Newsletter
The Copyright Controversy over the Conversion of a 2D Work to a 3D Object
Taiwan Copyright Act defines in its Article 3, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 5 that "reproduce" means to reproduce directly, indirectly, permanently, or temporarily a work employing printing, reprography, sound recording, video recording, photography, handwritten notes, or otherwise. This definition also applies to the sound recording or video recording of scripts, musical works, or works of a similar nature during their performance or broadcast, and also includes the construction of an architectural structure based on architectural plans or models. In the same Article and Paragraph, Subparagraph 11 also designates that "adaptation" means to create another work based upon a pre-existing work by translation, musical arrangement, revision, filming, or other means. It is in practice controversial whether generating a solid object out of a planar (2D) work or converting a solid (3D) work to a planar one belongs to the defined“Reproduction” or "Adaptation" under the Copyright Act that involves a copyright infringement.
The preceding copyright controversy over the conversion of a planar (2D) work to a solid (3D) object may involve reproduction, adaptation, or implementation. If the court identifies the conversion as an implementation act, the court may deem that the conversion and/or the solid (3D) object is not protected by the Copyright Act. A case for reference is the civil judgment of 2019 Min Zhu Su Zi No. 124 rendered by Taiwan Intellectual Property Court (IPC) signifying that “producing a 3D object out of a 2D graphic work in accordance with the 2D graphic conception in terms of its drawings, dimensions, specifications or device structure diagrams is not a reproduction of the work content, but an 'implementation' act as the 3D object appearance is clearly different from that shown in those engineering drawings. It is not a matter governed by copyright as the Copyright Act does not protect the so-called ‘right of implementation’ for graphic works.” Another case for reference is the civil ruling of 2019 Min Zhu Kang Zi No. 6 rendered by Taiwan IPC, signifying that “as an implementation act is not an act of reproduction or adaptation, such an act is not in the scope of copyright protection of graphic works.” The Supreme Court also held the same opinion in its criminal judgment of 2008 Tai Shang Zi No. 6410.
However, in practice, not all the acts which involve the production of a 3D object out of a planar (2D) work are deemed as implementation acts under the Copyright Act. It is still necessary to judge the converting process and content thereof on a case-by-case basis. For instance, as the Supreme Court held in its criminal judgments of 1997 Tai Shang Zi No. 5222 and 2003 Tai Shang Zi No. 525, “to determine whether converting a planar work to a solid object makes up a reproduction act under the Copyright Act, one needs to decide whether the solid object simply reproduces the content of a planar work in a solid form. If it is the case, then it is a reproduction act under the Copyright Act.” The Supreme Court also held in its criminal judgment of 2010 Tai Shang Zi No. 3472 that “however, to determine whether the conversion of a planar artistic or graphic work to a solid object makes up a reproduction act, one has to confirm whether the original artistic or graphic work is in planar form, and whether the representation work reproduces the content of the original artistic or graphic work. If this is the case, then it is a ‘reproduction’ act… The original trial did not proceed the investigation…and in the absence of a comparison with the drawings 1 and 2 attached to the original judgment, the defendants were asserted to have 'implemented' rather than reproduced or adapted the work, which are unlawful because the original trial failed to investigate evidence that should have been investigated on the trial date with the improper application of rules.”
Given that the conversion of a planar (2D) work to a solid (3D) object may involve diverse types, it’s essential to know that not all the productions of a 3D object out of the concept of a planar work are implementation acts under the Copyright Act. If a party intends to convert another person's planar work into a 3D object, he or she must examine the converting method and the converted 3D object appearance, and confirm whether the construction of an architectural structure is based on architectural plans or models. Any other acts which involve the representation of the planar work content should be further examined and identified lest they should be considered acts of reproduction or adaptation under the Copyright Act, thereby infringing on the copyright of others.