照片在著作權法稱為攝影著作。著作之保護以具有原創性為必要。原創性之成立除了不能抄襲他人之外，最重要是需有少量的個性與獨特性，稱之為最低創作性。本研究希望釐清法院認定最低創作性之關鍵影響因素，作為拍攝者創作以及利用人利用攝影著作之參考。基於美國之發展對我國著作權研究與實務有重要影響，本研究以美國之學說與實務為研究對象。
本研究之研究方法，為彌補國、內外對美國攝影著作最低創作性量化研究缺口，先採用文獻分析法分析美國學術文獻之見解，瞭解現階段研究之狀況。接著採用量化研究方法，對美國判決進行分析，以檢定學術文獻發現之問題。最後，提出結論。
研究結果顯示，影響因素可以分為技術類、藝術類、雜類等三類。雜類因素包含拍攝者身分、大量創作。技術類因素，包含鏡頭、濾鏡、底片、相機、焦距、相片紙、後製。藝術類因素，包含燈光、快門速度、ISO、曝光、光圈、角度、姿勢與擺設、時機、佈景、拍攝地點、主題、情感表達、構圖、色調。雜類因素單獨即具有影響力，其中又以拍攝者身分為重要。因此，如果希望照片受到著作權保護，建議交由專業人士創作。技術類與藝術類因素單獨均不具有影響力。但藝術類與雜類因素、或三類因素一起，則有影響力。顯示雜類因素為主角、而藝術類則為輔助判斷角色。而且，在藝術類與雜類之組合中，藝術類因素容易使法院認定最低創作性不成立。基上，建議拍攝者不能僅著眼於技術類因素，必須確實掌握雜類因素，準備好證據，加以證明。若於訴訟上無法提出雜類因素之證明，則建議補充藝術類中的燈光和姿勢與擺設二項因素，因為此二項因素具有使最低創作性成立之效果。
對於照片利用人而言，判斷一張照片是否具備攝影著作之最低創作性，建議應依序至少調查下列因素：首要注意拍攝者是否具專業身分、或是在創作過程中是否對於大量創作方面有所著墨。若二者均無，則應注意拍攝者對於燈光、姿勢與擺設的設計與安排，因為此等因素，有使最低創作性成立之效果。又，利用人查閱照片是否已註冊，亦屬重要。
本研究之學術貢獻係對美國著攝影著作最低創作性進行首次量化研究，提出學術論文未能重視的雜類因素之重要性。並對經常於學術論文討論之藝術類與技術類因素，發現其均無法單獨左右法院認定，但證明藝術類因素顯然較技術類因素為重要，且如果要使最低創作性成立，又以其中的燈光、姿勢與擺設，較為有利。本研究也分別從照片權利人與利用人角度，提供實務上，為使最低創作性成立，雙方應該注意到的創作安排與其他事項。

Photographs are protected under the Copyright Act if they are original works of authorship. To qualify as original, the work must be created independently and must have at least a modicum of creativity. This study aims to clarify that what key factors influence a court to determine whether a photograph possesses a minimal degree of creativity; and provide a reference for photographers and users of photographic works. Due to the influence of the United States on Taiwan’s copyright research and practice, this study takes American theories and practices as the research object.
In terms of research methods, document analysis has been applied to review the insights of US academic literature and understand the current research status. Statistical analyses have been also undertaken to analyze US court’s judgement in order to justify the findings from document analysis. By adopting the research methods mentioned above, this study hopes to fill a gap in quantitative research on this topic.
As a result, the key factors could be classified into three types, including technical, artistic, and miscellaneous factors. The miscellaneous factors include the identity of the photographer and mass creation. Technical factors consist of the lens, filter, film, camera, focal length, photographic paper and retouching. The artistic factors encompass the lighting setup, shutter speed, ISO, exposure, aperture, angle, pose and arrangement, timing, background, place, theme, evoking expression, composition, tone.
The miscellaneous factors are influential independently, and in all these factors, the identity of the photographer is the most critical one. Therefore, photographs taken by professionals are more likely to be protected by Copyright Act. The technical and artistic factors cannot be influential independently to a minimal degree of creativity, but will become influential by collectively taking the miscellaneous factors into account. This implies that the miscellaneous factors are the primary determinants of court decisions, and the artistic factors are of secondary importance. Furthermore, courts tend to consider a photography lack a minimal degree of creativity when examining the artistic and miscellaneous factors collectively. Hence, the photographer cannot just pay attention to the technical factors, but must primarily focus on the miscellaneous factors and prepare sufficient evidence of both types of factors. If no evidence of miscellaneous factors can be presented on trial, evidence of lighting, pose and arrangement are recommended to supplement since those artistic factors are likely to let photographs protected by Copyright Act.
Photograph users are suggested to distinguish whether a photographic work possesses a minimal degree of creativity through below factors. The priority is to recognize whether the photographers are professional, or whether they involve mass creation. If neither of these factors exist, lighting, pose and arrangement should be aware, since the two artistic factors are likely to let photographs protected by Copyright Act. In addition, checking out whether the photograph has been registered is equally important.
The academic contribution of this study is that it’s the first quantitative research that focuses on the minimal degree of creativity of US photographic works. The miscellaneous factors, which previous studies neglected, have been proven to be essential. Moreover, the artistic and technical factors, which have often been accentuated in previous studies, have been verified not to be independently influential on court decisions. Furthermore, the artistic factors are evidently more crucial than the technical factors, and the lighting, pose and arrangement factors are likely to let photographs to be protected by Copyright Act. The practical contribution of this study is to suggests both photograph right holders and users to mainly focus on arranging the settings of creativity and the aforementioned miscellaneous factors in order to establish minimal degree of creativity.

中文專書
Fun視覺，拍出好風景：掌握光線×色彩×構圖技巧，佳魁資訊股份有限公司，2014年。
王緯，迴歸分析，志光教育科技股份有限公司，2017年。
周子敬，統計套裝軟體-精通SPSS，全華科技圖書股份有限公司，2007年。
林傑斌、林川雄、馮兆康，SPSS統計分析與實務，博碩文化，2011年。
孫艷玲、何源、李陽旭，從範例學SPSS統計分析與應用，博碩文化，2011年。
馬秀蘭、吳德邦，統計學：以Microsoft Excel為例（第九版），大揚出版社，2019年。
張紹勳、林秀娟，邏輯斯迴歸分析及離散選擇模型：應用SPSS，五南圖書出版股份有限公司，2018年。
葉至誠、葉立誠，研究方法與論文寫作，商鼎數位出版有限公司，2011年。
蕭文龍，多變量分析最佳入門實用書(第二版)：SPSS+LISREL，碁峰出版社，2009年。
蕭文龍，統計分析入門與應用：SPSS中文版+SmartPLS 3(PLS-SEM)(第二版)，碁峰資訊股份有限公司，2018年。

中文譯著
W. Lawrence Neuman 著，朱柔若譯，社會研究方法：質化與量化取向（Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches），楊智文化事業股份有限公司，2000年5 月。

中文期刊論文
陳曉慧，德國博物館圖像聯合授權機制bpk之研究:A Study on the Joint Licensing Mechanism (“bpk”) of German Museums，臺北大學法學論叢，第92期，2014年。
馮震宇，新聞攝影著作有著作權嗎？台灣法學雜誌，第235期，2013年。
馮震宇，論文物藝術品攝影著作之保護與利用，月旦法學雜誌，第249期，2016年。
黃心怡，論攝影著作之原創性，東吳法律學報，第24卷第3期，2012年。
魏夢麗、呂秀英，決定係數(R2)在迴歸分析中的解釋及正確使用，科學農業雜誌社，第47卷，1999年。

中文學位論文
劉佳宜，法院對攝影著作原創性判斷因素之實證研究，國立臺灣科技大學科技管理研究所碩士論文，2018年。

英文專書
Bryan Peterson, Understanding Exposure: How to Shoot Great Photographs with a Film or Digital Camera (2004).
Hugh Laddie, The Modern Law of Copyright and Designs (2000).
James Stevens, Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences (1986).
Kevin Kubota, Kevin Kubota's Lighting Notebook: 101 Lighting Styles and Setups for Digital Photographers (2012).
Portney, L. G., & Watkins, M. P, Foundations of clinical research: Applications to practice (2000).
Thomas D. Selz & Melvin Simensky & Patricia Acton & Robert Lind, Entertainment Law 3d: Legal Concepts and Business Practices (2020).
William F. Patry, Patry on Copyright (2021).

英文期刊論文
Christine Haight Farley, The Lingering Effects of Copyright’s Response to the Invention of Photography, 65 UPTLR 385 (2004).
Dylan B. Reich,“Gigi, Over Here!”: Celebrity Use of Copyrighted Paparazzi Photographs, 39 CAELJ 793 (2021).
Edgar Gómez Cruz & Eric T. Meyer, Creation and Control in the Photographic Process: iPhones and the emerging fifth moment of photography, 5 Photographies 212 (2012).
Eva E. Subotnik, Originality Proxies: Toward a Theory of Copyright and Creativity, 76 BKNLR 1487 (2011).
Jennifer L. Muse, Monkeys and Elephants and Koalas, Oh My：Is Originality Still the Touchstone of Authorship in United States Copyright Law? 97 JPTOS 736 (2015).
Jessica Silbey & Eva E. Subotnik & Peter DiCola, Existential Copyright and Professional Photography, 95 NTDLR 263 (2019).
Jessica Silbey, Control over Contemporary Photography: A Tangle of Copyright, Right of Publicity, and the First Amendment, 42 CLMJLA 351 (2019).
Jonathan Siderits, The Case for Copyrighting Monkey Selfies, 84 UCINLR 327-348 (2016).
Jordan G. Parker, Smile and Say, “We Need Not Decide”: Decoding the Federal Courts’ Non-Answers Regarding the Derivative-Work Status of Photographs, 14 Tul. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 261 (2011).
Justin Hughes, The Photographer's Copyright – Photograph as Art, Photograph as Database, 25 HVJLT 339 (2012).
Karen D. Williams, Disparity in Copyright Protection: Focus on the Finished Image Ignores the Art in the Details, 58 AMULR 169 (2008).
Makoa Kawabata, Building Character: How to Grant Actors Limited Copyright Protection for Performances without Creating a New Special of Copyrighted Work, 16 TXRESL 1 (2014).
Olivia Lattanza, The “Foul” Protection for a Photographer’s Original and Creative Choices in a Photograph: Exploring the Implications of Rentmeester V. Nike, Inc. on Creativity in Photography, 35 TOUROLR 1127 (2020).
Philip Ewing, “Influencing” Copyright Law: Re-Evaluating the Rights of Photographic Subjects in the Instagram Age, 17 OSTLJ 321 (2021).
Roberta Rosenthal Kwall, Originality in Context, 44 HOULR 871 (2007).
Szumilas M, Explaining odds ratios, 19 JCACAP 227 (2010).
Teresa M. Bruce, In the Language of Pictures: How Copyright Law Fails to Adequately Account for Photography, 115 WVLR 93 (2012).
Terry S. Kogan, Photographic Reproductions, Copyright and the Slavish Copy, 35 CLMJLA 445 (2012).
Terry S. Kogan, The Enigma of Photography, Depiction, and Copyright Originality, 25 FDMIPMELJ 869 (2015).
Wampold B. E. & Freund R. D., Use of Multiple Regression in Counseling Psychology Research: A Flexible Data-Analytic Strategy, 34 JCP 372 (1987).

英文網路資料
Fred Ritchin, Photography’s New Bag of Tricks, The New York Times (Nov. 4, 1984), at https://www.nytimes.com/1984/11/04/magazine/photography-s-new-bag-of-tricks.html?pagewanted=4, last visited 06/23/2022.
Jill Sturgeon, Bloomberg's Point of Law: Can They Compete with Headnotes?, Colo. Law. (Aug. 12, 2018), at https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles/1178/., last visited 01/19/2022.
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, Adobe Photoshop, Britannica (Feb. 10, 2022), at https://www.britannica.com/technology/Adobe-Photoshop., last visited 07/24/2022.
Amazon, About Kevin Kubota, at https://www.amazon.com/-/zh_TW/Kevin-Kubota/e/B001K894BM/ref=aufs_dp_fta_dsk, last visited 08/09/2022.