫつᐃ࡯࡝ࡣᗈࡃ▱ࡽࢀ࡚ࡣ࠸࡞࠸ࡋࠊ࠿ࡘࠊ⡿ᅜἲ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࣇ࢙

࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫつᐃࡀ༨ࡵࡿࡼ࠺࡞୰᰾つᐃࢆᵓᡂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡶ࡞࠸ࠋ

ࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫࡣᅜ㝿ἲ࡟㐪཯ࡍࡿ࠾ࡑࢀࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᢈุࡶࠊࡋࡤ

ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃࡢࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡢ୰࡟࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘࡢᰂ㌾ᛶࢆ⤌ࡳ㎸ࡴྍ⬟ࡋࡤᣦ᦬ࡉࢀࡿ⛬ࡢㄝᚓຊࡣᣢࡓ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢཎ๎ࡣࠊ࣋ࣝࢾ఍㆟ࡲࡓࡣᛶࢆ⪃៖ࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࡣぢ㏨ࡏ࡞࠸ࠋ➨᮲࡟࠾࠸࡚⪃៖ࡉࢀࡿせ⣲࡟ࡣ㼀㻾㻵㻼㻿 ༠ᐃࡀ⏝ពࡍࡿ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࢆ㏻ࡌࡓṇᘧ࡞ᣮᡓࢆཷࡅ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ

≉࡟␗ㄽࡣ࡞࠸ࠋୡ⏺୰ࡢከࡃࡢᅜࡢⴭసᶒἲไᗘ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊⴭసᶒࡢ

࠸ࡎࢀ࡟ࡏࡼࠊ⡿ᅜࡢ࣋ࣝࢾ఍㆟࡬ࡢཧຍ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫཎ๎

ไ㝈ࢆṇᙜ໬ࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࠊࡲࡉ࡟㛵ಀࡍࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ✀㢮ࡢ⪃ᐹࡔ࠿ࡽࡣᏲࡽࢀࡓ࡜࠸࠺୺ᙇࡶ࠶ࡿ㹿ࡇࡢཎ๎ࡣࠕࢫ࣮࣭ࣜࢫࢸࢵࣉ࣭ࢸࢫ

࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⡿ᅜἲࡢࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫཎ๎ࡢᇶ┙࡟࠶ࡿ౯್ほ࡜ࠊ࣮ࣚࣟࢵ

ࢺࠖࡢせồ࡜ࡶㄪ࿴࡛ࡁࡿ࡜ࡍࡿㄽ⪅ࡶ࠸ࡿ㹿 ࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫ࡜㺀ࢫࣜࣃⴭసᶒἲࡢᇶ┙࡜ࡢ㛫࡟ࡣࠊ㔜せ࡞ᩥ໬ⓗ࡞┦㐪ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ㛫࣮࣭ࢫࢸࢵࣉ࣭ࢸࢫࢺ㺁࡜ࡢᩚྜᛶ㸦ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࡢ㆟ㄽ࡟ࡣࠊᏛ✲ⓗ࡞㐪࠸࡞࠸ࠋ➨᮲ࡀ⩏ົ࡙ࡅࡿ஦ᐇ࡟ࡶ࡜࡙࠸ࡓุ౛୺ᑟࡢྖἲᑂᰝ

㆟ㄽࢆ㉸࠼ࡿࡶࡢࡶⱝᖸ࠶ࡿ㸧࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㈶ᡂㄽࡸ཯ᑐㄽࡢ࣓ࣜࢵࢺࡀࠊ

ࡣࠊ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃࡢఏ⤫ⓗ࡞ྖἲ࡜ࡣ┦ᐜࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ⡿ᅜࡀ᥇⏝ࡋ࠸࠿࡞ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡟ࡏࡼࠊ୍▐❧ࡕṆࡲࡗ࡚ࡇࡢၥ㢟࡟ᑐࡍࡿどⅬࢆ࡚࠸ࡿᙧ࡛ࡢࠊࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫࡢᰂ㌾ᛶ࡜⌧ᐇ୺⩏ࡣࠊ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃࡢᅜࠎ

ྲྀࡾᡠࡍ౯್ࡣ࠶ࡿࠋ➨᮲࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ៅ㔜࡟㐍໬ࡋࠊ⣽㒊ࡲ᳨࡛ドࡉ࡛ࡣ᰿ᮏⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠊ㧗࠸ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢⴭ⪅ࡢಖㆤࢆ☜ಖ࡛ࢀࡓ୍㐃ࡢࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫཎ๎ࡀࠊពᅗⓗ࡟୙᫂░࡞ᨻ἞ⓗ࡞ጇ༠࡟ࡼ

ࡁ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜࠸࠺ᠱᛕࡶ⌧ᐇ࡟Ꮡᅾࡍࡿࠋከࡃࡢ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃㅖ

ࡗ࡚⏕ࡲࢀࠊࡑࡢព࿡ࡸせ௳ࡀࡲࡗࡓࡃ࡜ゝࡗ࡚ࡼ࠸࡯࡝୙᫂☜࡞᪉ᘧᅜࡢἲᚊࡣࠊⴭ⪅࡜ࡑࡢసရ࡜ࡢ㛫ࡢ⥅⥆ⓗ࡞㛵ಀ̿๰㐀ⓗ࠿ࡘ⤒῭ⓗ࡟ࠊྲྀࡗ࡚௦ࢃࡽࢀࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࠿㸽ࡶࡋࡑ࠺࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊ㛫㐪࠸࡞ࡃ࡞̿ࢆㄆࡵࠊಖㆤࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ᶆ࡟ᙧᡂࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡇࡢ㛵ಀࡢಖㆤࡣࠊ

ࡑࢀࡣ኱ኚ࡞⓶⫗࡛࠶ࡿࠋࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫཎ๎ࡢ࣮࢜ࣉࣥ࡞ᛶ᱁࡟㉳ᅉ⡿ᅜࡢⴭసᶒἲ࡛ࡣᙅࡃࠊࡲࡓࠊ➨᮲࡟ࡼࡿࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫࡢᑂᰝ

ࡍࡿ࠸࠿࡞ࡿண

ᅔ㞴ᛶࡶࠊ㺀ࢫ࣮࣭ࣜࢫࢸࢵࣉ࣭ࢸࢫࢺ㺁᪉ᘧࡢ୙☜ᐇ࡟㝿ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ࡑࡢᙺ๭ࢆᯝࡓࡉ࡞࠸ࠋ

࡞࢖ࣥࣃࢡࢺ࡟㉳ᅉࡍࡿண ᅔ㞴ᛶ࡟ẚ࡭ࢀࡤࠊࡣࡿ࠿࡟ᑠࡉ࠸࠿ࡽ࡛



࠶ࡿࠋ

ࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃࡢࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫἲไࢆࠊ஦ᐇࢆ࣮࣋ࢫ࡟


Ibid, 2621.

For discussion, see R Okediji, “Toward an International Fair Use Doctrine” [2000] 39

Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 75.ࡋࡓࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫつᐃ࡟᭩ࡁᨵࡵࡿࠊࡘࡲࡾࠕ᭱ᝏࡢሙྜࡢࢩࢼࣜ࢜ࠖ
࠿ࡽᢤࡅฟࡋ࡚ࠊࠕ஧ࡘࡢୡ⏺ࡢ᭱ၿࡢࡶࡢࠖ࡜ࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࠊୖグࡢ㔜኱࡞஋㞳ࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࠿ྰ࠿⪃ᐹࡍࡿ౯್ࡣ࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡣ኱௙஦
࡛࠶ࡾࠊ➹⪅ࡀࡇࡇ࡛ࡑࢀ࡟ྲྀࡾ⤌ࡴពᅗࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶࠊ

See M Senftleben, Copyright, Limitations and the Three-Step Test: an Analysis of theࡑ࠺ࡋࡓࠕ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃࡢࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫࠖཎ๎ࡀࠊ⡿ᅜࡢࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘ

Three-Step Test in International and EC Copyright Law (Kluwer Law International, 2004)ࢫ࣭ࣔࢹࣝࡢಟṇ∧ࢆ࣮࣋ࢫ࡜ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣྍ⬟࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ➨᮲ࡢ

167-8 and “Declaration on a Balanced Interpretation of the ‘Three-Step Test’ in Copyrightẚ㍑ⓗ␗ㄽࡢ࡞࠸せ⣲ࢆ⿵඘ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢ௚ࡢせ⣲ࡶࠊ

Law” [2008] 39 IIC 702-3.

࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃ࡛ࡣ᰿ᮏⓗ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿၥ㢟㸦ࠕⴭస⪅ࡢே᱁ⓗ฼┈࠾ ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO  ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   㐃⥆௻⏬

୰᰾ไᗘࡢᰂ㌾໬̿Ḣᕞⴭసᶒἲࡢ㛤ᨺ 㻳㼞㼕㼒㼒㼕㼠㼔㼟 ࡼࡧ⤒῭ⓗ฼┈ࠖ㸧࡟ᑐฎࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ⡿ᅜࡢࣇ࢙࢔࣭

ࢁ࠺㹿ࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ཎ๎ࡢ㛤Ⓨ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄪᰝࡍࡿ౯್ࡣ

࣮ࣘࢫศᯒࡢṔྐࢆ᭷ຠά⏝ࡋ࡚ࠊ௚ࡢ㔜せ࡞ၥ㢟㸦࠾ࡑࡽࡃࠊࠕᢏ⾡࠶ࡿࠋࣉࣟࢪ࢙ࢡࢺ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ࡝ࢇ࡞㞀ᐖࡶࠊ⫼ᬒ࡟࠶ࡿ⌧ᅾࢃࢀࢃࢀࡀ

ࡢⓎᒎࢆಁ㐍ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ㔜せᛶࠖࡲࡓࡣࠕ஧ḟⓗᕷሙ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ➇தಁ㐍⨨࠿ࢀࡓཝࡋ࠸≧ἣ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡍ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡢᚲせᛶࠖ㸧࡟ᑐฎࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃࡢࣇ࢙

࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫࠖつᐃࡣࠊᇶᮏⓗᶒ฼࡟㛵ಀࡋࡓ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃࡢつ⠊࡜୧❧ࡍࡿ᪉ἲ࡛᥇⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆࠊ᫂☜࡟⾲᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ⿢ุᡤࡣᚲせ࡜ㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊⴭ⪅ࡲࡓࡣⴭసᶒಖ᭷⪅࡟㐺ษ࡞ሗ㓘ࢆᨭᡶ࠺ࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊసရࡢ౑⏝ࢆチྍ࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂☜࡟⾲᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡑ࠺ࡋࡓཎ๎ࡢⓎᒎࡣࠊ⌧ᅾ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃࡢⴭసᶒࢩࢫࢸ
࣒ࢆᨭ㓄ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᰂ㌾ᛶࡢḞዴࢆ⦆࿴ࡍࡿࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫ
ཎ๎ࡀ⡿ᅜ࡟ࡶࡓࡽࡍࠊ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ➇தୖࡢඃ఩ࢆ⦰ᑠࡋ㺂ୡ⏺୰࡛ቑຍഴྥࢆ♧ࡍࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫつᐃ᥇⏝ᅜ࡜ࡢㄪ࿴ࡶ࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘಖド࡛ࡁࡿ㹿ࡇࡇ࡛ᥦ᱌ࡋࡓ⪃࠼࡟ࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡞ᅔ㞴ࡀక࠺ࠋࡑࡢከࡃࡣࡍ࡛࡟⤂௓ࡋࡓࠋࠕ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃࡢࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫࠖ᮲㡯ࢆಟṇࡍࡿ࠸࠿࡞ࡿ஺΅ࡶࠊ࠿࡞ࡾ␗ㄽࡀ࠶ࡿࡶࡢ࡜᥎

ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞౯್࠶ࡿ㐨ලࢆ⿢ุᐁ࡟ᥦ౪ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊInfopaq ⿢ุࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⿢ุᡤࡀἲᚊ࡟ᑐࡋ
࡚ཝ᱁࡞ᯟ⤌ࡳࢆ㐺⏝ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊᡭຓࡅ࡟ࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸࡛࠶

㻳㼛㼛㼓㼘㼑 ࡀࡑࡢάືࢆ᧦ㆤࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫ࡟౫Ꮡࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊࡇࡢ

ཎ๎ࡀ㠉᪂ⓗ࡞ࣅࢪࢿࢫ㺃ࣔࢹࣝࢆ⫱࡚ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࢆ⛎ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍᐇ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᭱㏆ࠊࢩ࣏࣮ࣥ࢞ࣝ see N Loon, “Exploring Flexibilities within the Global IP

Standards” [2009] IPQ 162 ࠾ࡼࡧ࢖ࢫ࢚ࣛࣝ see OF Afori, “An Open Standard ‘Fair
Use’ Doctrine: A Welcome Israeli Initiative” [2008] EIPR 85 ࡛ࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫཎ๎ࡀ᥇
⏝ࡉࢀࡓࠋ᪥ᮏ࠾ࡼࡧ㡑ᅜ࡛ࡣ⌧ᅾࠕࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫࠖᆺࡢ❧ἲࡀ᳨ウࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
See Y Chang, “Debates on Introduction of ‘Fair Use’ to the Copyright Act of Japan & Korea. Do Japan and Korea need Fair Use?” [2010] 3 Quarterly Review of Corporation Law &

Society 282; T Ueno, “Rethinking the Provisions on Limitations of Rights in the Japanese

Copyright Act – Towards a Japanese-style ‘Fair Use’ Clause” AIPPI Journal, July 2009,ࡋࡲ࠺࡜ࡍࡿ㆟ㄽ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊsee R Burrell & A Coleman, Copyright Exceptions: The

159.

Digital Impact (Cambridge University Press, 2005) 249-275.

 ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO  ⿢ุᡤ࡟ᅛ᭷࡞ಖᏲ୺⩏ࡣࠊࣇ࢙࢔࣭࣮ࣘࢫつᐃࡢእぢⓗ࡞ᰂ㌾ᛶࢆᗁ᝿࡟ࡋ࡚

▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   