個人形象商業價值之保護

Abstract

隨著個人形象在商業上受到的利用型態越發多元、頻率不斷增高，其商業價值也逐漸變得不容忽視。對於個人，尤其是著名人士而言，其形象及人格特徵的重要性不再侷限於人格利益，而是及於財產利益，且財產利益之比重不必然亞於人格利益。若欲提供形象受到他人未經同意商業利用之個人適當之保護，便必須重視該重心轉移之事實，並注意法律提供之保護的出發點。 就此，比較法上英、美針對個人形象上財產利益，採取不同方式進行保護。美國法上於認知到原先作為保護方式之隱私權無法提供當事人適切主張基礎後，逐漸發展出公開權此一獨立權利，針對個人形象之商業價值提供單獨保護。相較之下，英國法上則是相對保守，拒絕承認一新權利，而選擇以既有之假冒侵權制度，在個案中進行擴張適用，試圖為個人提供救濟方式。 至我國目前則以傳統民法上人格權之侵權行為（民法第184條第1項前段、第195條第1項）及不當得利（民法第179條）為主要保護基礎。實務對於形象商業價值之變化雖非全無意識，惟在保護上並無明顯對策，人格利益保護在相關案件中仍扮演主要角色。因此，個案中原告雖於請求非財產上損害賠償時較無問題，但針對財產利益之請求經常受到阻礙，其中又以經紀公司之主張困難最為顯著。 個人形象具有商業價值之個人，以及協助管理及利用形象之經紀公司，於訴訟上無法取得理想結果，勢必將影響我國娛樂產業之發展。又為使個案中原告得成功請求相應損害賠償，本文認為比較法應能提供一定參考。 綜合參考英、美做法，本文認為美國法作法提供保護更為適切，並認為我國應有引進公開權之必要，假冒侵權則可作為參考，以建構我國的補充性保護。引入公開權將使個人人格上經濟利益定位及特殊性更為明確，且保護要件、保護範圍、權利得否移轉或繼承等特性，以及損害賠償計算等相關架構均可透過明文的方式明確化。且觀察實務判決，法院對於公開權概念之接納程度有上升趨勢，可見公開權在我國並非全然受到排斥或無人知曉、關注。 若公開權經妥適立法，應能有效處理實務上目前問題，提供個人形象商業價值更完整之保護，並為相關產業之發展建構更良好、完備的基礎。

As the commercial utilization of personal image becomes more and more diversified and frequent, its commercial value is becoming increasingly important. For individuals, especially famous persons, the importance of their image and personality traits no longer show in personality interests, but also involves property interests, which don’t necessarily play a less vital part than personality interests. In order to provide appropriate protection for individuals whose images have been commercially exploited by others without their consent, it is important to take into account this shift in interests and pay attention to the essence of the protection provided by the law. In the aspects of comparative law, in this regard, the U.K. and the U.S. have adopted different approaches to the protection of economic interests in personal images. In the United States, after realizing that the right of privacy, which originally serves as a form of protection, could not provide the basis for the parties to make appropriate claims, the United States gradually developed the right of publicity as a new and independent right to provide separate protection for the commercial value of personal images. In contrast, English law is relatively conservative, refusing to recognize a new right and choosing to use the existing law of passing off, expanding its application in cases, in an attempt to provide individuals with remedies. In R.O.C., the protection for the property interests in one’s image still rely largely on the provisions related to infringement of traditional personality rights (Article 184(1)(a) and Article 195(1) of the Civil Code) and unjust enrichment (Article 179 of the Civil Code). Although the courts are not completely unaware of the increase in the commercial value of one’s image, there are no obvious corresponding measures to protect such value, and the protection of personality interests still plays a major role in the relevant cases. Therefore, although the plaintiffs in the cases had no problem in claiming non-property damages, their claims on economic interests were often obstructed, with agencies having the most significant difficulties in claiming such damages. The fact that individuals whose personal images have commercial value and agencies that help manage and utilize their images fail to obtain the desired outcome in litigation will certainly affect the development of the entertainment industry in R.O.C. To enable the plaintiffs in these cases to successfully claim the corresponding damages, the author believes that the comparative law should provide some reference. After making comprehensive reference to and comparison of the practices of the United Kingdom and the United States, the author believes that the protection provided by the American law is more appropriate and that it is necessary to introduce the right of publicity in R.O.C., while the law of passing off can be used as a reference to build up complementary protection. The introduction of the right of publicity will make the positioning and specificity of economic interests in the personality of individuals clearer, and the relevant frameworks such as the elements of protection, the scope of protection, the transfer or inheritance of rights, and the calculation of damages, etc., can all be clarified through express provisions. In addition, observing practical judgments, there is an trend in the acceptance of the concept of the right of publicity by the courts, which shows that the right of publicity is not totally rejected, unknown, or unnoticed in R.O.C. If the protection of right of publicity is properly legislated, such legislation should effectively help deal with the current problems in practice, provide a more all-rounded protection of the commercial value of personal images, and build a better and more solid foundation for the development of related industries.