虚拟角色商品化权法律保护研究
|
摘要
随着商品经济的发展,商品化现象在我国初见端倪,并引起了侵权纠纷,如著名的鲁迅肖像案、“三毛”漫画形象纠纷案、“奥特曼”纠纷案、五朵金花案等就具有典型的代表意义。由于缺乏法律的明确规定和理论的支撑,司法实践对于已在我国出现的虚拟角色商品化权纠纷案件的审判或有失公平,或有失统一,对商品化权问题的研究逐渐受到我国学术界的关注。由于这是一项新型权利,国外研究尚未定型,国内研究也刚刚起步,对很多问题的探讨还不成熟,在很多方面并未达成共识。
本文通过对美国虚拟角色商品化权法律保护的现实考量得到启示,认为我国应借鉴美国实践中所采取的综合保护模式,参考美国判例法中所形成的保护标准,尝试推出与研究典型案例,等待时机成熟后以司法解释的方式确立保护标准,从而完善对虚拟角色商品化权的法律保护。
People have known a little about Merchandising in China. As we are lack of the explicit provision in law and the suppo rting of theories, the judicial fulfillment has lost fair or unity in the judgment of cases relates to merchandising right in fictional characters in our country. We draw a conclusion by the analysis of the legal protection in the USA. Our country should draw lessons from the synthesis protect mode adopted by the USA in practice, make reference to protection standard which is formed in American case law, and try to show and research typical model case. After our maturity, we can establish the protection standards of the merchandising right in fictional characters by the way of judicatory explain.
This text is divided into three parts:
ChapterⅠintroduces some basic theories which relates to merchandising right in fictional characters. It starts with what merchandising is. In this article, I analyze the meaning of merchandising from three aspects: the birth of merchandising, the creation and the explanation of the word "merchandising ", and the object of merchandising. In this text, I want to explain that the merchandising is the phenomenon that makes the factor of the business value (such as real images, fictional characters etc.) be used in business. Secondly, this text discusses the creation of merchandising rights in the US and the present situation in China. It is necessary to emphasize that merchandising rights originated from the US and the UK. It is mainly a kind of right established and developed from case law. However, in our country, it is still an in-response-law, but not legal rights. For the research of this new right, our country is still placed on a beginning stage. It's not mature on the study of a lot of problems. And it hasn't reached consensus in many ways, especially the differences of appellation and characters. In the last part of this article, the most important part of merchandising right system has been put forward: the merchandising right in fictional characters. This part introduces the object of the merchandising right in fictional characters is the classification types of fictional characters.
ChapterⅡintroduces the legal protection of the merchandising right in fictional characters in our country and the US. This is the core contents of this article. First, this text analyzes the present protection of the merchandising right in fictional characters. In our present law system there is no clear stipulation about the merchandising right in fictional characters. To the existent dispute case in China, like "Ao Te Man" case, "San Mao" case, "Garfield Cat" case, the judicial organ is looking for the ways of merchandising right protection in current entity. It mainly adopts the copyright law, the trademark law, the anti-falsely competition law to safeguard the benefits of people. Secondly, this text uses five cases to introduce the protection mode and protection standard of the merchandising right in fictional characters in the United States. In the USA, the protection of the merchandising right in fictional characters can only be seen in judicial precedent. In judgments and comments, the judge refers to the ways of protecting fictional characters ---- search for reasonable protection in existent law system, and adopts the comprehensive protection mode of copyright law, trademark law and anti- falsely competition law. At the same time, it expounds the basic principle of protecting fictional characters, and the special protection standard of merchandising right in fictional characters comes into being. The American judicial fulfillment brings the role into the protection of American copyright law by the way of explaining a judicial precedent by a judge, and different standards of classifying roles in literature works, cartoon roles and showbiz roles come into being. Besides the unique characteristic protected by the copyright law, the fictional characters also have expression function and marking function which can mark the resources of merchandise and service. In view of above, American judicatory practice depends on whether fictional characters have "the second meaning" and whether using fictional characters is confused by public. It has given protection to fictional characters with trademark law and anti- falsely protection law.
The chapterⅢis the discussion of the implication of protection for merchandising right in fictional characters in the USA. Firstly, the author reviews the typical case called“San Mao”from the aspect that the merchandising right in fictional characters is infringed, and gives another viewpoint by using the protective standard of cartoon characters for reference, arising from the precedents in the USA. Secondly, the article points out we should adopt synthesis model to protect merchandising right in fictional characters excluding independent model. Seen from legal practice in American, the existent intellectual property law and others related can give sufficient protection to merchandising right in fictional characters, so there is unnecessary to establish special law. The author approves of this viewpoint and suggests that we should use American successful experience for reference and consider our country’s legal system to adopt compositive model, including copyright law, trademark law and unfair competition law, to protect merchandising right. Finally, the author suggests that we should take up an objective attitude towards treating the protective standard of merchandising right in fictional characters formed from American case law. On the one hand, unlike American, whose legal system is case law, the legal system in China is statutory law; the Chinese judges can not make law but apply law. So we could attempt to publish and research typical cases, and then we could establish our own protective standard by the form of judicial interpretation on the proper time. On the other hand, we need to try best to find relative law or statute or principle of law to protect merchandising right under the situation which without direct legislation in our country. Furthermore, we also need to improve or perfect intellectual property law, especially copyright law and unfair competition law, in order to offer best legal protection.
The thesis doesn’t concern other issues on merchandising right. I believe that there are more and more disputes arising from merchandising right with the development of the China’s Market economy and the people’s consciousness of right, which giving more and more problems to legislation and justice, and promoting scholar research it deeper and deeper. We should find a proper way to protect merchandising right in China by using overseas successful experience for reference and considering the specific situation in China together.
本文通过对美国虚拟角色商品化权法律保护的现实考量得到启示,认为我国应借鉴美国实践中所采取的综合保护模式,参考美国判例法中所形成的保护标准,尝试推出与研究典型案例,等待时机成熟后以司法解释的方式确立保护标准,从而完善对虚拟角色商品化权的法律保护。
People have known a little about Merchandising in China. As we are lack of the explicit provision in law and the suppo rting of theories, the judicial fulfillment has lost fair or unity in the judgment of cases relates to merchandising right in fictional characters in our country. We draw a conclusion by the analysis of the legal protection in the USA. Our country should draw lessons from the synthesis protect mode adopted by the USA in practice, make reference to protection standard which is formed in American case law, and try to show and research typical model case. After our maturity, we can establish the protection standards of the merchandising right in fictional characters by the way of judicatory explain.
This text is divided into three parts:
ChapterⅠintroduces some basic theories which relates to merchandising right in fictional characters. It starts with what merchandising is. In this article, I analyze the meaning of merchandising from three aspects: the birth of merchandising, the creation and the explanation of the word "merchandising ", and the object of merchandising. In this text, I want to explain that the merchandising is the phenomenon that makes the factor of the business value (such as real images, fictional characters etc.) be used in business. Secondly, this text discusses the creation of merchandising rights in the US and the present situation in China. It is necessary to emphasize that merchandising rights originated from the US and the UK. It is mainly a kind of right established and developed from case law. However, in our country, it is still an in-response-law, but not legal rights. For the research of this new right, our country is still placed on a beginning stage. It's not mature on the study of a lot of problems. And it hasn't reached consensus in many ways, especially the differences of appellation and characters. In the last part of this article, the most important part of merchandising right system has been put forward: the merchandising right in fictional characters. This part introduces the object of the merchandising right in fictional characters is the classification types of fictional characters.
ChapterⅡintroduces the legal protection of the merchandising right in fictional characters in our country and the US. This is the core contents of this article. First, this text analyzes the present protection of the merchandising right in fictional characters. In our present law system there is no clear stipulation about the merchandising right in fictional characters. To the existent dispute case in China, like "Ao Te Man" case, "San Mao" case, "Garfield Cat" case, the judicial organ is looking for the ways of merchandising right protection in current entity. It mainly adopts the copyright law, the trademark law, the anti-falsely competition law to safeguard the benefits of people. Secondly, this text uses five cases to introduce the protection mode and protection standard of the merchandising right in fictional characters in the United States. In the USA, the protection of the merchandising right in fictional characters can only be seen in judicial precedent. In judgments and comments, the judge refers to the ways of protecting fictional characters ---- search for reasonable protection in existent law system, and adopts the comprehensive protection mode of copyright law, trademark law and anti- falsely competition law. At the same time, it expounds the basic principle of protecting fictional characters, and the special protection standard of merchandising right in fictional characters comes into being. The American judicial fulfillment brings the role into the protection of American copyright law by the way of explaining a judicial precedent by a judge, and different standards of classifying roles in literature works, cartoon roles and showbiz roles come into being. Besides the unique characteristic protected by the copyright law, the fictional characters also have expression function and marking function which can mark the resources of merchandise and service. In view of above, American judicatory practice depends on whether fictional characters have "the second meaning" and whether using fictional characters is confused by public. It has given protection to fictional characters with trademark law and anti- falsely protection law.
The chapterⅢis the discussion of the implication of protection for merchandising right in fictional characters in the USA. Firstly, the author reviews the typical case called“San Mao”from the aspect that the merchandising right in fictional characters is infringed, and gives another viewpoint by using the protective standard of cartoon characters for reference, arising from the precedents in the USA. Secondly, the article points out we should adopt synthesis model to protect merchandising right in fictional characters excluding independent model. Seen from legal practice in American, the existent intellectual property law and others related can give sufficient protection to merchandising right in fictional characters, so there is unnecessary to establish special law. The author approves of this viewpoint and suggests that we should use American successful experience for reference and consider our country’s legal system to adopt compositive model, including copyright law, trademark law and unfair competition law, to protect merchandising right. Finally, the author suggests that we should take up an objective attitude towards treating the protective standard of merchandising right in fictional characters formed from American case law. On the one hand, unlike American, whose legal system is case law, the legal system in China is statutory law; the Chinese judges can not make law but apply law. So we could attempt to publish and research typical cases, and then we could establish our own protective standard by the form of judicial interpretation on the proper time. On the other hand, we need to try best to find relative law or statute or principle of law to protect merchandising right under the situation which without direct legislation in our country. Furthermore, we also need to improve or perfect intellectual property law, especially copyright law and unfair competition law, in order to offer best legal protection.
The thesis doesn’t concern other issues on merchandising right. I believe that there are more and more disputes arising from merchandising right with the development of the China’s Market economy and the people’s consciousness of right, which giving more and more problems to legislation and justice, and promoting scholar research it deeper and deeper. We should find a proper way to protect merchandising right in China by using overseas successful experience for reference and considering the specific situation in China together.
引文
[1]WIPO,character merchandising,http:// www.wipo.int/copyright/en/activities/pdf/wo_inf_108.pdf,2007年8月15日。
[2]刘银良:《角色促销商品化权的另一种诠释》,《法学》2006年第8期,第23页。
[3]普翔:《商品化权研究》,首都经济贸易大学2002年硕士论文,第3页。
[4]萩原·有里:《日本法律对商业形象权的保护》,《世界知识产权》2003年第5期,第62页。
[5]转引自杨柳:《商品化权法律制度研究》,西北大学2005年硕士论文,第3页。
[6]WIPO,character merchandising,http:// www.wipo.int/copyright/en/activities/pdf/wo_inf_108.pdf,2007年8月15日。
[7]主要表现在以下学者的讨论,郑成思:《商品化权刍议》,《中华商标》1996年第2期,第4页。吴汉东:《形象的商品化与商品化的形象权》,《法学》2004年第10期,第445页。王利明:《公众人物人格权的限制和保护》,《中州学刊》2005年第2期,第33页。薛虹:《名人的商标权——公开形象权》,《中华商标》1996年第3期,第10页。杨立新,林旭霞:《论形象权的独立地位及其基本内容》,《吉林大学社会科学学报》2006年第2期,第75页。刘银良:《角色促销商品化权的另一种诠释》,《法学》2006年第8期,第23页。
[8]李明德:《美国知识产权法》,法律出版社2003年10月第一版,第398页。
[9]由于国内学者有的将其译为“商品化权”,有的译为“形象权”,为避免混淆且尊重原意,暂且不作翻译。笔者赞同译为“商品化权”。
[10]转引自李明德:《美国知识产权法》,法律出版社2003年10月第一版,第398页。
[11]有些学者将Right of Publicity译为形象权、有些学者将Right inCharacters译为角色权。本文所指的“虚拟角色商品化权”来源于对“Right in Characters”的意译。对于“Right in Characters”的翻译也存在分歧。有的学者译为“角色权”,有的译为“角色商品化权”。
[12]郑成思:《商品化权刍议》,《中华商标》1996年第2期,第4页。
[13]王利明、杨立新:《人格权与新闻侵权》中国方正出版社1995年版,第42—43页。
[14]薛虹:《名人的商标权——公开形象权》,《中华商标》1996年第3期,第10页。
[15]杨素娟、杜颖:《商品化权议》,《河北法学》1998年第1期,第74页。
[16]杨立新、林旭霞:《论人格标识商品化权及其民法保护》,《福建师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2006年第1,第75页。
[17]程合红:《商事人格权——人格权的商业利用与保护》,《政法论坛》(中国政法大学学报)2000年第5期,第77页。
[18]吴汉东、胡开忠著:《无形财产权制度研究》,法律出版社2005年修订版,第445页。
[19]刘春霖:《商品化权论》,《西北大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》1999年第11期,第54页。
[20]张俊浩:《民法学原理》,中国政法大学出版社1997年版,第299页。
[21]余俊:《论商品化权之权利归属——商品化权与知识产权关系之考量》,《电子知识产权》2005年第9期,第24页。
[22]Nichols v. Universal Picture Corp 45 F.2d 119 (sec. Cir. 1930)
[23]Warner Brothers Pictures v. Columbia Broadcasting System 216 F.2d 945 (9th Cir.1954)
[24]转引自林雅娜、宋静:《美国保护虚拟的法律模式及其借鉴》,《广西政法管理干部学院学报》2003年第9期,第75页。
[25]Walt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates 581 F.2d 751 (9th Cir.1978)
[26]李响:《美国版权法:原则、案例及材料》,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第220页。
[27]叶京生:《美国知识产权案例与评注》,上海译文出版社1998年版,第46页。
[28]姜稚鸣:《虚构角色法律保护问题研究》,西南政治大学2006年硕士论文,第10页。
[29]转引自林雅娜、宋静:《美国保护虚拟的法律模式及其借鉴》,《广西政法管理干部学院学报》2003年第9期,第75页。
[30]吴汉东、胡开忠:《无形财产权制度研究》,法律出版社2001年版,第436页。
[31]Universal City Studios v. Nintendo Co. Ltd. 746 F.2d (2d Cir.1984)
[32]孙宏涛、宫继英:《论角色商品化权》,《河北职业技术师范学院学报(社会科学版)》2003年第6期,第47页。
[33]Ideal Toy Corp v. Kenner Products 443 F.Supp.291(United States District Court,S.D. New York. Dec.27, 1977)
[34]冯雏音等诉江苏三毛集团公司擅将其被继承人创作的三毛漫画形象稍加修改后作注册商标使用侵犯著作权案, http://www.lawtime.cn/lawcase/zscqal/200403116585.html,2007年8月15日。
[35]梁慧星:《民法总论》,法律出版社1990年版,第282页。
[36]郑成思:《知识产权法》,法律出版社2003年版,第391页。
[37]郑成思:《知识产权论》,法律出版社2003年第3版,第271页。
[38]湖南王跃文诉河北王跃文等侵犯著作权、不正当竞争纠纷案http://www.panjueshu.com/hunan/changsha/zhongyuan/wangyuewen.shtml,2007年8月15日。
1.郑成思:《知识产权法》,法律出版社2003年版。
2.郑成思:《知识产权论》,法律出版社2003年第3版。
3.吴汉东、胡开忠:《无形财产权制度研究》,法律出版社,2005年修订版。
4.吴汉东、胡开忠:《西方诸国著作权制度研究》,中国政法大学出版社,1998年12月版。
5.李明德:《美国知识产权法》,法律出版社2003年10月第一版。
6.张俊浩:《民法学原理》,中国政法大学出版社,1997年版。
7.李响:《美国版权法:原则、案例及材料》,中国政法大学出版社2004年版。
8.叶京生:《美国知识产权案例与评注》,上海译文出版社1998年版。
9.王利明、杨立新:《人格权与新闻侵权》,中国方正出版社,1995年版。
1.刘银良:《角色促销商品化权的另一种诠释》,《法学》2006年第8期。
2.萩原·有里:《日本法律对商业形象权的保护》,《世界知识产权》2003年第5期。
3.郑成思:《商品化权刍议》,《中华商标》1996年第2期。
4.吴汉东:《形象的商品化与商品化的形象权》,《法学》2004年第10期。
5.王利明:《公众人物人格权的限制和保护》,《中州学刊》2005年第2期。
6.薛虹:《名人的商标权——公开形象权》,《中华商标》1996年第3期。
7.杨立新,林旭霞:《论形象权的独立地位及其基本内容》,《吉林大学社会科学学报》2006年第2期。
8.杨素娟、杜颖:《商品化权议》,《河北法学》1998年第1期。
9.杨立新、林旭霞:《论人格标识商品化权及其民法保护》,《福建师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2006年第1期。
10.程合红:《商事人格权——人格权的商业利用与保护》,《政法论坛》(中国政法大学学报)2000年第5期。
11.刘春霖:《商品化权论》,《西北大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》1999年第11期。
12.余俊:《论商品化权之权利归属——商品化权与知识产权关系之考量》,《电子知识产权》2005年第9期。
13.林雅娜、宋静:《美国保护虚拟的法律模式及其借鉴》,《广西政法管理干部学院学报》2003年第9期。
14.孙宏涛、宫继英:《论角色商品化权》,《河北职业技术师范学院学报(社会科学版)》2003年第6期。
1.普翔:《商品化权研究》,首都经济贸易大学2002年硕士论文。
2.杨柳:《商品化权法律制度研究》,西北大学2005年硕士论文。
3.姜稚鸣:《虚构角色法律保护问题研究》,西南政治大学2006年硕士论文。
4.WIPO,character merchandising,http:// www.wipo.int/copyright/en/activities/pdf/wo_inf_108.pdf, 2007/8/15
5.Nichols v. Universal Picture Corp 45 F.2d 119 (sec. Cir. 1930)
6.Warner Brothers Pictures v. Columbia Broadcasting System 216 F.2d 945 (9th Cir.1954)
7.Walt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates 581 F.2d 751 (9th Cir.1978)
8.Universal City Studios v. Nintendo Co. Ltd. 746 F.2d (2d Cir.1984)
9.Ideal Toy Corp v. Kenner Products 443 F.Supp.291(United States District Court,S.D. New York. Dec.27, 1977)
[2]刘银良:《角色促销商品化权的另一种诠释》,《法学》2006年第8期,第23页。
[3]普翔:《商品化权研究》,首都经济贸易大学2002年硕士论文,第3页。
[4]萩原·有里:《日本法律对商业形象权的保护》,《世界知识产权》2003年第5期,第62页。
[5]转引自杨柳:《商品化权法律制度研究》,西北大学2005年硕士论文,第3页。
[6]WIPO,character merchandising,http:// www.wipo.int/copyright/en/activities/pdf/wo_inf_108.pdf,2007年8月15日。
[7]主要表现在以下学者的讨论,郑成思:《商品化权刍议》,《中华商标》1996年第2期,第4页。吴汉东:《形象的商品化与商品化的形象权》,《法学》2004年第10期,第445页。王利明:《公众人物人格权的限制和保护》,《中州学刊》2005年第2期,第33页。薛虹:《名人的商标权——公开形象权》,《中华商标》1996年第3期,第10页。杨立新,林旭霞:《论形象权的独立地位及其基本内容》,《吉林大学社会科学学报》2006年第2期,第75页。刘银良:《角色促销商品化权的另一种诠释》,《法学》2006年第8期,第23页。
[8]李明德:《美国知识产权法》,法律出版社2003年10月第一版,第398页。
[9]由于国内学者有的将其译为“商品化权”,有的译为“形象权”,为避免混淆且尊重原意,暂且不作翻译。笔者赞同译为“商品化权”。
[10]转引自李明德:《美国知识产权法》,法律出版社2003年10月第一版,第398页。
[11]有些学者将Right of Publicity译为形象权、有些学者将Right inCharacters译为角色权。本文所指的“虚拟角色商品化权”来源于对“Right in Characters”的意译。对于“Right in Characters”的翻译也存在分歧。有的学者译为“角色权”,有的译为“角色商品化权”。
[12]郑成思:《商品化权刍议》,《中华商标》1996年第2期,第4页。
[13]王利明、杨立新:《人格权与新闻侵权》中国方正出版社1995年版,第42—43页。
[14]薛虹:《名人的商标权——公开形象权》,《中华商标》1996年第3期,第10页。
[15]杨素娟、杜颖:《商品化权议》,《河北法学》1998年第1期,第74页。
[16]杨立新、林旭霞:《论人格标识商品化权及其民法保护》,《福建师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2006年第1,第75页。
[17]程合红:《商事人格权——人格权的商业利用与保护》,《政法论坛》(中国政法大学学报)2000年第5期,第77页。
[18]吴汉东、胡开忠著:《无形财产权制度研究》,法律出版社2005年修订版,第445页。
[19]刘春霖:《商品化权论》,《西北大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》1999年第11期,第54页。
[20]张俊浩:《民法学原理》,中国政法大学出版社1997年版,第299页。
[21]余俊:《论商品化权之权利归属——商品化权与知识产权关系之考量》,《电子知识产权》2005年第9期,第24页。
[22]Nichols v. Universal Picture Corp 45 F.2d 119 (sec. Cir. 1930)
[23]Warner Brothers Pictures v. Columbia Broadcasting System 216 F.2d 945 (9th Cir.1954)
[24]转引自林雅娜、宋静:《美国保护虚拟的法律模式及其借鉴》,《广西政法管理干部学院学报》2003年第9期,第75页。
[25]Walt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates 581 F.2d 751 (9th Cir.1978)
[26]李响:《美国版权法:原则、案例及材料》,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第220页。
[27]叶京生:《美国知识产权案例与评注》,上海译文出版社1998年版,第46页。
[28]姜稚鸣:《虚构角色法律保护问题研究》,西南政治大学2006年硕士论文,第10页。
[29]转引自林雅娜、宋静:《美国保护虚拟的法律模式及其借鉴》,《广西政法管理干部学院学报》2003年第9期,第75页。
[30]吴汉东、胡开忠:《无形财产权制度研究》,法律出版社2001年版,第436页。
[31]Universal City Studios v. Nintendo Co. Ltd. 746 F.2d (2d Cir.1984)
[32]孙宏涛、宫继英:《论角色商品化权》,《河北职业技术师范学院学报(社会科学版)》2003年第6期,第47页。
[33]Ideal Toy Corp v. Kenner Products 443 F.Supp.291(United States District Court,S.D. New York. Dec.27, 1977)
[34]冯雏音等诉江苏三毛集团公司擅将其被继承人创作的三毛漫画形象稍加修改后作注册商标使用侵犯著作权案, http://www.lawtime.cn/lawcase/zscqal/200403116585.html,2007年8月15日。
[35]梁慧星:《民法总论》,法律出版社1990年版,第282页。
[36]郑成思:《知识产权法》,法律出版社2003年版,第391页。
[37]郑成思:《知识产权论》,法律出版社2003年第3版,第271页。
[38]湖南王跃文诉河北王跃文等侵犯著作权、不正当竞争纠纷案http://www.panjueshu.com/hunan/changsha/zhongyuan/wangyuewen.shtml,2007年8月15日。
1.郑成思:《知识产权法》,法律出版社2003年版。
2.郑成思:《知识产权论》,法律出版社2003年第3版。
3.吴汉东、胡开忠:《无形财产权制度研究》,法律出版社,2005年修订版。
4.吴汉东、胡开忠:《西方诸国著作权制度研究》,中国政法大学出版社,1998年12月版。
5.李明德:《美国知识产权法》,法律出版社2003年10月第一版。
6.张俊浩:《民法学原理》,中国政法大学出版社,1997年版。
7.李响:《美国版权法:原则、案例及材料》,中国政法大学出版社2004年版。
8.叶京生:《美国知识产权案例与评注》,上海译文出版社1998年版。
9.王利明、杨立新:《人格权与新闻侵权》,中国方正出版社,1995年版。
1.刘银良:《角色促销商品化权的另一种诠释》,《法学》2006年第8期。
2.萩原·有里:《日本法律对商业形象权的保护》,《世界知识产权》2003年第5期。
3.郑成思:《商品化权刍议》,《中华商标》1996年第2期。
4.吴汉东:《形象的商品化与商品化的形象权》,《法学》2004年第10期。
5.王利明:《公众人物人格权的限制和保护》,《中州学刊》2005年第2期。
6.薛虹:《名人的商标权——公开形象权》,《中华商标》1996年第3期。
7.杨立新,林旭霞:《论形象权的独立地位及其基本内容》,《吉林大学社会科学学报》2006年第2期。
8.杨素娟、杜颖:《商品化权议》,《河北法学》1998年第1期。
9.杨立新、林旭霞:《论人格标识商品化权及其民法保护》,《福建师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2006年第1期。
10.程合红:《商事人格权——人格权的商业利用与保护》,《政法论坛》(中国政法大学学报)2000年第5期。
11.刘春霖:《商品化权论》,《西北大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》1999年第11期。
12.余俊:《论商品化权之权利归属——商品化权与知识产权关系之考量》,《电子知识产权》2005年第9期。
13.林雅娜、宋静:《美国保护虚拟的法律模式及其借鉴》,《广西政法管理干部学院学报》2003年第9期。
14.孙宏涛、宫继英:《论角色商品化权》,《河北职业技术师范学院学报(社会科学版)》2003年第6期。
1.普翔:《商品化权研究》,首都经济贸易大学2002年硕士论文。
2.杨柳:《商品化权法律制度研究》,西北大学2005年硕士论文。
3.姜稚鸣:《虚构角色法律保护问题研究》,西南政治大学2006年硕士论文。
4.WIPO,character merchandising,http:// www.wipo.int/copyright/en/activities/pdf/wo_inf_108.pdf, 2007/8/15
5.Nichols v. Universal Picture Corp 45 F.2d 119 (sec. Cir. 1930)
6.Warner Brothers Pictures v. Columbia Broadcasting System 216 F.2d 945 (9th Cir.1954)
7.Walt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates 581 F.2d 751 (9th Cir.1978)
8.Universal City Studios v. Nintendo Co. Ltd. 746 F.2d (2d Cir.1984)
9.Ideal Toy Corp v. Kenner Products 443 F.Supp.291(United States District Court,S.D. New York. Dec.27, 1977)