原住民族傳統智慧創作因其特殊創作背景與創作過程，容易因缺少個人原創性部分而無法受到著作權保護。本文就原住民族傳統智慧創作中著作集體性，也就是公眾作者權的部分來做討論，著作權作為本質上具爭議性的概念，使公眾作者權理論能夠被納入著作權論述的討論範圍。在作者權的判定上，公眾可以藉由成為作者意圖來展現保存人類社會文化的共同責任，而被認定具有作者權。接著透過檢視洛克勞動理論適用到著作權上的瑕疵，加上洛克在其他著作中對著作權的見解，可更加確定作者與原創作品皆是社會建構的事實。最後以著作權中共同作者的規定來檢視，創作背景社群是否有資格被認定為作品的共同作者而對作品享有一定的權利。基於原住民族傳統文化創作本身高度仰賴社群資源與社群文化，認為作品中因含有公眾作者權的部分，且依循多元文化主義與促進人類文化興盛之目的，應給予原住民族傳統智慧創作一定的保護。

Due to the special creating process and environment, the Traditional Intellectual Creation of Indigenous (hereafter “TICI”) often is denied with Copyright protection because of lacking individual authorship. This paper aims to focus on the authorial collectivity of TICI, namely the public authorship. As an essentially contested concept, Copyright is filled with contested conception, which enables public authorship model to be discussed in the Copyright discourse. The public can be considered as a co-author through the intent to be an author and the responsibility to preserve human social culture. By testing the Lockean Labour Theory on to Copyright reality, along with Locke’s other works which reveal his insight of Copyright, the fact that every author and original work is social constructed is self-evident. Finally, based on the doctrine of joint authorship in Copyright institution, whether the creation background community can be considered as co-author or not is discussible. Since the creating process of TICI is highly depending on the communal resource and cultural assets which constitute the public authorship. Following Multiculturalism and the purpose of advancing human social culture, TICI should be protected.

壹 、中文部分
一、專書
1. 黃居正(2015)。《認識原住民族傳統智慧創作保護條例-原住民族傳統智慧創作專用權申請作業手冊》(出版)。新北市：原住民族委員會。
2. 謝銘洋(2016)。《智慧財產權法》(七版)。台北市：元照。
二、期刊論文
1. 黃居正（2005）。〈時間、勞動與生態－原住民族財產權的核心論題〉。《清華科技法律與政策論叢》，2卷1期，頁5-48。
2. 黃居正（2010）。〈傳統智慧創作與特殊權利─評析「原住民族傳統智慧創作保護條例」〉，《台灣原住民族研究季刊》，3卷4期，頁11-46。
3. 黃居正（2012）。〈原住民法與市民法的衝突─論非線性憲法結構下特殊權利的地位〉，《台灣原住民族研究學報》，2卷1期，頁27-61。
4. 黃居正（譯）（2006），Jon M. Van Dyke（著）。〈國際法下的原住民權利與夏威夷原住民〉。《台灣國際法季刊》，3卷1期，頁137-174。
5. 黃居正、邱盈翠（2013）。〈原住民族傳統智慧創作之歸屬與運用︰集體財產管理制度之探討〉。《台灣社會研究季刊》，90期，頁1-42。
6. 黃居正、邱盈翠（2015）。〈台灣原住民族集體同意權之規範與實踐〉。《臺灣民主季刊》，12卷3期，頁48-82。
7. 胡心蘭(2011)。〈是壟斷智慧？還是創造財產？──從勞動財產權理論智慧財產權擴張之趨勢 〉。《財產法暨經濟法》。卷26，頁85-127。
8. 施正鋒(2007)。〈原住民族的主權〉。《國家發展研究院》。第六卷第二期，頁119-154。
9. 謝銘洋(2002)。〈智慧財產權：第一講—智慧財產權之概念與意義〉。《月旦法學教室》。頁110-117。
10. 謝銘洋（2010）。〈智慧財產權法─我國智慧財產權法近年來之發展與司法實踐〉。《國立台灣大學法學論叢》，39卷2期，頁199-225。
11. 楊智傑(2010)。〈原住民傳統文化表達之保護模式比較與建議〉。《中正大學法學集刊》，30期，頁47-98。
12. 陳昭華(2006)。〈原住民族傳統文化表達之保護〉，《輔仁法學》，31，頁1-43。
三、會議論文
1. 黃居正（2012，12月）。〈原住民族傳統智慧創作之授權實務──以文化正統性為中心的實證分析〉。論文發表於國立清華大學科技法律研究所、國立台北教育大學教育經營與管理學系聯合舉辦之「重返社群資源──原住民族集體文化權利之理論與實踐」研討會，台北市。
2. 黃居正（2016，4月）。〈原住民族傳統智慧創作保護條例的第一個十年：解釋原則與挑戰〉。論文發表於國立清華大學科技法律研究所、國立政治大學原住民族研究中心、國立臺大原住民族研究中心、財團法人法律扶助基金會聯合舉辦之「原緣流長原住民族傳統智慧創作保護」研討會，台北市。
貳、英文文獻
一、專書部分
1. Fisher, W.(2001) Theories of Intellectual property. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. Zemer, L.(2007) The ideal of Authorship in Copyright , Ashgate Publishing, Ltd..
二、期刊論文
1. Becker, Lawrence C. (1993)Deserving to Own Intellectual Property, Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 68. 609-632.
2. Boyle,James D. A(1988) .The Search for an Author: Shakespeare and 　　　　　　　　　the Framers, Am. U. L. Rev. 37.625-643.
3. Boyle, James (1997). A Politics of Intellectual Property: Environmentalism for the Net?, Duke L.J. 47.87-116
4. Buccafusco ,Christopher(2016) A Theory of Copyright Authorship.Va. L. Rev. 102.1229-1294.
5. Buckley,Marion(2004). The Shakespeare Authorship Debate and the Proper Standard of Proof. Tenn. L. Rev.72.295-307.
6. Bussey ,Alexander, (2013.)The Incompatibility of Droit De Suite with Common Law Theories of Copyright, Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 23.1063-1104
7. Carrier ,Laura.(1999)Making Moral Theory Work for Law, Colum. L. Rev.99. 1018-1102
8. Carpenter, Megan M. (2004)Intellectual Property Law and Indigenous Peoples: Adapting Copyright Law to the Needs of A Global Community, Yale Hum. Rts. & Dev. L.J.7. 51-78
9. Cohen,Julie E. (2007). Creativity and Culture in Copyright Theory. U.C. Davis L. Rev.40. 1151-1198 .
10. Coombe ,Rosemary J.(1991), Objects of Property and Subjects of Politics: Intellectual Property Laws and Democratic Dialogue, Tex. L. Rev. 69.1853-1880
11. Craig, Carys J. (2002).Locke, Labour, and Limiting the Author’s Right: A Warning Against a Lockean Approach to Copyright Law. 28 Queen's Law Journal. 1-160
12. Damstedt, Benjamin G.(2003).Limiting Locke: A Natural Law Justification for the Fair Use Doctrine, Yale L.J. 112.1179-1221
13. Drassinower,Abraham(2003).A Rights-Based View of theIdea/Expression Dichotomy in Copyright Law.Canadian Journal of Law andJurisprudence,16,3-20.
14. Durham ,Alan L.(2002).The Random Muse: Authorship and Indeterminacy. Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 44.569-641.
15. Fleet, Gabriel Jacob(2008). What's in A Song? Copyright's Unfair Treatment of Record Producers and Side Musicians, Vand. L. Rev. 61.1235-1278
16. Fox, Paulette S. (2001).Preserving the Collaborative Spirit of American Theater: The Need for A "Joint Authorship Default Rule" in Light of the Rent Decision's Unanswered Question, Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 19. 497-531
17. Gallie, W.B. (2001) .Essentially Contctual Property and Cultural Products, B.U. L. Rev.81. 793-839
18. Gana, Ruth L.(1995) .Has Creativity Died in the Third World? Some Implications of the Internationalization of Intellectual Property, Denv. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y . 24. 109-144
19. Garon,Jon M(2003). Normative Copyright: A Conceptual Framework for Copyright Philosophy and Ethics.Cornell L. Rev. 88.1278-1358
20. Gilden, Andrew(2016) Raw Materials and the Creative Process, Geo. L.J. 104.355-408
21. Ginsburg,Jane C(2003).The Concept of Authorship in Comparative Copyright Law. DePaul L. Rev.52.1063-1092
22. Gordon, Wendy J.(1993).A Property Right in Self-Expression: Equality and Individualism in the Natural Law of Intellectual Property, Yale L.J. 102. 1533-1608
23. Gordon, Wendy J. (2004) Render Copyright Unto Caesar: On Taking Incentives Seriously, U. Chi. L. Rev. 71. 75 -92
24. Hooker,Nzingha.(2013).Something More Than Intent:Redefinig Joint Authorship to Include America’s Native Communitues. AIPLA Quarterly Journal.771-799.
25. Hughes ,Justin(1988).The Philosophy of Intellectual Property, Geo. L.J.77. 287 -365.
26. Jaszi ,Peter(1991).Toward A Theory of Copyright: The Metamorphoses of "Authorship". Duke L.J. 455-502.
27. Jaszi,Peter(1992).On The Author Effect: Contemporary Copyright And Collective Creativity. Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J.10.293-320
28. Kwall, Roberta Rosenthal(2001) "Author-Stories:" Narrative's Implications for Moral Rights and Copyright's Joint Authorship Doctrine, S. Cal. L. Rev.75. 1-64
29. LaFrance, Mary.(2001)Authorship, Dominance, and the Captive Collaborator: Preserving the Rights of Joint Authors, Emory L.J. 50.193-263
30. Lemley ,Mark A.(1997). Romantic Authorship and the Rhetoric of Property Shamans, Software, and Spleens: Law and the Construction of the Information Society. Tex. L. Rev. 75.873-906.
31. Lee, Jane C.(1998) Upstaging the Playwright: The Joint Authorship Entanglement Between Dramaturgs and Playwrights, Loy. L.A. Ent. L.J. 19. 75-106
32. Lessig, L.(1995) The Regulation of Social Meaning, U. Chi. L. Rev. 62. 943-1044
33. Litman,Jessica (1990).The Public Domain, Emory L.J. 39. 965-1023
34. Moore,Adam D.(1997)A Lockean Theory of Intellectual Property, Hamline L. Rev.21. 65-108.
35. Moore,Adam D.(2012)A Lockean Theory of Intellectual Property Revisited. San Diego L. Rev.49. 1069-1100.
36. Ng ,Alina.(2009).The Social Contract and Authorship: Allocating Entitlements in the Copyright System. Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J.19. 413-481.
37. Northover, Alexander D.(2016)"Enough and As Good" in the Intellectual Commons: A Lockean Theory of Copyright and the Merger Doctrine, Emory L.J. 65.1363-1410
38. Paterson ,Robert K. & Karjala, Dennis S., (2003). Looking Beyond Intellectual Property in Resolving Protection of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Indigenous Peoples.Cardozo J. Int'l & Comp. L.11. 633-669
39. Radin, M.J.(1982) Property and Personhood, Stan. L. Rev. 34. 957-1015
40. Rose,Mark(2002). Copyright and Its Metaphors. UCLA L. Rev. 50.1-15.
41. Rosenblatt, Elizabeth L. (2015).The Adventure of the Shrinking Public Domain, U. Colo. L. Rev. 86. 561-595
42. Samuelson ,Pamela.(2013) Is Copyright Reform Possible? Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law. Harv. L. Rev. 126.740-779.
43. Schüssel, Stuart.(2012)Copyright Protection's Challenges and Alaska Natives' Cultural Property, Alaska L. Rev.29. 313-340
44. Simon, David A.(2010.)In Search of (Maintaining) the Truth: The Use of Copyright Law by Religious Organizations, Mich. Telecomm. & Tech. L. Rev. 16. 355-416
45. Valachovic, Edward.(1992)The Contribution Requirement to a Joint Work under the Copyright Act, Loy. L.A. Ent. L. Rev. 12.199-219.
46. Verssteeg,Russ(1996).Defining “Author” for Purposes of Copyright. Am. U. L. Rev. 45.1323-1366.
47. VerSteeg, Russ(2002).Intent,Originality,Creativity and Joint Authorship. Brook. L. Rev.68.123-183
48. Yen ,Alfred C(1990). Restoring the Natural Law: Copyright As Labor and Possession, Ohio St. L.J.51. 517-559.
49. Zemer, Lior, (2006).The Conceptual Game in Copyright, Hastings Comm. & Ent L.J.28. 409-424 .
50. Zemer ,Lior,(2006). The Making of A New Copyright Lockean, Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y .29. 891-946
51. Zemer ,Lior.(2006) ."We-Intention" and the Limits of Copyright. Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J.24. 99-120
52. Zemer ,Lior. (2006).The Copyright Moment, San Diego L. Rev. 43. 247-316
53. Zemer ,Lior, (2007). What Copyright Is: Time to Remember the Basics, Buff. Intell. Prop. L.J. 4.54-89
54. Zemer ,Lior, (2007)Is Intention to Co-Author an "Uncertain Realm of Policy"?, Colum. J.L. & Arts.30. 611-624
55. Zemer, Lior.(2011).Moral Rights: Limited Edition, B.U. L. Rev. 91.1519-1567