美國著作權法第107條規定「合理使用」四項要素，其第一項要素利用之目的與性質，近年常以具有轉化性使用(transformative use)作為判斷依據。本文討論轉化性使用從1994年出現於美國最高法院Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994) 以來，其意義與適用類型。
本研究透過Westlaw法律資料庫，搜尋自1994年至2016年之間的相關案例，共164筆資料，藉由案例間的引用關係建立引證網路，並以主路徑分析，選擇較關鍵的案例，與藉由引證網路進行分群。
本研究發現，轉化性使用之主路徑顯示，成立轉化性使用之判決有上升趨勢，其原因經實際判讀主路徑上的各案例節點發現：並非因法院放寬認定標準，而是利用人之利用行為因應先前法院駁回之案例，有所改變，包括就內容進行改作，或是利用目的不同。
接著亦透過主路徑方法之節點案例，探討合理使用之第一要素與其他要素之間的關係。本研究自主路徑上案例節點加以整理後，發現第二要素之著作之性質和成立轉化性與否，關係較小；而第三要素，使用的質與量部分，因應用之不同而有差異；第四要素，利用結果對潛在市場有所影響，凡是成立轉化性使用時，皆不成立第四要素。
最後，透過引證網路之分群方法，發現其分群依據，主要以轄區不同而有所分布，且大多以第二、九巡迴法院及其下級法院為主。進一步分析第二巡迴法院與下級法院之分群，歷史研究、紀錄、新聞報導與科技應用之引用關係密切；挪用藝術、詼諧仿作、批評評論等其餘創作引用關係密切。前者著重於新的利用目的；後者則著重於新的想法、觀念。

According to Section 107 of the US Copyright Law, there are four elements for fair use. The first of the four elements is mainly to determine the purpose and character of the infringer, once the judge found the transformative use, the infringer can use it as a defense. This study focuses on the use of transformative, including its meaning and the type of application, from the case of the Supreme Court of the United States Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994).
The study searches 164 cases from 1994 to 2016 years through the Westlaw database. The citation network is established by the reference from the various cases. From establishing the citation network, I use the main path analysis to select the core cases, and the strength of the reference relationship to categorize.
The results of this study show that the court has not relaxed the standard for the transformative use, but the infringer's use will modify by learning from the experience and the previous cases.
Additionally, this study also explores the relationship between the first element of fair use and other elements. After discussing the nodes on the main path analysis, it is found that the relationship between the nature of the work of the second element and the transformation of the first element is small. The third element, the amount and substantiality of the portion, is different for its application. As long as the infringer's behavior is transformative use, the four elements, the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work, will not have an impact on the first element.
Finally, through the citation method of citation network, it is found that the grouping basis is mainly distributed according to the jurisdiction of the court, and mostly based on the second and ninth circurt and its lower court. However, it is noteworthy that the case of the Second Circuit and its subordinate courts is still divided into two groups.The results can be grouped into two categories：First, this study combines historical research, records, news reports and scientific and technological applications into a cluster. Second, this study will be combined with appropriation, parody, criticism and comment (excluding historical research, records and news reports), because they all have a new point of view, and new ideas.

(一) 英文文獻
Beebe, B. (2008). An empirical study of US copyright fair use opinions, 1978-2005. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 549-624.
Bunker, M. D., & Calvert, C. (2013). The jurisprudence of transformation: Intellectual incoherence and doctrinal murkiness twenty years after Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music. Duke L. & Tech. Rev., 12, 92.
Carroll, M. W. (2006). Fixing fair use. NCL Rev., 85, 1087.
Eisenberg, T. (2000). Empirical Methods and the Law. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95(450), 665-669.
Fowler, J. H., & Jeon, S. (2008). The authority of Supreme Court precedent. Social networks, 30(1), 16-30.
Houston, F. (2010). The Transformation Test: Artistic Expression, Fair Use, and the Derivative Right. FIU L. Rev., 6, 123.
Hummon, N. P., & Doreian, P. (1989). Connectivity in a citation network:The development of DNA theory. Social Networks 11, 39-63.
Kudon, J. (2000). Form over function: Expanding the transformative use test for fair use. Boston University Law Review, 80(2), 579-611.
Lee, E. (2010). Technological Fair Use.
Leval, P. N. (1990). Toward a Fair Use Standard. Harvard Law Review.
Liu, J. S., & Lu, L. Y. (2012). An integrated approach for main path analysis: Development of the Hirsch index as an example. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(3), 528-542.
Murray, M. D. (2012). What is transformative? An explanatory synthesis of the convergence of transformation and predominant purpose in Copyright Fair Use Law.
Netanel, N. W. (2011). Making sense of fair use. Lewis & Clark L. Rev., 15, 715.
Sag, M. (2012). Predicting fair use. Ohio State Law Journal, 73, 1.
Samuelson, P. (2015). Possible futures of fair use. Wash. L. Rev., 90, 815.
Sites, B. (2015). Fair Use and the New Transformative. Colum. JL & Arts, 39, 513.
Tushnet, R. (2015). Content, Purpose, or both. Wash. L. Rev., 90, 869.
Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2007). VOS: a new method for visualizing similarities between objects Advances in Data Analysis (pp. 299-306): Springer.
Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J., & Noyons, E. C. (2010). A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 629-635.
(二) 中文文獻
Burnham, W. (2001). 英美法導論 (林利芝, Trans.): 元照出版有限公司.
于玉. (2007). 著作權合理使用制度研究-應對數字網絡環境挑戰.
王敏銓. (2011). 著作權合理使用規範之現在與未來-美國法的合理使用. 116-147.
王澤鑑. (2010). 英美法導論. 臺北市: 元照.
李羽晨. (2014). 主路徑方法與傳統法學研究方法之比較: 以商標淡化為例.
耿筠、劉江彬. (2002). 美國著作權合理使用之重要判例研究. 智慧財產權(44), 54-77.
張又文. (2013). 著作權法上引用合理使用之研究. 中原大學. Available from Airiti AiritiLibrary database. (2013年)
章忠信. (2017). 線上音樂與影片之著作權問題 (Vol. 1009700208): 中華民國政府出版品.
潘維大, & 程法彰. (2003). 英美法導讀講義: 瑞興.
(三) 網路資料
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use. Retrieved from https://0-1.next.westlaw.com.millennium.lib.ntust.edu.tw/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=17USCAS107&originatingDoc=Ic9d4826968a611ddba04ead008c6b935&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)
Christine Bacon, J. D. (2015). What Constitutes Fair Use of Internet Materials Under 17 U.S.C.A. § 107. Retrieved from https://0-1.next.westlaw.com.millennium.lib.ntust.edu.tw/Document/I203d5b0b7be411e59e088d7d2eb8e737/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search%2Fv3%2Fsearch%2Fresults%2Fnavigation%2Fi0ad62af00000015c6e8c48246a1d501a%3FNav%3DANALYTICAL%26fragmentIdentifier%3DI203d5b0b7be411e59e088d7d2eb8e737%26startIndex%3D1%26contextData%3D%2528sc.Search%2529%26transitionType%3DSearchItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=9593dd6dbc4d51a79dcfb7d6e20637df&list=ANALYTICAL&rank=6&sessionScopeId=0775a43b7c8c1be094febcfca7810043b119dd90dcc57354386cce6ad3500737&originationContext=Search%20Result&transitionType=SearchItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29
M. Elaine Buccieri, J. Cause of Action for Copyright Infringement Under the Federal Copyright Act of 1976, as Amended. Retrieved from https://0-1.next.westlaw.com.millennium.lib.ntust.edu.tw/Document/I2342bc8e779c11d98c8bd72040815c49/View/FullText.html?originationContext=typeAhead&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)
Marshall University Libraries. Retrieved from http://libguides.marshall.edu/basic_legal_research/case_law
Section 8, Clause 8. Patents and Copyrights. Retrieved from https://0-1.next.westlaw.com.millennium.lib.ntust.edu.tw/Document/N9ED985309DFA11D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A/View/FullText.html?originationContext=docHeader&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&transitionType=Document&needToInjectTerms=False&userEnteredCitation=U.S.C.A.+Const.+Art.+I+s+8%2c+cl.+8&docSource=6855b6b9067f4afa9c258be8d08164d5
U.S. Copyright Office Fair Use Index. Retrieved from https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/fair-index.html
(四) 美國判決
Adjmi v. DLT Entertainment Ltd., 97 F. Supp. 3d 512 (2015).
Am. Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc., 60 F.3d 913 (2d Cir. 1994).
Arrow Productions, LTD. v. Weinstein Co. LLC, 44 F.Supp.3d 359 (2014).
Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google Inc., 804 F.3d 202 (2d Cir.2015).
Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust, 755 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2014).
Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd., 448 F.3d 605 (2d Cir. 2006).
Blanch v. Koons, 467 F.3d 244 (2d Cir. 2006).
Burnett v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 491 F.Supp.2d 962 (2007).
BWP Media USA, Inc. v. Gossip Cop Media, Inc., 2016 WL 3951182 (2016).
Cambridge Univ. Press v. Patton,, 769 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2014).
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S 569 (1994).
Cariou v. Prince, 714 F.3d 694 (2d Cir. 2013).
Castle Rock Entm’t, Inc. v. Carol Publ. Group, Inc., 150 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1998).
Chi. Bd. of Educ. v. Substance, Inc., 354 F.3d 624 (7th Cir. 2003).
Faulkner Literary Rights, LLC v. Sony Pictures Classics, Inc.,, 953 F.supp.2d 701 (2013).
Fitzgerald v. CBS Broad., Inc., 491 F. Supp. 2d 177 ( 2007).
Fuentes v. Mega Media Holdings, Inc., 2011 WL 2601356 (2011).
Hofheinz v. A & E Television Networks, 146 F. Supp. 2d 442 (2001).
Infinity Broad. Corp. v. Kirkwood, 150 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 1998).
Katz v. Google Inc., 802 F.3d 1178 (11th Cir. 2015).
Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., 336 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2003).
Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 137 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 1998).
Los Angeles Times v. Free Republic, 2000 WL 565200 (2000).
A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001).
Monge v. Maya Magazines, Inc., 688 F.3d 1164 (9th Cir. 2012).
N. Jersey Media Grp., Inc. v. Pirro, 74 F. Supp. 3d 605 (2014).
Nihon Keizai Shimbun, Inc. v. Comline Bus. Data, Inc., 166 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 1999).
NXIVM Corp. v. Ross Institute, 364 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2004).
Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc, 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007).
Peter Letterese & Assocs. v. World Inst. of Scientology Enters., 533 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir. 2008).
Princeton Univ. Press v. Mich. Document Servs., Inc. (99 F.3d 1381 6th Cir. 1996).
Ringgold v. Black Entm’t Television, Inc., 126 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 1997).
Salinger v. Colting, 607 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2010).
Seltzer v. Green Day, Inc., 725 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2013).
Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 268 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2001).
TCA Television Corp. v. McCollum, 839 F.3d 168 (2d Cir. 2016).
Video Pipeline, Inc. v. Buena Vista Home Entm’t, Inc., 342 F.3d 191 (3d Cir. 2003).
Wall Data Inc. v. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept, 447 F.3d 769 (9th Cir. 2006).
Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. RDR Books, 575 F.Supp.2d 513 (2008).
Wong v. Village Green Owners Association, 2015 WL 12672092 (2015).
Worldwide Church of God v. Philadelphia Church of God, Inc., 227 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir.2000).