請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/56106
標題: | 人格特徵商業利用之研究 Commercial Appropriation of Personal Identities |
作者: | Wei Wang 王瑋 |
指導教授: | 陳忠五(Chung-Wu Chen) |
關鍵字: | 人格特徵,商業利用,無權利用,姓名權,肖像權,人格權,公開權, personal identities,commercial use,appropriation,right of name,right of likeness,personality rights,right of publicity, |
出版年 : | 2020 |
學位: | 碩士 |
摘要: | 姓名、肖像等人格特徵,在商業利用上,同時涵蓋人格法益與財產法益,已為多數共識。然而,在規範模式的選擇上,素有人格權一元論,以及人格權與財產權(即「公開權」)分立的二元論之爭。又,我國最高法院104年度台上字第1407號判決,雖肯認人格特徵在商業利用上的財產權益,除受人格權保護外,並得為繼承標的;惟就此等財產權益如何行使、其正當性基礎為何,尚未盡詳明。本文擬分析適合我國法的保護模式,並釐清前揭判決遺留問題。再基於此,進一步就人格特徵無權商業利用事件,如何判斷侵害與不法的成立,提出本文見解。最後,就不同法定救濟手段的要件與效果的差異,分析權利主體於不同情境下得主張的救濟。
觀諸比較法與我國學說實務見解可知,一元論與二元論之間,保護法益、保護主體與保護目的,實質上互為相通。兩者均在人格尊嚴與自主不受侵害的前提下,就人格特徵的商業利用,賦予相應的財產權能:讓與及繼承。在我國大陸法系及人格權法架構下,採人格權一元論的保護模式,即已適足,不須捨近求遠。有實質意義的區別,應為人格特徵在商業利用上,其人格法益與財產法益如何區辨;以及,在不侵害人格尊嚴與自主的前提下,其財產化界線如何劃定。基此,人格特徵在商業利用上的財產權益得否讓與,本質上為契約自由與契約正義的調和問題(人格尊嚴與自主的侵害應屬公序良俗的違反);其可繼承性則為死者的人格尊嚴與自主,以及繼承人行使其財產權益之間的調和問題。 此外,我國法下,人格特徵受保護的人格主體,包含自然人、法人或其他團體。法人或其他團體並非實體存在的生命體,不具自我意志,難認有人格尊嚴與自主,性質與自然人不同。惟,不同性質的人格主體間,其人格特徵的共同功能乃表彰人格,區分人己。無論係自然人的人格尊嚴與自主,或法人與其他團體在抽象意義上的人格存立,均以人格同一性得被識別為基礎。是以,人格特徵受保護的正當性基礎,應係以人格同一性為核心向外擴展的人格完整性,其保護法益範圍涵蓋防禦面的人格法益(如隱私),以及用益面的財產法益(如人格特徵的商業利用)。 上述兩類法益屬性並非截然二分,須依個別事件中受侵害的實質法益內涵、以及權利主體的性質,謹慎區別。此等法益屬性的區別,連動影響可讓與性及可繼承性問題的處理,責任成立層次上侵害與不法的判斷,以及責任範圍層次上損害性質何屬的認定。 又,人格特徵涵蓋的權益外延範圍不明確。因此,在其無權商業利用事件中,判斷不法侵害是否成立時,高度涉及權益保護與行為自由的調和。本文基於前述權益定性的見解,自受侵害的實質法益內涵(防禦面的人格法益?用益面的財產法益?)、權利主體性質(自然人?法人或其他團體?人格主體本人?繼承人?受讓人或專屬授權的被授權人?)兩個面向切入,輔以比較法與我國實務相關案例的分析,嘗試就侵害與不法的認定,提出判斷基準與類型化的參酌因素,期能使此類事件的行為規範更加明確。由於我國學說對此較少有體系性的研究,故本文於此部分的分析說明,亦為本文主要特色所在。 各法定救濟手段的要件與效果互有不同,應視個別情境條件主張。例如,權利主體所受損害是否難以認定,利用人的不法利益所得是否高於權利主體所受損害等,皆影響救濟手段的選擇。又,我國實務向有以著名人士的人格特徵具顯著的商業價值為由,提高其慰撫金數額。惟,慰撫金的功能乃填補非財產損害。而人格特徵遭無權商業利用的損害性質,尤其在權利主體為著名人士或營利事業的情形,實質上較接近財產損害。倘權利主體為法人或其他團體,或為受讓人、專屬授權的被授權人,則可能遭遇難以認其受有精神痛苦,不易透過慰撫金間接填補其財產性質損害的難題。本文認為,責任範圍層次的「損害」既為法律評價,考量商業慣習上,給付授權金取得權利主體的同意,乃利用人格特徵的前提條件,應容認權利主體得請求相當於授權金的擬制損害。 It is commonly held that personal identities, such as names or likenesses, when used for commercial purposes, contain both personal interests and proprietary interests. However, as for the model of legal protection, there is some debate amongst legal authorities as to whether a one-right structure (a personality right which contains both personal and proprietary interests) or a two-rights structure (where personality right and property right exist separately), should be adopted. A judicial case decided by the Taiwan Supreme Court ruled that the proprietary interests to commercial use of personal identities is protected by personality right, and can be inherited. Nevertheless, how such proprietary interests should be executed, and on what grounds its legitimacy stands, were not clearly set out by the court. The first aim of this thesis is to resolve the aforesaid legal academic disputes and the derivative questions left open by the Taiwan Supreme Court. Then, following on from this, the second aim is to offer criteria and factors for deliberation in the judgment of unlawful infringement of commercial appropriation. Lastly, this thesis will provide guidance on how the plaintiff should adopt the appropriate legal action in such cases. From study of other jurisdictions and the observation of domestic opinions of academic and judicial authorities with respect to protected interests, protected subjects, and legal purposes, the one-right structure and the two-rights structure are identical. Both structures aim to grant the legal attributes of property, i.e. assignability and succession, to commercial use of personal identities, without infringing personal dignity and autonomy. Under civil law and the personality right system of Taiwan, the one-right structure is justified. The real meaningful legal differences stand on how to distinguish personal interests and proprietary interests, as well as how to draw the lines between the inviolable domain of personal dignity and autonomy from the granting of the legal attributes of property. The assignability of proprietary interests in personal identities is innately a problem regarding the freedom of contract and the justice of contract. The question of succession is about reconciliation of the protection of the deceased’s personal dignity and the proprietary interests that the successors can exercise. Additionally, under Taiwanese civil law, the subjects of legal protection of personal identities include natural persons, legal persons and other groups. Legal persons and groups are not physically existing beings. They do not have thoughts or will. It is difficult to hold that there is personal dignity and autonomy in them. Thus, the attributes of legal persons and other groups are different from natural persons. Nevertheless, these subjects that have different attributes share a common characteristic in their personal identities, namely, identifying their personalities and differentiating themselves from others. Both natural persons’ personal dignity and autonomy as well as the abstract existence of the personalities of legal persons and other groups are based on the notion that different personalities can be recognized. We may describe this as the intactness of personality. The legitimacy of personal identities should rest on this intactness. The intactness of personality is based on personal identification, and it contains defensive and usufructuary interests, i.e. personal interests and proprietary interests. The above mentioned personal interests and proprietary interests cannot easily be separated. They should be distinguished by the nature of the infringement, and the attributes of the subjects. The clarification of personal interests and proprietary interests too must be reflected in the handling of assignability and succession, as well as the ascertainment of unlawful infringement, and the evaluation of damage. Having established where legitimacy stands, this thesis examines whether an act of commercial appropriation is unlawful infringement. Because the scope of personal and proprietary interests in personal identities is obscure, when ascertaining whether an act of commercial appropriation constitutes unlawful infringement, the harmonization of legal protection with personal rights and individual freedom of action is paramount. There is little systematic research, and it is the attempt to resolve this conundrum which is the unique feature of the thesis. There are two aspects to be considered: (i) The nature of the infringed interests: are they personal interests or proprietary interests? (ii) The attributes of the subjects: are they natural persons, legal persons or groups? Is it the actual person of the appropriated personal identities? Is it the successor, the assignee, or the exclusive licensee? With respect to the adoption of legal actions, in addition to injunction, there are claims for unjust enrichment, negotiorum gestio, and tort liability. When considering which legal action to adopt, factors such as whether the unlawful interest the defendant gained is higher than the damage the plaintiff suffered, and the difficulties in proving the damage, should be included. In domestic cases, there are some decisions in which the courts granted higher solatium on the grounds that the plaintiff is a celebrity, and that the proprietary interests in his/her personal identities are more manifest. However, the purpose of solatium is to compensate the plaintiff’s non-property damage. The nature of the damage caused by commercial appropriation of personal identities is actually closer to property damage, especially when the subject is a celebrity or a business entity. When the plaintiff is a legal person, a group, an assignee, or an exclusive licensee, for the reason that the plaintiff can hardly suffer from mental pain, the plaintiff may encounter difficulties in claims for compensating its proprietary damage by solatium. Therefore, it is essential to recognize that the plaintiff is entitled to compensation for proprietary damage such as license fees by legal fiction. |
URI: | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/56106 |
DOI: | 10.6342/NTU202001941 |
全文授權: | 有償授權 |
顯示於系所單位: | 法律學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
U0001-2807202000423700.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 3.96 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。