美國聯邦最高法院自1994年於Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music案將「轉化性（Transformativeness）」此一判斷要素帶入美國著作權法合理使用原則後，轉化性之認定幾乎與合理使用之成立畫上等號，扮演著左右判決結果的關鍵角色。惟轉化性要素原本就不在美國著作權法第107條所示之法定要件之列，而係第一項要件「利用行為之目的與性質」下的判斷方式之一，且其內涵混沌不明，如何判斷利用行為是否具有「進一步之目的或不同之特色而增添了新的東西」？美國各級法院之詮釋分歧，莫衷一是。惟在近兩年美國著作權侵權之相關案例中，似乎有將判斷重心回歸美國著作權法第107條合理使用原則之四項法定要件之趨勢，尤其是第四項「利用行為對被利用著作之潛在市場或價值之影響」似又重回「最重要之單一要件」之姿。而美國聯邦最高法院於近日受理Google LLC v. Oracle America案，亦將無可避免地的需再次梳理美國著作權法合理使用原則之脈絡與適用範圍，有望釐清轉化性要素之於合理使用原則應有之地位。本文將先簡述轉化性要素之背景與適用上之分歧，接著分析近兩年相關案例所呈現的新趨勢，以期對著作權合理使用原則有更完整之理解。Since the Supreme Court of the United States introduced the element of ''transformativeness'' in the 1994 case Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music into the fair use doctrine under U.S. Copyright Law, the finding of transformativeness is almost equal to the finding of fair use. However, transformative elements were not included in the statutory factors of fair use doctrine under the section 107 of the US Copyright Law, and the U.S. federal courts have interpreted the meaning of ''transformation'' respectively, which divided interpretations results in no certainty of which kind of secondary use could constitute as ''transformative use.'' Yet, in the past two years, the relevant copyright infringement cases indicated different trends, and rather than focus on the transformative elements under the first factor of the fair use doctrine, these courts were more willing to consider all four statutory factors of the fair use doctrine, especially the fourth factor - ''The single most important element of fair use.'' Furthermore, the US Supreme Court recently grants certriori to review Google LLC v. Oracle America, in which the Court would address: 1.Whether the copyright protection extends to a software interface; 2. Whether, as the jury found, petitioner’s use of a software interface in the context of creating a new computer program constitutes fair use. As to the second issue, the Court inevitably has to interpret the context and scope of transformative use, and its relationship with other factors of the fair use doctrine, which would lead to solve the dilemma of ''transformativeness'' under U.S. Copyright Law.
Estimating Judicial Ideology