發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-05-07 00:43

  本文選題：人格表征要素 + 商品化　； 參考：《浙江大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文

【摘要】：人格表征要素商品化的實(shí)質(zhì)是利用特定人格者的魅力、特殊社會(huì)影響力進(jìn)行促銷活動(dòng),這是社會(huì)事實(shí),在中國民法體系下,難以被權(quán)利化,也無權(quán)利化之必要。隨著傳媒技術(shù)的巨大進(jìn)步,特別是互聯(lián)網(wǎng)的普及,使人格表征要素的使用呈現(xiàn)出頻繁、隨意、多樣化的特點(diǎn)。人格表征要素的商業(yè)化利用無所不在,形式各異,并且不斷演繹出新的利用模式。對人格表征要素商品化的保護(hù)與規(guī)制發(fā)軔于英美法系,這與英美法系國家發(fā)達(dá)的市場經(jīng)濟(jì)、創(chuàng)新的營銷模式、靈活的法律形式以及領(lǐng)先的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法律制度息息相關(guān)。以德國為代表的大陸法系國家雖然在該問題上偏向保守,但仍然積極探索著以一般人格權(quán)制度進(jìn)行概括性保護(hù)的路徑.凡是經(jīng)濟(jì)利益存在之處,必然有利益沖突,因此需要法律規(guī)制。 本文作者運(yùn)用了案例實(shí)證研究方法,總結(jié)歸納了現(xiàn)行法下有關(guān)人格表征要素商品化的部分爭議焦點(diǎn),并對所涉案件的法院觀點(diǎn)做初步點(diǎn)評。筆者歸納的爭議點(diǎn)有：第一,人格表征要素商品化的客體范圍；第二,集體肖像問題；第三,角色肖像問題；第四,人格表征要素商品化與名譽(yù)權(quán)的關(guān)系。筆者認(rèn)為,肖像權(quán)、姓名和名稱權(quán)、隱私權(quán)等具體人格權(quán)與自然人形象利益的含混不清是導(dǎo)致上述問題的根本原因。 接下來,本文對人格表征要素相關(guān)理論問題進(jìn)行了介紹和分析,區(qū)分了人格、人格要素與人格表征要素等三個(gè)概念,厘清了人格的商業(yè)利用的對象。以人格上利益的區(qū)分入手,本文討論了人格表征要素上尊嚴(yán)性利益和財(cái)產(chǎn)性利益之間的關(guān)系和相互的影響。本文探討和評判了人格表征要素商品化的正當(dāng)性基礎(chǔ),為下文論及保護(hù)模式提供了前提。訴諸法哲學(xué)的正當(dāng)化路徑是一種訴諸直覺和情感的路徑,抽象并且缺乏嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)?shù)恼撟C。經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)基礎(chǔ)以功利主義為價(jià)值取向,以效率理論和激勵(lì)理論為核心,對人格表征要素商品化提供法律保護(hù)有助于減小交易成本,激勵(lì)人們創(chuàng)造更多的形象價(jià)值。經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)基礎(chǔ)的缺陷是注重外部規(guī)則的刺激作用而忽略了人自身的局限性。 本文參考比較法內(nèi)容,認(rèn)為人格表征要素商品化現(xiàn)象的保護(hù)模式有如下幾種：以一般侵權(quán)行為法提供保護(hù)的英國法模式、以德國為代表的人格權(quán)法的保護(hù)模式和以美國法為代表的財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)法的保護(hù)模式。我國法律提供了不完善的侵權(quán)行為法和人格權(quán)法的保護(hù),這種保護(hù)有待參照德國法上的保護(hù)方式進(jìn)行完善。 本文以重疊表征要素商品化利益的保護(hù)為例,討論了集體形象和跨界形象上的利益分配問題。對集體肖像、跨界形象所體現(xiàn)的人格經(jīng)濟(jì)利益的保護(hù)應(yīng)當(dāng)抓住形象的廣告促銷能力這一核心,而非拘泥于表現(xiàn)形式而進(jìn)行機(jī)械的利益分配。集體肖像是個(gè)錯(cuò)誤的概念,集體肖像權(quán)的商品化利益實(shí)際是自然人集合形象上經(jīng)濟(jì)利益。演員對其所飾演的角色,若符合特定的條件,應(yīng)當(dāng)享有商品化利益,這種商品化利益不能為表演者權(quán)所覆蓋。角色原型也可能分享商品化利益。 最后,無限制就無自由,人格表征要素商品化要獲得蓬勃發(fā)展,實(shí)現(xiàn)個(gè)人利益與社會(huì)利益的共贏,需要厘清人格表征要素商品化與其他權(quán)益間的沖突；知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)中的限制規(guī)則可以為人格表征要素商品化的規(guī)制提供有益的借鑒。本文歸納的人格表征要素商品化利益與其他權(quán)益之間的沖突主要有：在公共領(lǐng)域內(nèi)的權(quán)益沖突、在人格權(quán)上的權(quán)益沖突、與知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)為代表的財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)的沖突以及與市場規(guī)制之間的沖突。結(jié)合知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)上的限制規(guī)則,討論了規(guī)制的價(jià)值階位、原則和具體路徑。具體的限制規(guī)則有：使用領(lǐng)域的限制、時(shí)間限制、權(quán)利窮竭制度、合理使用的限制以及對輕微損害須合理容忍之義務(wù)的限制。
[Abstract]:The essence of the commercialization of personality characterization elements is to make use of the charm of specific personalities and special social influence to carry out promotion activities. This is social fact. Under the civil law system of China, it is difficult to be right and is not necessary to benefit. With the great progress of the media technology, especially the popularity of the Internet, the use of personality characterization elements is presented. The characteristics of frequent, arbitrary and diversified. The commercialization of personality characterization elements is omnipresent, different forms, and constantly deduces the new mode of utilization. The protection and regulation of the commercialization of personality characterization elements originate in the Anglo American legal system, which is with the developed market economy, innovative marketing mode and flexible legal form in the Anglo American legal system countries. The legal system of intellectual property rights is closely related to the leading legal system of intellectual property. Although the civil law countries represented by Germany are conservative on this issue, they still actively explore the path of general protection by the general personality right system.
In this paper, the author uses a case study method, summarizes the focus of the controversy on the commercialization of personality characterization elements under current law, and makes a preliminary comment on the court's views on the cases involved. The author's controversial points are: first, the object scope of the commercialization of personality characterization elements; second, the problem of collective portrait; third, angle. Fourth, the relationship between the commercialization of personality characterization elements and the right of reputation. The author holds that the ambiguity of the right of portrait, the right of name and name, and the right of privacy, and the interests of the image of the natural person, are the fundamental reasons for the above problems.
Then, this paper introduces and analyzes the related theoretical problems of personality characterization, distinguishes three concepts, such as personality, personality factor and personality characterization element, clarifies the object of commercial use of personality. This paper, starting with the distinction between personal interests, discusses the relationship between the dignity and property interests of the personality traits. Relationship and mutual influence. This paper discusses and judges the justification basis for the commercialization of personality characterization elements, which provides the premise for the following discussion on the protection mode. The justification path of the philosophy of recourse is a path to appeal to intuition and emotion, abstract and lack of rigorous argument. The economic basis is based on utilitarianism as the value orientation, and is effective. The core of rate theory and incentive theory is to provide legal protection for the commercialization of personality characterization elements, which can help to reduce transaction costs and encourage people to create more image values. The defect of the economic basis is to pay attention to the stimulus of external rules and ignore the limitations of people themselves.
This article, referring to the content of the comparative law, holds that the protection patterns of the commercialization of personality characterization elements are as follows: the British law mode that provides protection by the general tort law, the protection mode of the personality right law represented by Germany and the protection mode of the property rights law represented by the American law. The protection of behavior law and personality right law should be perfected with reference to the protection method in German law.
This paper, taking the protection of the commercialized interest of overlapping characterization elements as an example, discusses the problem of the distribution of interests in the collective image and the cross boundary image. The protection of the personality economic interests embodied in the collective portrait and the cross boundary image should seize the core of the advertising promotion ability of the image, instead of carrying out the distribution of mechanical interests in the form of expression. The portraits of the body are a wrong concept. The commercialized interest of the collective portrait right is actually the economic benefit of the collective image of the natural person. The actor's role played by the actor should enjoy the commercialized interests if it meets the specific conditions. The commercialized interest can not be covered by the performers' rights. The role prototype may also share the commercialized interests.
Finally, there is no freedom without restriction. The commercialization of personality characterization elements should be flourishing, and the win-win of personal and social interests should be achieved. It is necessary to clarify the conflict between the commercialization of personality characterization elements and other rights and interests; the restriction rules in intellectual property can provide useful reference for the regulation of the commercialization of personality characterization elements. The conflicts between the commercial interests of personality characterization and other rights and interests include the conflict of rights and interests in the public domain, the conflict of rights and interests in the personality right, the conflict with the property rights represented by the intellectual property rights and the conflict with the market regulation. Specific restrictions include restrictions on the use of the field, time limit, the exhaustion of rights, the limitation of rational use, and the restrictions on the obligation to be tolerated for slight damage.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：浙江大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：D913

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 藍(lán)藍(lán);;人格與財(cái)產(chǎn)二元權(quán)利體系面臨的困境與突破——以“人格商品化”為視角展開[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2006年03期

2 李琛;名教與商標(biāo)保護(hù)[J];電子知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2005年05期

3 謝曉堯;商品化權(quán):人格符號(hào)的利益擴(kuò)張與衡平[J];法商研究;2005年03期

4 馬特;;無隱私即無自由——現(xiàn)代情景下的個(gè)人隱私保護(hù)[J];法學(xué)雜志;2007年05期

5 吳漢東;形象的商品化與商品化的形象權(quán)[J];法學(xué);2004年10期

6 李友根;;容忍合理損害義務(wù)的法理——基于案例的整理與學(xué)說的梳理[J];法學(xué);2007年07期

7 楊素娟,杜穎;商品化權(quán)議[J];河北法學(xué);1998年01期

8 馬駿駒;;從人格利益到人格要素——人格權(quán)法律關(guān)系客體之界定[J];河北法學(xué);2006年10期

9 楊立新;曹英博;;論人格權(quán)的沖突與協(xié)調(diào)[J];河北法學(xué);2011年08期

10 戴謀富;;論自然人人格標(biāo)識(shí)商品化權(quán)的性質(zhì)及民法保護(hù)[J];華中科技大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2010年04期

，

本文編號(hào)：1854665