Newsletter
The Scope of Protection for Artistic Works: Distinguishing Between Artistic Craftworks and Industrial Products
I. Scope of Protection for Artistic Works
Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1, Article 3 of the Copyright Act provides: "A work refers to an original creation in the literary, scientific, artistic, or other academic domain." Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 4, Article 5 of the same Act specifies that artistic works are one of the categories of works protected by copyright.
On June 10, 1992, the Ministry of the Interior issued Letter Tai-81-Nei-Zhu-Zi No. 8184002, promulgating "Examples of Works under Paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Copyright Act," which specifies that artistic works include paintings, prints, comics, cartoons, sketches, calligraphy, font drawings, sculptures, artistic craftworks, and other artistic works.
The Supreme Court's Judgment 82-Tai-Shang-Zi-7037, held that artistic works are those "in which the author expresses ideas and emotions through ingenuity, craftsmanship, depiction, or artistic representation in paintings, sculptures, calligraphy, or other works with aesthetic value." The Supreme Court's Judgments 2003 Tai-Shang-Zi-1465 and 2004 Tai-Shang-Zi No. 13 echoed this interpretation. In recent years, the Intellectual Property and Commercial Court ("IPCC") has rendered judgments indicating that artistic works are creations that express lines, light and shade, or shapes through artistic techniques such as drawing, coloring, writing, carving, or modeling, whether in two or three dimensions, and must express the author's ideas or emotions through artistic skill in order to qualify as artistic works (see IPCC Court's 113-Min-Zhu-Su-Zi-51, 112-Min-Zhu-Su-Zi-21, and 112-Min-Zhu-Shang-Yi-Zi-10).
In the IPCC's Civil Judgment Min-Zhu-Su-Zi No. 53 (dated August 20, 2025) further delineated the distinction between artistic craftworks and industrial products, holding that mass-produced industrial products do not constitute artistic works protected by copyright.
II. Facts of the Case
The plaintiff created a relief sculpture (hereinafter "the disputed work") and sold it to Defendant 1, with the agreement that Defendant 1 would use it solely for personal purposes and not allow others to reproduce or use it for other commercial purposes. However, Defendant 1, without the plaintiff's consent or authorization, provided the disputed work to Defendant 2, who then gave it to Defendant 3 for mold-making, mass production, and sale to third parties. The Plaintiff therefore claimed infringement against the Defendant for reproducing the disputed work pursuant to Article 88, Paragraph 1 of the Copyright Act.
III. The Grounds for Judgement
This judgment cited the Ministry of the Interior's Letter Nei-Zhu-Zi No. 8124412, which clarified: "Artistic craftworks refer to the creation of a single item capable of expressing thoughts or emotions, characterized by the production of a single item, i.e., a unique work. If the item is produced in large quantities by mold or mechanical means, it is considered an industrial product and not a work as defined in Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1, Article 3 of the Copyright Act, and thus cannot be recognized as an artistic craftwork protected as an artistic work." The judgment further indicated that artistic craftworks possess artistic value and are unique creations capable of expressing thoughts or emotions; if mass-produced, they are considered industrial products and are not protected by the Copyright Act. Thus, the distinction between artistic craftworks and industrial products focuses on the "singularity" of the work and its production.
In this case, the disputed work was created by the plaintiff, who designed the pattern and commissioned a woodcarver to carve a wooden sculpture based on the design. The wooden sculpture was then used as a mold to cast materials, resulting in identical finished products after demolding. The court found that the wooden sculpture carved by the woodcarver was a unique creation reflecting the creator's thoughts or emotions. However, the disputed works sold by the plaintiff were mass-produced using the wooden sculpture as a mold, and the finished products were entirely mold-made, lacking artistic technique and the expression of the creator's thoughts or emotions. Therefore, they were deemed industrial products and not artistic works protected by the Copyright Act. On this basis, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for damages.