我國演藝經紀契約之研究—兼論音樂團體名稱商標權

Abstract

本文旨在探討我國流行音樂產業實務下之演藝經紀契約實務，並會進一步聚焦於我國流行音樂產業實務下，音樂團體之名稱作為商標時，其商標權應歸屬於音樂團體成員或其演藝經紀公司間之議題。 我國流行音樂產業在面臨音樂數位化之時，傳統實體音樂專輯之收益大不如前，各家唱片公司皆為尋求轉型，故轉而發展演藝經紀業務，演藝經紀業務亦成為唱片公司主要之收益來源，更顯見演藝經紀契約對於流行音樂產業中之重要性；然而，流行音樂產業中唱片製作公司發展經紀業務而有製作與經紀整合之趨勢，對於演藝人員而言，將產生利益衝突之風險；同時，演藝人員與經紀公司簽約時通常會有談判能力不對等之問題，因此對於演藝經紀契約之管理具有必要性。我國目前對於演藝經紀契約並無管理規範，但職業籃球在2023年引進經紀人證照制度，而美國在加州與紐約也採行經紀人證照制度，並行之有年。經紀人證照制度利益良好，旨在保障演藝人員之利益，但我國若欲引進經紀人證照制度，首先將面臨為勞工委員會力量是否足以支撐之挑戰。不過在保護演藝人員手段上，仍可藉由加強其締約程序上之保護，透過產業專業人士或律師之加入，加強其締約時之談判能力。 就音樂團體商標權爭議，本文透過我國流行音樂產業中發生之蘇打綠案，與美國實務類似案件進行比較；美國法院在判斷商標權歸屬時將判斷關鍵置於何人對於音樂團體所提供音樂娛樂表演之「品質」具有控制力，如此似乎符合商標法保護消費者目的，以及商標法保障品質之功能；本文認為，若當事人間並未就商標權利歸屬事前於契約有所安排，未來在面臨相關爭議時，我國法院或可以美國法院之判斷標準作為參考。

This article aims to introduce and discuss the practical issue surrounding talent agency contracts in Taiwan’s pop music industry; with a further focus on the trademark ownership dispute between the talent agencies and the music groups. As Taiwan’s music industry faced music digitalization, the traditional revenue from physical music albums dramatically decreased; the record labels then sought to develop the talent agency business. Nowadays, the revenue of talent agencies has become a main source of income for record labels. The importance of talent agencies has grown since then, highlighting the crucial role talent agency contracts play in the pop music industry. However, the incorporation of record labels and talent agencies has raised a concern of conflict of interest for artists. Additionally, artists often have less bargaining power than the agencies when signing talent agency contracts, which leads to a need to regulate talent agency contracts. Currently, Taiwan has no specific regulations governing talent agency contracts, but the Chinese Taipei Basketball Association adopted a regulation that requires sports agencies to acquire a license in order to engage in the occupation of sports agencies which the pop music industry may consider to refer. As for California and New York, both states have long implemented the licensing requirement for talent agencies which aims to protect the benefits of artists. However, if Taiwan were to introduce licensing requirements for talent agencies, it would first face the challenge of whether the labor commission has the capacity to support it. Nonetheless, there are still other options to protect artists, such as enhancing their bargaining power through the participation of industry professionals or lawyers during the negotiation. Furthermore, the article tries to compare the case of Sodagreen and similar cases in the United States regarding the trademark ownership dispute between music groups and agencies. Courts of the United States have generally determined trademark ownership by focusing on who controls the “quality” of the music and entertainment performances provided by the music group. This standard is aligned with the purposes of trademarks which seek to protect consumers and ensure the quality of goods and services. In conclusion, this article suggests that if music groups and their agencies have not prearranged trademark ownership in their talent agency contracts, courts in Taiwan may consider referencing the standards in future disputes.