论人格权的衍生利益
|
摘要
姓名、肖像等人格标识所体现的利益,我国向来认为属于人格利益,应由人格权加以保护,而人格权依传统见解是以保护精神利益为内容的权利。惟随着科技、社会、经济等因素的转变,人格标识在现代生活中已成为一项重要财产,具体展现在商业广告或商品化等商业行为上。据此人格标识也具有财产价值,该项财产利益属于人格权的衍生利益。为正确认识人格标识的商业利用所引发的相关法律问题,自当重点考察如下四项内容：(1)权利定性；(2)侵害救济；(3)权利得否继承以及权利得否排他性让与；(4)正当使用的抗辩。为回答这些问题,首先应充分考察两大法系的发展历程,并充分评价我国现行立法的得失之处,同时通过对我国法院在此领域已审决的个案进行实证分析,以寻求适合我国国情的具体法制变革。美国法经过半个世纪的发展,将人格标识上的财产价值自原本的“隐私权”中独立出来,另承认“公开权”这一得自由转让与继承的独立的新型财产权。德国法则将人格标识上的财产价值纳入人格权范畴,透过侵权损害赔偿、不当得利返还等请求权保护人格标识上的财产价值。德国联邦法院晚近的判决己肯认人格权的财产内容可继承。法国法则于精神性人格权外发展出财产性人格权,其法律性质与美国公开权大致相当。我国相关立法和司法将未经许可商业利用他人人格标识的行为定性为人格权侵权行为,从而被害人只能以精神损害赔偿的方式寻求救济,由此产生了法律的扭曲适用情况,且未妥适评价人格标识的财产价值。通过考察各国法律,本文得出不论各国法制以怎样的名义保护人格权的衍生利益,其共性特征都在于通过类推版权的权利构造理论,建构各自的法律理论。权衡诸多因素,我国宜采用类似于日本的方案,即直接移植公开权制度,为最适合我国国情的法制选择。据此,结合我国新《侵权责任法》,围绕侵权责任的构成要件、损害的计算方式以及侵权抗辩等方面详细阐述公开权制度在我国的具体建构。
Personal indicia, such as the name or the portrait, are considered as the personality interests in our nation, and should be protected by personality rights. In tradition, the personality rights are defined as the right to protect spiritual interests. With the transformation of technology, society, and the economy, the personal indicia has become an important part of our daily life in the aspects of commercial advertisement and commercialization and other commercial behavior; therefore, the personal indicia also possess the property value, which belongs to the derivative interest of personality right. In order to correctly understand the related legal issues triggered by the commerical use of personal indicia, the following four items should be taken into consideration:A) determining the nature of such interest or right, B) pension for damages, C) the issue of transfer and heir, D) the defense of legel use. To resolve the above four issues, we must glue three aspects to seek for the legal system fit for our nation:the first is the development process of the major two genealogies of law; the second is the evaluation of the advantages and the shortcomings of our present legislation; the last one is the cases conducted in our courts concerning the issue of personal indicia. The value of property of personal indicia has become independent from the original right of privacy and become acknowledged as the right of publicity, which is a new type of property right with half a century's effort in America. Whereas in Germany, the value of personal indicia have been put into the rang of personal rights and protected by the right of claim (the damages, unjust right and the illegal management). The value of property in personal indicia had been affirmed to be inherited by the heir in the judgment of the two cases involving the famous star Marlene Dietrich. The judgments in the above two cases enlarge the system of protecting the personality after death and establish the dual content and the structure of it. In China, the court still keeps to the traditional definition of personal indicia, which result in the limitation of pension as compensation and other distortion of application. After the evaluation of legal systems of other nations, it is not difficult for us to conclude that no matter how the nations protect the derivative interests of the personality right in whatever form, the common feature is the analogy of copyright's constuction theory by which they protect. Taking all of the factors into consideration, the most fitful form for our nation is to choose the direct legel transplantation as far as in this paper. Hereby I will offer some details about how the right of publicity construct in our nation involving the constitution of the encroachment of right, the calculating method for damages and the plea about the encroachment of right.
Personal indicia, such as the name or the portrait, are considered as the personality interests in our nation, and should be protected by personality rights. In tradition, the personality rights are defined as the right to protect spiritual interests. With the transformation of technology, society, and the economy, the personal indicia has become an important part of our daily life in the aspects of commercial advertisement and commercialization and other commercial behavior; therefore, the personal indicia also possess the property value, which belongs to the derivative interest of personality right. In order to correctly understand the related legal issues triggered by the commerical use of personal indicia, the following four items should be taken into consideration:A) determining the nature of such interest or right, B) pension for damages, C) the issue of transfer and heir, D) the defense of legel use. To resolve the above four issues, we must glue three aspects to seek for the legal system fit for our nation:the first is the development process of the major two genealogies of law; the second is the evaluation of the advantages and the shortcomings of our present legislation; the last one is the cases conducted in our courts concerning the issue of personal indicia. The value of property of personal indicia has become independent from the original right of privacy and become acknowledged as the right of publicity, which is a new type of property right with half a century's effort in America. Whereas in Germany, the value of personal indicia have been put into the rang of personal rights and protected by the right of claim (the damages, unjust right and the illegal management). The value of property in personal indicia had been affirmed to be inherited by the heir in the judgment of the two cases involving the famous star Marlene Dietrich. The judgments in the above two cases enlarge the system of protecting the personality after death and establish the dual content and the structure of it. In China, the court still keeps to the traditional definition of personal indicia, which result in the limitation of pension as compensation and other distortion of application. After the evaluation of legal systems of other nations, it is not difficult for us to conclude that no matter how the nations protect the derivative interests of the personality right in whatever form, the common feature is the analogy of copyright's constuction theory by which they protect. Taking all of the factors into consideration, the most fitful form for our nation is to choose the direct legel transplantation as far as in this paper. Hereby I will offer some details about how the right of publicity construct in our nation involving the constitution of the encroachment of right, the calculating method for damages and the plea about the encroachment of right.
引文
①Article entitled'Branded'.'The Times',10 February 2001.
① Article entitled'Branded'.'The Times',10 February 2001.②人格符号在学术文献中有很多称谓。英文文献中有"personal indicia"或"personal symbol",直译为“人格标识”或者“人格标志”,"personality'’或‘"valuable attributes of personality",直译应该是“人格”或“具有价值的人格要素”；"identity"或‘"persona",直译是“身份”、“同一性”或“人格”,荷兰学者Pinckaers倾向于用"persona",其指“所有确定特定人的符号或标志”,“这些符号包括姓名、肖像、声音、签字、特征以及其他别人据以识别特定人的区别性标志”。德文的表述有"Identitatsmerkmale",直译为“身份标记”,"Elemente der Personlichkeit",直译为“‘人格要素”。本文则用“人格标识”作为这类标记的统称。称为“标识”,是因为从字面上便可直观反映这些符号的共同点在于其具有可识别性功能,即它们往往是一些个性化的区别标志,人们在社会交往中可借助这些标志来识别出其所指代的人。称为“人格标识”,是因为姓名、肖像等符号具有识别功能,是个人在社会交往中对外表现自己的“人格形象”的媒介和工具。关于此项人格符号的学术用语可详见如下文献：Julius C.S. Pinckaers, From Privacy toward a New Intellectual Property Right in Persona, (Kluwer Hague 1996), P.3,265-266. Huw Beverley-Smith, The commercial appropriation of Personality, (Cambridge 2002), P.3. Haimo Schack, Urheber-und Urhebervertragsrecht,2. Aufl., Tubingen 2001, Rn.51, S.25. MunchKomm/Rixecker (2001) § 12 Anh. Rn 113. Beuthien/Schmolz, Personlichkeitsschutz durch Personlichkeitsguterrechte,1999, S.25ff.谢晓尧.商品化权：人格符号的利益扩张与衡平[J].法商研究.2005(3)：84-86.祝建军.人格要素标识商业化利用的法律规制[M].法律出版社,2009.26-29.
① "Pop Music Fashion Becomes a Sales Hit" in:"New York Times" of January 8,1991, at D1.
② BATTERSBY & GRIMES, "The Law of Merchandise and Character Merchandising-Merchandising Law and Practice," Sec.1-5 et seq. (St. Paul 2002); Madow, "Private Ownership of Public Image:Popular Culture and Publicity Rights," 81 Calif. L. Rev.125, (1993).Secs.1-10 et seq.
③ Ian S.Blackshaw and Robert C.R. Siekmann,Sport Image Rights In Europe.Hague:T.M.C.Asser press, The Hague, The Netherlands,2005, p3.
④ Hillary Rodham Clinton received $8 million from Simon & Schuster for her memoir "Living History," see "Drehpunkt-die Schweizer Literaturzeitschrift," Vol.109 of March 2001; O.J. Simpson multiplied his assets by the factor nine through his book "I want to tell you," see SEEMANN, "Prominenz als Eigentum" 53 (Baden-Baden 1996).
⑤ Daniel Biene,CELEBRITY CULTURE,INDIVIDUALITY AND RIGHT OF PUBLICITY AS A EUROPEAN LEGAL ISSUE, International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law,2005,36(5),P,505-506.
① Julius C.S. Pinckaers, From Privacy toward a New Intellectual Property Right in Persona, (Kluwer Hague 1996), p 239-242.Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broasting Co.,433 US 562 (1977).
② See the testimony of Michael Douglas in Lindsay J., Douglas v Hello (trial), [2003] 153 NJL 595.Uhlaender v. Henricksen,316 F. Supp.1277,1282 (D. Minn.1970).
⑨[英]洛克.政府论(下)[M].叶启芳,瞿菊农,译.北京：商务印书馆,1964：18-19.
③ M. B. Nimmer, The Right of Publicity,19 Law & Contemp. Probs (1954),203,216.
④ M. B. Nimmer, The Right of Publicity,19 Law & Contemp. Probs (1954),203,216.
⑤ BGH NJW 2000.2195,2198-Marlene Dietrich.
⑥ Eileen R. Reilly, Note, The Right of Publicity for Political Figure:Martin Luther King, Jr., Center for Social Change, Inc. v. American Heritage Products, Inc.,46 U. Pitt. L. Rev. (1985),p 1161,1168 note 37.
⑦ McCarthy, The Right of Publicity and Privacy, Vol.Ⅰ, West Group,1999, §5.8 [A],2-2.:王泽鉴.人格权保护的课题与
展望[J].人大法律评论.(2009年卷)：62.
① Flecher/Rubin, supra note 68, at 1601. Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.,422 U.S.563 (1977), at 576.
② Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.,433 US 562 (1977),573-576.
③ McCarthy, The Right of Publicity and Privacy, Vol.1, West Group,1999,§5.8[A],2-3.转引自王泽鉴.人格权保护的课题与展望[J].人大法律评论.(2009年卷)：62.
④ H. Kalven, Privacy in Tort Law:Were Warren and Brandeis Wrong? 31 Law & Contemp. Probs (1966) 326,331.
⑤ Michael Madow, Private Ownership of Public Image:Popular Culture and Publicity Rights,81 Cal. L. Rev. (1993), 125,196.
⑥ Richard A. Posner, The Right of Privacy,12 Ga. L. Rev. (1978), p 293.
① See Marco De Boni. Martyn Prigmore, A Hegelian Basis For Privacy As An Economic Right, http://wwwusers.cs.york.ac.uk/-mdeboni/papers/Hegelian_Basis_For_E-privacy.pdf.
② Hoerst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, JC:B:Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tubingen,1994, S. 210; Magold, Hanns Arno, Personenmerchandising:der Schutz der Persona im Recht der USA und Deutschlands, Diss. Frankfurt am Main/Berlin/Bern 1994. S.214.
③ Richard A. Posner, The Right of Privacy,12 Ga. L. Rev. (1978),393,411. William M. Landes & Richard A. Posner, An Economic Analysis of Copyright Law,18 J. Legal Stud. (1989),325,362-363.
④ 15 F 3d 432 (5th Cir.1994),437-438.
① see J Holyoak, "UK Character Rights and Merchandising Rights Today", (1993) JBL 444, p 456; I Davies & A Terry, "Passing off-celebrity endorsement", EIPR 2002, N134, N136:"Realities of the market".
② McCarthy, The Right of Publicity and Privacy, Vol.Ⅰ, West Group,1999,§5.8[A],2-4.转引自王泽鉴.人格权保护的课题与展望[J].人大法律评论.(2009年卷).62.
③ James M. Treece, Commercial Exploitation of Names, Likenesses and Personal Histories,51 Tex. L. Rev. (1972-1973) 637,647.Flecher/Rubin, supra note 68, at 1600; Hetherington, Direct Commercial Exploitation of Identity:ANew Age for the Right of Publicity,17 COLUM. VLA J. L.& ARTS 1,18 (1992); Kwall, The Right of Publicity vs. the First Amendment:A Property and Liability Rule Analysis,70 IND. L. J.47,75-79 (1994).
④ Baird, Note, Human Cannonballs and the First Amendment:Zacchini v. Schripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.,30 STAN. L. REV.1185 (1978), at 1187. cited. M Madow, "Private Ownership in Public Image:Popular Culture and Publicity Rights", (1993) 81 California Law Review 125, note 5, p 229.
⑤ Samuel Murumba, Character Merchandising in Australia—Welcome Home Wanderer, Intell. Prop. F., Nov.1990, 22. From, Michael Madow, Private Ownership of Public Image:Popular Culture and Publicity Rights,81 Cal. L. Rev. (1993),237.
⑥J Kahn, "Bringing dignity back to light:Publicity Rights and the eclipse of the tort of appropriation of identity", Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Journal, [1999] 17,p 319. O Goodenough, "A Right of Privacy in the United Kingdom:Why not the Courts?", (1993) 7 EIPR 227,p 45.
①严城.物权的正当性解说[J].黑龙江省政法管理干部学院学报,2008,(5)：98-100.[德]康德.法的形而上学原理[M].沈叔平,译.北京：商务印书馆,1991：68.
②严城.物权的正当性解说[J].黑龙江省政法管理干部学院学报,2008,(5)：98-100.
③ Haemmerli, Whose Who? The Case for Kantian Right of Publicity,49 DUKE L. J.383 (1999).
④ Hughes, The Philosophy of Intellectual Property,77 GEO. L. J.287,340 (1988).
⑤ BGH GRUR 1981,846,847-Rennsportgemeinschaft.
⑥ MunchKomm/Schwerdtner(2001) § 12 Rn 300.
⑦ Vgl. Bruno Seemann, Prominenz als Eigentum:Pararelle Rechtsentwicklung einer Vermarktung der
Persoenlichkeit im amerikanischen, deutschen und schweizerischen Persoenlichkeitsschutz,1. Aufl., Baden-Baden, 1996, S.136; MunchKomm/Schwerdtner(2001) § 12 Rn 301.
⑧ Vgl. Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.100.
① Vgl. Horst-Peter Gotting, Pers6nlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.137-138.
②王泽鉴.人格权保护的课题与展望[J].人大法律评论.(2009年卷).63.
③王泽鉴.人格权保护的课题与展望[J].人大法律评论.(2009年卷).63.
④ See William Prosser, Privacy,48 CAL. L. REV (1960) p.383,389. Pavesich v. New England Life Insurance Co., 122 Ga.190,50 S.E.68 (Ga 1905).
① JCP 1966,Ⅱ.14711-Petula Clark. Sa. C., Cour D'Appel Bordeaux,La Semaine Juridique 1999,No.1641.
② Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.43.
③ Peter Jaffey, Rights of Privacy, Confidentiality and Publicity and Related Rights,Paul L.C.Torremans (ed.),Copyright And Human Rights-Freedom of Expression Intellectual Property-Pricacy,Kluwer Law International 2004,Printed in the Netherlands,p.173-174
④ Samuel Warren & Louis Brandeis, The Right to Privacy,4 Harv. L. Rev (1890),p 193,195-212.
① Bronwn Denicola, Case on Copyright, Unfair Competition and Related Topics,5th. ed.,Foundation Press, p.685.
② BGHZ 26,349-Herrenreite; NJW-1958,827-Herrenreiter. BGH NJW 1996,985-Caroline.
③ Tamar Gidron,The Publicity Right in Israel An Example of Mixed Origins, Values, Rules, Interests and Branches of Law,Electronic Journal of Comparative Law,vol.12.1(May2008),p 1-19.JoelKarni Schmid, McDonald's cries foul:Trademark rights versus Right of Publicity in Israel, Trademark World,168,1 June 2004,p 18.
①祝建军.人格要素标识商业化利用的法律规制[M].法律出版社.2009.217-218.
②王泽鉴.人格权保护的课题与展望(三)——人格权的具体化及保护范围(2)——姓名权[J].台湾本土法学.2006,(9)：44-55；王泽鉴.人格权保护的课题与展望(三)——人格权的具体化及保护范围(2)——姓名权[J].台湾本土法学.2006,(10)：67,75,78,86；王利明.人格权法研究[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005：283；尹田.自然人具体人格权的法律探讨[J].河南省政法管理干部学院学报,2004,(3)：20；杨立新.中国人格权法立法报告[M].北京：知识产权出版社,2005.143.
③程合红.商事人格权论——人格权的经济利益内涵及其实现与保护[M].中国人民大学出版社,2002.51.
④郑成思.商品化权刍议[J].中华商标.1996,(2);杨素娟,杜颖.商品化权议[J].河北法学.1998,(1);刘春霖.商品化权[J].西北大学学报(哲社版).1999,(4);孙美兰.“奥特曼”纠纷案引发的思考[J].法学.1999,(7);杜颖.论商品化权[A].民商法论丛(第13卷)[C].法律出版社,2000.；朱川.商品化权研究[J].复旦民商法学评.2001,(1)；梅慎实.试论影视作品中“虚构角色”商品化之知识产权保护[J].版权参考资料.1989,(6);郭玉军.论角色商品化权之法律性质[J].知识产权.2000(6);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[J].电子知识产权.2005,(9)；蓝蓝.人格与财产二元权利体系面临的困境与突破——以“人格商品化”为视角展[J].法律科学.2006,(3);张丹丹,张帆.商品化权性质的理论之争及反思[J].当代法学,2007,(5);谢晓尧.商品化权：人格符号的利益扩张与衡平[J].法商研究,2005,(3).
⑤黄立的表述是：“不过有人在甲死后,将其肖像制成金币或者出版邮票,此时甲之肖像权则系有财产价值之标的。如仍不得让与或继承,恐非妥当。此时宜仿照著作权法上,将著作权区分为著作人格权与著作财产权的做法,对于精神人格权的侵害,因自然人之死亡或法人人格之丧失而消灭,其受侵害之损害赔偿请求权,非经转换为金钱债权,不得让与或继承。但对于财产人格权的侵害,其请求权应认为当然得让与或继承。”参见,黄立.民法债编总论[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2002.264；袁雪石.姓名权本质变革论[刀.法律科学.2005,(2).
⑥何爱文.美国法之个人公开权于‘我国’法上受保护之可能性[J].全国律师.1992,(12);熊伟.形象权法律制度研究[D].武汉大学博士学位论文.2002；郑成思.商品化权刍议[J].中华商标.1996,(2);薛虹.名人的商标权——公开形象权[J].中华商标.1996,(3);董炳和.论形象权[J].法律科学.1998,(4);赖国钦.形象宣传权之研究[D].私立中国文化大学法律研究所硕士论文.1999;李明德.美国形象权法研究[J].环球法律评论.2003,冬季号;吴汉东.形象的商品化与商品化的形象权[J].法学.2004,(10);蓝蓝.人格与财产二元权利体系面临的困境与突破——以“人格商品化”为视角展[J].法律科学.2006,(3);李智仁.人格权经济利益之保障,个人公开权之探讨[J].法令月刊.55(11).不过在日本和我国有部分学者直接将公开权译为商品化权。见上文商品化权部分的脚注,另见五十岚清.人格权法[M].铃木贤,葛敏译.北京：北京大学出版社.2009.141页以下.
①W Houseley, "The Unauthorised Commercial exploitation", Yearbook of Media and Entertainment Law 1996,295.
②[美]威廉·费歇尔.知识产权的理论[M].黄海峰译.刘春田.中国知识产权评论第1卷[C],北京：商务印书馆,2002.3,5.
②Council of Europe; Res.1165/1998 on public figures; Lord Woolf in B & C/A, (2002) HRLR 25, p 703,714.
④佟柔.民法原理[M].北京：法律出版社,1983.34,47.江平.民法学[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2000.280.
①[美]罗斯科·庞德.普通法的精神[M].唐前宏译.北京：法律出版社,2001.51—53.
①王利明.中国民法典学者建议稿·人格权法编[M].北京：法律出版社,2002.32.赵宾,李林启,张艳.人格权商品化法律问题研究[M].北京：知识产权出版社,2009.30.张翔.自然人人格的法律构造[M]法律出版社.2008.217.马俊驹.人格和人格权理论讲稿[M].法律出版社2009.105.马特,袁雪石.人格权法教程[M].中国人民大学出版社2007.136.梁慧星.民法总论[M](第二版).法律出版社.2001.113.
② Simon Smith, Image, Persona and the Law, London:Sweet & Maxwell Ltd.2001,pl,"Each individual has his own distinct persona made up of physical appearance (image or likeness),name,voice,signature and other recognisable elements,together the so-called "indicia of identity".;Olaf Weber, Human Dignity and the Commercial Appropriation of Personality:Towards a Cosmopolitan Consensus in Publicity Rights?, SCRIPT-ed, Volume 1, Issue 1, March 2004, p161Huw Beverley-Smith,Commercial appropriation of personality,Cambridge, UK; Cambridge University Press,2008,p3.程合红.商事人格权论——人格权的经济利益内涵及其实现与保护[M].中国人民大学出版社.2002.6.
③ See Julius C.S. Pinckaers, From Privacy toward a New Intellectual Property Right in Persona, (Kluwer Hague 1996), p3.Beuthien/Schmolz, Personlichkeitsschutz durch Personlichkeitsguterrechte,1999, S.19ff.祝建军.人格要素标识商业化利用的法律规制[M].法律出版社,2009.
④[德]恩斯特·卡西尔.符号、神话、文化[M].李小兵译.上海：东方出版社,1998.157.
①牛宏宝.西方现代美学[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2002.293.
②[德]恩斯特·卡西尔.人论[M].甘阳译.上海：上海译文出版社,1985.35.
③谢晓尧.商品化权：人格符号的利益扩张与衡平[J].法商研究.2005,(3).
①汪洪,祝建军.人格符号的财产利益保护之法理思考[J].法律适用.2007,(3).
②张俊浩.民法学原理[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2000.135.王利明.人格权法研究[M].中国人民大学出版社.2005.48. Philippe Malinvaud, Introduction a l'tude du droit,9e editon, Litec,2002, p 258.
③ Philippe Malinvaud, Introduction a l'tude du droit,9e editon, Litec,2002, P.259
④张俊浩.民法学原理[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2000.138-139.王利明.人格权法研究[M].中国人民大学出版社.2005.48.马特,袁雪石.人格权法教程[M].中国人民大学出版社2007.20.
⑤关于人格权的客体是什么,在我国学术界存在较大争议,大致可以分为两类。 标的即客体本身。可见,权利的内容和其客体,两者含义相距甚远,不可将两者相互混淆。而所谓“对人之重要性而为主体所必不可少的”不是人格利益,而是组成人格的诸多要素。
① See Julius C.S. Pinckaers, From Privacy toward a New Intellectual Property Right in Persona, (Kluwer Hague 1996), P.235; Olaf Weber, Human Dignity and the Commercial Appropriation of Personality:Towards a Cosmopolitan Consensus in Publicity Rights?, SCRIPT-ed, Volume 1, Issue 1, March 2004,162.
② See Julius C.S. Pinckaers, From Privacy toward a New Intellectual Property Right in Persona, (Kluwer Hague 1996), P.265-266.
③杨立新,林旭霞.论人格标识商品化权及其民法保护[J].福建师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版).2006,(1).
④ Cf. P. D. Ollier and J. P. Le Gall,'Various Damages'in A. Tune (ed.) International Encyclopaedia of Comparative Law (T ubingen,1981), Vol. XI:Torts(Tubingen:Martinus Nijihoff,1981).P.63
⑤ Beuthien/Schmolz, Personlichkeitsschutz durch Personlichkeitsguterrechte,1999, S.25ff.
① Memphis Development Foundation v. Factors Ent., Inc,616 F.2d 956 (6th Cir 1980),959.
①谢晓尧.商品化权：人格符号的利益扩张与衡平[J].法商研究.2005,(3).
②Lugosi v. Universal Pictures.,25 Cal.3d 813 (1979),845-846.
③冯象.鲁迅肖像权问题[J].读书.2001,(3).
① Beuthien/Schmolz, Personlichkeitsschutz durch Personlichkeitsguterrechte,1999, S.25ff.Beuthien, Personlichkeitsschutz vor und nach Tode:Marburger Medienschriften, Band 4,2002,S.76ff.
②谢晓尧.商品化权：人格符号的利益扩张与衡平[J].法商研究.2005,(3).
③ White V. Samsung Electronics American,23USPQ2d1583(9th.cir.1992).
①谢晓尧.商品化权：人格符号的利益扩张与衡平[J].法商研究.2005,(3).
②朱川.商品化权研究[J].复旦民商法学评论(第1期).北京：法律出版社.2001.86.
③具体新闻可参见“芙蓉姐姐签约富酷网”,http://ent.163.com/07/0614/02/3GTQ39050003rt.html;“芙蓉姐姐助兴徐州羽绒服博览会”,http://www.cnxz.com.cn/newscenter/xznews/sjbt/2005/2005103014693.htm。
④ See Juliuss C.S. Pinckaers, From Privacy toward a New Intellectual Property Right in Persona, (Kluwer Hague 1996), P.266.
①王泽鉴.民法总则[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2005.132.[德]迪特尔·梅迪库斯.德国民法总论[M].邵建东译.法律出版社,2001.794-800.
②张昌等诉天津泥人张彩塑工作室等侵犯姓名权、商标权、著作权、名誉权一案。清代泥塑艺人张长林,被人们称为“泥人张”。法院认为:“原告所称被告使用‘泥人张’,侵犯张明山姓名权,其实质是主张‘泥人张”称号作为 一种利益,不应由被告享有”。法院支持了该主张,但没有指出这种权利和利益的性质究竟是什么。参见天津市中级人民法院(1995)中知初字第1号民事判决书。
①在1979年美国Hirsch v. S.C. Johnson&Sons, Inc一案中,原告赫斯克是一位著名的橄榄球星,他被描述为那个时代的超级球星,并作过许多商业性广告。赫斯克的奔跑风格非常独特,就像一架忽忽旋转的飞轮,因而获得了“疯狂之腿”(Crazylegs)的绰号。被告是一家化妆品厂商,在女用剃须胶上使用了“疯狂之腿”的名字。而且,被告第一次促销该产品就是在一次女子赛跑活动中,被告推出的电视广告中所具有的“疯狂之腿”的欢呼声,也像橄榄球比赛中观众对赫斯克的欢呼一样。正是基于这样的事实,威斯康星上诉法院裁定被告侵犯了原告的形象权。在上诉中,被告提出了没有使用原告真实姓名的辩解。法院则在判决中指出：虽然被告所使用的‘疯狂之腿’是赫斯克的绰号而非他的真实姓名,但这并不妨碍原告提起诉讼。这里所需要的仅仅是,有关的姓名清楚地指示了受到伤害的个人。在眼前的案子中,在这个案子的关键点上,绰号毫无疑问地指示了原告赫斯克。Hirsch v. S.C. Johnson&Sons, Inc.,90 Wis.2d,205 USPQ 920 (1979).另外,阿根廷第22.362法律第3(h)节中,还对人的绰号进行保护。通过适用该条规定,同样拒绝了将著名球星Nelso Arantes Do Nascimiento的绰号“贝利”,登记为商标的申请。Federal Court of Appeals of the City of La Plata, Division I, judgement rendered on 30 March 1979, La Ley 14 November 1979.
②佟柔.民法原理[M].北京：法律出版社,1983.34,47.485
③北京市海淀区人民法院审理一起当事人索要家庭合影照片及家信的案件,因肖像权不等同肖像载体所有权,法院驳回了其索要家庭合影照片的诉讼请求。法院认为：就诉争照片,虽内容含有原告及家人肖像,但仅为照片记录内容,不能作为所有权依据,故原告主张对相片的所有权并要求返还,缺乏事实及法律依据,法院不予支持。 “索要家庭合影照片被驳 肖像权不等同肖像载体所有权”,http://www.civillaw.com.cn/article/default.asp?id=37744。
④在德国和荷兰的立法中,肖像权是被规定在有关著作权法中的。荷兰从1959年,法院开始承认肖像权人有权分享商业性公开其肖像所得的商业利润。学者称之为“商业肖象权”(commerical portrait right)Julius C.S. Pinckaers, From Privacy toward a New Intellectual Property Right in Persona, Kluwer Law International 1996,p.16.下文比较法部分还要细述。
① Trib Gr Inst Paris,29.03.1978, quoted by P Fremond, Le droit de la photographie. Le droit sur 1'image, Paris, Publicness,1985, p.352.
② J Corbet, note sous Civ Brussles,19.06.1981.RI/Ⅴ,1981-1982,col 2616.
③1988年由美国第九巡回上诉法院判决的“米德乐”是一个典型判例。原告米德乐是一位著名的女歌唱家,她的演唱声音具有独特的个人风格。被告福特汽车公司制作了一条关于自己产品的广告,想使用米德乐演唱的“你想跳舞吗”(Do You Want to Dance)作为背景音乐。被告虽然从词曲的版权人那里获得了授权,但米德乐却拒绝了福特公司的邀约,不同意使用自己的声音。在万般无奈的情况下,被告雇佣了另一名歌手,尽可能像地模仿了米德乐的演唱声音,并将模仿的演唱用在了广告之中。原告由此而诉被告侵犯了自己的形象权。第九巡回上诉法院认为,原告应当依据普通法而不是加州的形象权法律来主张权利。法院指出,加州的形象权法律确实保护每个人的声音,但这无助于原告主张自己的权利。因为,被告所使用的声音不是原告的声音,而是另一名歌手的声音。但是在另一方面,模仿原告独特的声音和演唱风格,其效果与使用录有原告演唱的磁带一样,都是对于原告形象权的侵犯。法院还在判决中谨慎地说,这样的裁定并不意味着为了商业性目的的每一种声音模仿都应当被禁止。但是,“当某一专业演唱家的声音广为人知的时候,当他的独特声音被刻意模仿以销售某种产品时,销售者就盗取了不属于他们自己的东西,就在加州侵犯了他人的权利。”See,Midler v. Ford Motor Co.,7 USPQ2d 1398 (9th Cir.1988).
④1983年的“卡森”一案中,原告约翰·卡森是电视节目“今夜秀”(Tonight Show)的主持人和明星。每当节目开始和卡森即将出场之时,都有一个拖长的声音介绍说“这里是强尼”(Here's Johnny).由于这个节目是由美国广播公司播放,每星期播放5次,观众非常广泛,所以人们在听到“这里是强尼”的声音时,都知道原告即将出场。也就是说,“这里是强尼”与原告密切相关,可以指示原告的身份。“卡森”一案的被告是一家方便厕所的出租和销售公司。当被告的公司开张时,公司的总裁为公司取名“这里是强尼方便厕所”。由于“这里是强尼”已经家喻户晓,于是,原告诉被告侵犯了自己的形象权。美国联邦第六巡回上诉法院法判决被上诉人盗用了上诉人的“商业身份”(commerical identity) See,Carson v. Here's Johnny Portable Toilets, Inc.,698 F.2d 831 (6th Cir.1983).美国“加州民法典”第3344条和900条就规定直接将声音规定为公开权的客体。
①Hoerst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, JC:B:Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tubingen,1994, S. 215-216
② McCarthy, The Right of Publicity and Privacy, Vol.Ⅰ, West Group,1999, § 3.4 [D],3-20.
③ Midler v. Ford Motor Co.,849 F.2d 460 (9th Cir.1988); Waits v. Frito-Lay Inc.,978 F.2d 1093 (C.A.91992)
④ Carson v. Here's Johnny Portable Toilets Inc.,698 F.2d 831 (6th Cir.1983).
⑤ Motschenbacher v. R. J. Reynnolds Tobacco Co.,498 F.2d 821 (9th Cir.1974). Cf. Bronson v. Fawcett Publications,124 F. Supp.429 (E.D.I11.1954). Motchenbacher v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.498 F.2d 821 (9thCir.1974).被告在威士顿香烟的电视广告中,使用了著名的赛车手Lothar Motchenbacher所驾驶的车的照片。法院认为：虽然原告的脸部特征没有出现在广告中,但是,原告一直驾驶着一部和其他的赛车手不同的车,而且公众知道这辆车就是原告所使用的车；而被告在电视广告中凸显了这辆车,很明显,被告希望通过这样的凸显标识出原告；所以,被告的行为构成了对原告的公开权的侵犯。等。
⑥ White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,91 F.2d 1395 (9th Cir.1992).White v. Samsung Electronics AmericaInc案中第九巡回法院在谈到这种主张的理由时说道：“被告是怎样窃占原告的人格标志的,这并不重要,重要的是被告是否这么做了……如果认为只有当被告采用九种不同的方式窃占原告的人格标志时,才构成对原告公开权的侵犯,这样的一条规则只会挑战那些广告业的谋略家们采取第十种方式。”；Wendt v. Host International, Inc.,125 F.3d 806 (9th Cir.1997).
①关于各国法制层面上的基本主张,后文两大法系比较法考察部分将对此予以详细阐述。
②[英]巴里·尼古拉斯.罗马法概论[M].黄风译.北京：法律出版社,2002.64.
①[法]阿·布瓦斯泰尔.法国民法典与法哲学[M].钟继军译.转引自徐国栋.罗马法与现代民法(第2卷),[M].北京：中国法制出版,2001.290.
②马俊驹.人与人格分离技术的形成、发展与变迁[J].现代法学.2006,(4).
③[德]罗尔夫·克尼佩尔.法律与历史——论《德国民法典》的形成与变迁[M].朱岩译.北京：法律出版社2003.60.
④[德]卡尔·拉伦茨.德国民法通论(上册)[M].王晓晔,邵建东等译.北京：法律出版社2003.43.
⑤马俊驹.人与人格分离技术的形成、发展与变迁[J].现代法学.2006, (4).
①王泽鉴.民法总则[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2005.127。
②[日]星野英一.私法中的人——以民法财产法为中心[M].王闯译.北京：中国法治出版社,2004.82-83.
① Conrad, Individuum und Gemeinschaft in der Privatrechtsordnung des 18. und beginnenden 19. Jahrhunderts, Karlsruhe 1956, S.37f.
②王泽鉴.民法总则[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2005.126.
② Otto von Gierke, Deutsches Privatrecht, Band 1:Sachenrecht, Leipzig 1895,S.702.
④[德]霍尔斯特·埃曼.德国法中一般人格权的概念和内涵[J].南京大学法律评论(特刊).2000.211-220.
⑤王泽鉴.民法总则[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2005.211-220.
①人格权一语,是德国学者所创设,按Egger氏之解释,“凡保证吾人能力所及,对于第三人得以享受之权利,无论为精神的、道德的或经济的关系,其与吾人生存上不可分离者,均属之。”梅仲协：《民法要义》,中国政法大学出版社2000,P61；德国法学家科勒认为：“人格权是一切法律的起点,人格权的客体为其自身之人格,故主体与客体同属一人。”Kohler, Das Eigenbild in Recht,1903,p.6德国学者Elzbacher认为：“人格权是保障个人人格,并与人格不能分离的法益为目的的排他权。”Elzbacher, Die Handlungsfaehigkeit nach deutschen buergerlichen Recht, p.304法国学者菲利普认为：“人格权是指作为人具有主体资格所必须具备的权利。”Philippe Malinvaud, Introduction a l'tude du droit,9e editon, Litec,2002, P.258-284;奥田义人认为,人格权是“保护人所以为人之存在条件,及附属一身状态之权利。”[日]奥田义人.法学通论[M].东京：同文印刷舍,1907.第287-288页；(日)富井政章认为：“人格权是指作为个人的存在而直接拥有的权利。”[日]富井政章.民法原论(第一卷)[M].1920.第124页。(日)五十岚清认为：“人格权主要将具有人格属性的生命、身体、健康、自由、名誉、意思等为对象的、为了使其自由发展,必须保障其不受第三这侵害的多种利益的总称。”[日]五十岚清.人格权法.[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2009.7；郑玉波先生认为：“人格权者,乃存在于权利人自己人格之权利,即吾人与其人格之不分离的关系上所享有的社会的利益,而受法律保护者也。”郑玉波.民法总则[M].台北：三民书局,1998.第6页。
②马俊驹.人格和人格权理论讲稿[M].法律出版社2009.101.
①[德]卡尔·拉伦茨.德国民法通论[M](上).王晓哗等译.法律出版社.2003.46-52.
②[美]R·考特,T·尤伦.法和经济学[M].张军.上海：三联出版社,1991.163.
③[德]迪特尔·施瓦布.民法导论[M].法律出版社.2006.206.
④BVerf GE24,367,389.
④严城.物权的正当性解说[J].黑龙江省政法管理干部学院学报,2008,(5).
①[德]迪特尔·施瓦布.民法导论[M].法律出版社.2006.207.
②[德]迪特尔·施瓦布.民法导论[M].法律出版社.2006.207.
① Z.B. Taupitz/Mueller, Rufausbeutung nach dem Tode:Wem gebilhrt der Profit?,2002, S.39; Beuthien, Pers6nlichkeitsschutz vor und nach Tode:Marburger Medienschriften, Band 4,2002,S.85; Cf. P. D. Ollier and J. P. Le Gall,'Various Damages'in A. Tunc (ed.) International Encyclopaedia of Comparative Law (T ubingen,1981), Vol.Ⅺ:Torts(Tubingen:Martinus Nijihoff,1981).P.63;[德]耶林.为权利而斗争[M].转引自王泽鉴.民法总则[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2005.6.
①[德]卡尔·拉伦茨.法学方法论[M].商务印书馆.2003.293-298,317,332,355.[德]拉德布鲁赫.法哲学[M].法律出版社.2005.7-14.
①王利明.人格权法研究[M].中国人民大学出版社.2005.45
②马俊驹.人格和人格权理论讲稿[M].法律出版社2009.80-82.张翔.自然人人格的法律构造[M]法律出版社.2008.216.
③ Karlowa 5,15 Gruenhut, Zeitschr.381,383.转引自[美]约翰·齐普曼·格雷.论法律主体[J]龙卫球译,清华法学,2004(2).
④ Roscoe Pound, Jurisprudence Volume 3 West Publishing Co.1959, §34.
①[德]耶林.为权利而斗争[M].转引自王泽鉴.民法总则[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2005.5.
② Roscoe Pound, Jurisprudence Volume 3 West Publishing Co.1959, §49.
②在西方私法史上,正如上文所言,当人类从丛林走向共同体,形成社会和政治国家时,人与人之间首先体现出来的最大诉求就是对彼此人身完整权和人身自由权的诉求。因此在古罗马《十二表法》中一开始只针对伤害身体的情况作出规定任何对个人尊严的侵犯变得可诉,并且发展出了‘"iniuria"(侮辱)的私犯形式(也就是侵辱诉讼),是古罗马时期裁判官法和法学理论显著发展的结果。英巴里·尼古拉斯：《罗马法概论》,黄风译,P226-227因此,在西方法制史上,最初受到保护的精神性人格利益是自然人的名誉利益。法律秩序最初把所有对人格权的侵害都视为对该人名誉的侵害；也即,首先被认可的个人利益,是自由民的名誉利益。对严格意义上损害财产的体系化的法律责任,是通过《阿奎利亚法》(lex Aquilia)进入罗马法的。·Girard, Manuel elementaire de droit romain (8ed.1929)441, n.2.;最初的倾向是把所有的过错都视为对人格的侵犯,而把所有对人格的侵害都视为一种侮辱。拉丁文"iniuria"一词的最初含义就是指侮辱,作为一种特定私犯的名称,它在古典法中产生了比较特殊的含义,泛指“任何对他人权利或者人格的轻蔑无视”,也即被用于泛指所有对人格利益的侵犯。可见,古典侵权法上的侮辱侵权,“不仅针对包括身体上的侵害、口头或者书面上的辱骂,还包括对他人尊严或者名誉的侮辱、对他人公共权利或者私人权利的不尊重,只要有关行为的实施是故意的并怀有轻蔑意图。”英巴里·尼古拉斯：《罗马法概论》,黄风译,P226
① Heinrich Hubmann, Das Personlichkeitsrecht verlag:Bohlau; Auflage:2., verand. u. erw. Aufl. (1967) 119
② Roscoe Pound, Jurisprudence Volume 3 West Publishing Co.1959,§47
③[德]卡尔·拉伦茨.法学方法论[M].商务印书馆.2003.355.
④[法]雅克·盖斯旦,吉勒·古博.法国民法总论[M].陈鹏等.北京：法律出版社.2004.172.另参见《法国民法典》第8条：“任何人都有私生活得到尊重的权利。”
①程合红.商事人格权论——人格权的经济利益内涵及其实现与保护[M].中国人民大学出版社.2002.28.张翔.自然人人格的法律构造[M]法律出版社.2008.208-221.马俊驹.人格和人格权理论讲稿[M].法律出版社.2009.80,104.
②Hoerst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, JC:B:Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tubingen,1994, S.137-166.
②[德]罗尔夫.克尼佩尔.法律与历史——论《德国民法典》的形成与变迁[M].朱岩译.北京：法律出版社2003.87-88
①拉伦茨教授也认为,人格权是一种受尊重权,也就是说,承认并且不侵害人所固有的“尊严”,以及人的身体和精神,人的存在和应然的存在,并且不能把人只当作工具或手段来对待。[德]卡尔·拉伦茨.德国民法通论[M](上).王晓晔等译.法律出版社.2003.282.佟柔.民法原理[M].北京：法律出版社,1983.478.江平.民法学[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2000.280.李锡鹤.民法哲学论稿[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2000.176.
②祝建军.人格要素标识商业化利用的法律规制[M].法律出版是,2009.30-31.
③ Beuthien, Personlichkeitsschutz vor und nach Tode:Marburger Medienschriften, Band 4,2002,S.85; Beuthien/ Schmolz, Personlichkeitsschutz durch Personlichkeitsguterrechte,1999, S.25ff.
④五十岚清.人格权法[M].铃木贤,葛敏译.北京：北京大学出版社.2009.9,141.王利明.人格权法研究[<].中国人民大学出版社.2005.25-26,45；梁慧星.民法总论[M].北京：法律出版社,2001.70.马特,袁雪石.人格权法教程[M].中国人民大学出版社2007.11,44-47.李琛.质疑知识产权之“人格财产一体性”[J]..中国社会科学.2004,(2)：69.郑永宽.人格权的价值与体系研究[M].知识产权出版社.2008.63-64.赵宾,李林启,张艳.人格权商品化法律问题研究[M].北京：知识产权出版社,2009.92-95.
①出版社.2003.48.[德]卡尔·拉伦茨.德国民法通论[M](上).王晓晔等译.法律[德]霍尔斯特.埃曼.德国民法中的一般人格权制度——论从非道德行为到侵权行为的转变[A].邵建东等.梁慧星.民商法论丛(第23卷)[C].香港：金桥文化出版社(香港)有限公司,2002.413.
②马俊驹,张翔.人格权的理论基础及其立法体例[J].法学研究.2004,(6).马俊驹.人格和人格权理论讲稿[M].法律出版社.2009.81
①马俊驹.人格和人格权理论讲稿[M].法律出版社2009.80.马俊驹.论作为私法上权利的人格权[J].法学.2005,(12).
②马俊驹,张翔.人格权的理论基础及其立法体例[J].法学研究.2004,(6).
③ Juergen Mittelstrass Influence of Neo-Biology on Ethics,The Journal of Molecular Biology,2002,pp.902-905;Peter Stemmer, Die Rechtfertigung moralischer Normen, Zeitschrift fuer philosophische Forschung,Band 58 (2004),S.499甘绍平.人权伦理学[M].北京：中国发展出版社,2009.70-88.
④[德]霍尔斯特·埃曼.德国民法中的一般人格权制度[A].梁慧星.民商法论丛[C]第23卷.金桥文化出版(香港)有限公司.2002.412.
⑤[德]霍尔斯特·埃曼.德国民法中的一般人格权制度[A].梁慧星.
民商法论丛[C]第23卷.[德]霍尔斯特·埃曼.德国民法中的一般人格权制度[A].梁慧星.民商法论丛[C]第23卷.金桥文化出版(香港)有限公司.2002.414.
①至于财产权对人格的间接保护作用,在本章上文“人格与人格权及财产权的关系”部分已作论述。
②[德]霍尔斯特·埃曼.德国民法中的一般人格权制度[A].梁慧星.民商法论丛[C]第23卷.金桥文化出版(香港)有限公司.2002.412-413
③[德]霍尔斯特.埃曼.德国民法中的一般人格权制度[A].梁慧星.民商法论丛[C]第23卷.金桥文化出版(香港)有限公司.2002.412.
④马俊驹.人格和人格权理论讲稿[M].法律出版社.2009.105
①李琛.质疑知识产权之“人格财产一体性”[J].中国社会科学.2004,(2).
②马俊驹.人格和人格权理论讲稿[M].法律出版社.2009.104
① Manfred Rehbinder, Urheberrecht, Munchen:C.H. Beck:C.H. Beck,2003, S.3.
① Peter Jaffey, Rights of Privacy, Confidentiality and Publicity and Related Rights,Paul L.C.Torremans (ed.),Copyright And Human Rights-Freedom of Expression Intellectual Property-Pricacy,Kluwer Law International 2004,Printed in the Netherlands,p.173-174
②法律政策学的重要性日益为国内学界所重视,笔者认为法律政策立场的确定对法律技术的影响甚大,不同的法律政策会带来不同的规范模式,尤其是面对新的利益诉求时,直接影响到是立法论还是司法解释论来最终化解纠纷。关于法律政策的文献,国内部分可参考：林凤海.论法律政策在法哲学体系中的地位[D].吉林大学硕士论文.2007；彭汉英.当代西方的法律政策思想[J].外国法译评.1997,(2)；胡平仁.法律政策学：平衡权与权力的科学[J].当代法学.2001,(3)
① P.J.Bohannan.Ethnography and Comparision in Legal Anthropology[A].In Laura Nader.Law in Culture and Society[C] Chicago:Chicago Aldine Publishing Company,1969:410.
① Peter Jaffey, Rights of Privacy, Confidentiality and Publicity and Related Rights,Paul L.C.Torremans (ed.),Copyright And Human Rights-Freedom of Expression Intellectual Property-Pricacy,Kluwer Law International 2004,Printed in the Netherlands,p.173-174
① Simon Smith, Image, Persona and the Law, London:Sweet & Maxwell Ltd.2001,p.32-75
② Per Mr. Justice Laddie in Elvis Presley Trade Marks[1997]RPC 543, p.548
③英美法系国家和地区对擅用人格标识的侵权法保护有不同的叫法,如英国和澳大利亚的仿冒侵权、加拿大的盗用人格、加拿大安大略省的人格利用侵权以及美国的公开权侵权等。其中的大多数救济方式属于普通法上的侵权制度,不过美国部分州已经将公开权立法化,如纽约州民法第51条和加利福尼亚州民法第99条和第3344条。
④英国并无所谓的“英国法”,只是在对人格标识商业化问题的具体规范上英格兰和威尔士的法律与苏格兰的法律非常相似,因此本文将其合并统一称为“英国法”。
① Ian S.Blackshaw and Robert C.R. Siekmann,Sport Image Rights In Europe.Hague:T.M.C.Asser press, The Hague, The Netherlands,2005, p10.
② Ian S.Blackshaw and Robert C.R. Siekmann.Sport Image Rights In Europe,Hague:T.M.C.Asser press, The Hague, The Netherlands,2005, p10.
③ See Re Holly Hobbie [1984] RPC 329
④ Ian S.Blackshaw and Robert C.R. Siekmann,Sport Image Rights In Europe,Hague:T.M.C.Asser press, The Hague, The Netherlands,2005,p 6-7.
⑤Elvis Presley Trade Marks, [1999] RPC 567.
⑥ E.g. Buchanan, The Need for a Right of Publicity, European Intellectual Property Review(EIPR).(1988)8,p.227;Frazer, Appropriation of Personality-A New Tort?,99 Law Q.Rev.281,at 282(1983).;Cf. Cornish, Intellectual Property:Patent,Copyright,Trade Marks and Allied Rights,420(2nd ed.1989).
⑦本文所译的“人格形象”原词为identity,国外学界多翻译为同一性,但究其文义,译为人的人格形象更好理解,毕竟人的人格形象和其人本身自然应当具有同一性,因而权利人有权决定其形象的使用状况,未经许可擅用其形象的行为,则构成对其人格形象的侵害。至于在商业活动中被使用的人格形象,那就是上文所研究的人格标识。下文中所有英文中的identity和德文Identitaet一律译为人格形象,不再赘述。
① Buchanan, A Comparative Analysis of Name and Likeness Rights in the United Stated and England,18 Golden Gate U.L.Rev.301,at 366(1988).
② Frazer, Appropriation of Personality-a New Tort?,99 Law Q.Rev.281,at 282(1983).
③ See [1931] AC 333. From:Julius C.S. Pinckaers, From Privacy toward a New Intellectual Property Right in Persona, (Kluwer Hague 1996), p5
④ McCulloch v Mav [1947] All ER 845.
⑤ Ian S.Blackshaw and Robert C.R. Siekmann,Sport Image Rights In Europe,Hague:T.M.C.Asser press, The Hague, The Netherlands,2005, p325
⑥ Douglas & Others v. Hello Limited,[2001] 2 WLR 992
① Ettingsbausen v.Australian Consolidation Press,(13 Octoberl993),NSWCA.
② Huw Beverley-Smith, Ansgar Ohly and Agnes Lucas-Schloetter, Privacy, Property and Personality:Civil Law Perspectives on Commercial Appropriation, Cambridge University Press,2005.p15-34
③ Henderson/Radio Corp. Pty. Ltd.[1960] SR (NSW) 576; [1969] RPC 218.
④ McCulloch v May [1947] All ER 845.
⑤ See §52(1) of the Trade Practices Act. Pacific Dunlop Ltd. V. Hogan,83 ALR 403(Gummow J.).
⑥ Lyngstad and Others/Anabas Products Ltd. and Another1977] FSR 62; Elvis Presley Trade Marks case [1999] RPC 567.
⑦ Hogan and Another/Koala Dundee Pty Limited and others,20 FCR 314,23 September 1988
① Louise Potvin, Robert Howell, Tom McMahon,Chapter 7 Canada, Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p90
② Louise Potvin, Robert Howell, Tom McMahon,Chapter 7 Canada, Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p91.
③ See Paramount Pictures Corp v. Howley[1991] 5 OR (3d)573,582(Ont GD)
④ Louise Potvin, Robert Howell, Tom McMahon,Chapter 7 Canada, Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p88.
⑤ See Howell, The Common Law Appropriation of personality Tort,4 Intel, Prop. J.265, at 268(1989)
⑥ Krouse v. Chrysler Canada Ltd.(1973),1 OR (2d)255,40 DLR(3d) 15(Ont CA)
⑦ Gould Estate v. Stoddard Publishing Co. [1996] 30 OR(3d) 520 (GD) revd on other grounds and Horton v. Tim Donut Ltd(1997) 75 CPR(3d) 451,459-460.
① Gould Estate v Stoddart Publishing, [1996] O.J. No.3288, September 26,1996. Gould Estate v Stoddart Publishing, (1998),39 O.R. (3d) 545; (1998),161 D.L.R. (4th) 321; (1998),80 C.P.R. (3d) 161; (1998),114 O.A.C.178, May 6th 1998
② Cal Civ Code, s3344
③ Waits v Frito-Lay, Inc,978 F2d 1093,1106-10(9th Cir 1992)
① F.S. Cohen,"Transcendental Nonsense and The Functional Approach"[1935] 35 Colum L Rev 809,815-817.
② Julius C.S. Pinckaers, From Privacy toward a New Intellectual Property Right in Persona, (Kluwer Hague 1996),p234-237,
① See. Jill McKeough,Andrew Stewart,Intellectual Property in Australia,P358. Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma v. Marks & Spencer Plc [1991]RPC 351,368, following the remarks of Lord Oliver in Reckitt & Colman Ltd v. Bordem Inc. [1990] 1 WLR 491,499.
② British Telecommunication Plc and Others v. One in a Millon Ltd and Others[1999]FSR 1,10 per Aldous LJ.
③ IRC v.Muller & Co.'s Margarine Ltd,[1901] AC 217
④ See Tolley v Fry, [1931] AC 333. From:Julius C.S. Pinckaers, From Privacy toward a New Intellectual Property Right in Persona, (Kluwer Hague 1996), p5
① Huw Beverley-Smith, The commercial appropriation of Personality, Cambridge University Press,2008, p 62.
② British Diabetic Association v. Diabetic Society Ltd[1995] 4 All ER 812,819.
③ Clark v. Associated Newspapers Ltd [1998] 1 All ER 959. Fobes v. Kemsley Newspapers Ltd [1951] 68 RPC 183; AllLanda v. Greenberg (1908) 24 TLR 441.
④ Huw Beverley-Smith, The commercial appropriation of Personality, Cambridge University Press,2008, p76
⑤ Lyngstad v. Anabas Products,[1997] FSR 62.
⑥ Huw Beverley-Smith, The commercial appropriation of Personality, Cambridge University Press,2008,p77.
⑦ Lyngstad and Others/Anabas Products Ltd. and Another [1977] FSR 62
① Elvis Presley Trade Marks case [1999] RPC 567.
② Bulmer (H.P.)Ltd and Showings Ltd v. Bollinger SA[1978] RPC 79,99.
③ McCulloch v May [1947] All ER 845.
④ Irvine v Talksport [2002] EMLR 32.
⑤ Irvine v Talksport [2002] EMLR 32.
① Star Industrial Co. Ltd v. Yap Kwee Kor [1976] FSR 256,259 per Lord Diplock.
② Huw Beverley-Smith, The commercial appropriation of Personality, Cambridge University Press,2008, p 103.
③ Stringfellow v. McCain Foods(GB)Ltd,[1984]RPC 501,544.
④ Stringfellow v. McCain Foods(GB) Ltd,[1984] RPC 501,544-545.
① Campbell v. Mirror Group Newspapers [2003] EMLR 2, p.39.
② Theakston v MGN Limited[2002] EMLR 22.
③ Douglas v Hello! [2005] EWCA CIV 595, [2005] All ER (D) 280(May)
④ Henderson/Radio Corp. Pty. Ltd.[1960] SR (NSW) 576; [1969] RPC 218
⑤ Henderson/Radio Corp. Pty. Ltd.[1960] SR (NSW) 576; [1969] RPC 234
⑥ Henderson/Radio Corp. Pty. Ltd.[1960] SR (NSW) 576; [1969] RPC 243
⑦ Pacific Dunlop Ltd./Hogan and Another,23 FCR 553,25 May 1989,87 ALR 14
① Paracidal Pty Ltd v. Herctum Pty Ltd (1983)4 IPR 201.
② Hutchence v. South Seas Bubble Co. Pty Ltd.[1986] 64 ALR 330.
③ Cf. Honey v.Australian Airlines Ltd.,14I.P.R.264(1989) ATPR 40-961
④ Louise Potvin, Robert Howell, Tom McMahon,Chapter 7 Canada, Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001, p36
⑤ McCulloch v. Lewis A May (Produce Distributors) Ltd.(1947) 65 RPC 58.
⑥ Henderson/Radio Corp. Pty. Ltd.[1960] SR (NSW) 576; [19691 RPC 218
⑦ McCulloch v May [1947] All ER 845.
⑧ See for a treatise on Australian law in this field:Murumba, Commercial Exploitation of Personality,1986.
⑨ See §52(1) of the Trade Practices Act. Pacific Dunlop Ltd. V. Hogan,83 ALR 403(Gummow J.).
⑩ Pacific Dunlop Ltd. v.Hogan and Another,23 FCR 553,25 May 1989,87 ALR 14.
① Olivia Newton-John v.Scholl-plough Ltd.,ATPR para 40-697(1986).
② Cf. Honey v. Australian Airlines Ltd.,14 I.P.R.264(1989) ATPR 40-961
③ Hogan and Another v. Koala Dundee Pty Limited and others,20 FCR 314,23 September 1988
④ Henderson v. Radio Corp. Pty. Ltd.[1960] SR (NSW) 576; [1969] RPC 218,236.
① Tot Toys Ltd v. Mitchell,[1993] 1 NZLR 325,362.
② the tort of misappropriation of personality字面翻译则为,盗用人格侵权,但是考究其规范的主要内容是关于人格标识上的财产利益的保护,因此在规范意义上,应当理解为盗用人格(标识)侵权,下文不再赘述。
③ Huw Beverley-Smith, Ansgar Ohly and Agnes Lucas-Schloetter, Privacy, Property and Personality:Civil Law Perspectives on Commercial Appropriation, Cambridge University Press,2005,p35-45
④ See Paramount Pictures Corp v. Howley[1991] 5 OR (3d)573,582(Ont GD)
⑤ Louise Potvin, Robert Howell, Tom McMahon,Chapter 7 Canada, Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p88.
① Krouse v. Chrysler Canada Ltd.(1973),1 OR (2d)255,40 DLR(3d) 15(Ont CA)
② Howell, The Common Law Appropriation of Personality Tort, (1986) 2, [Can] IPJ,p27-31.
③在英文文献中经常会出现"endorsement"一词,该词的本意是票据的背书行为,在本文语境中学者们翻译出来的词汇花样翻新,有的翻译为“认证”,有的翻译为“背书”,笔者探究文义和上下文语境,将其译为“许可使用”更好理解,也贴近文义,下文不再赘述。
④ Howell, The Common Law Appropriation of Personality Tort, (1986) 2, [Can] IPJ,p 149,170-172和
⑤ Athens v. Canadian Adventure Camps Ltd,(1977) 80 DLR (3d) 583,592..
① Huw Beverley-Smith, The commercial appropriation of Personality, Cambridge University Press,2008,p123-124.
② See Julius C.S. Pinckaers, From Privacy toward a New Intellectual Property Right in Persona, (Kluwer Hague 1996), p11
③ Athens v. Canadian Adventure Camps Ltd,(1977) 80 DLR (3d) 583,596.
④ Krouse v. Chrysler Canada Ltd.(1972),25 DLR(3d) 583,596.
① Gould Estate v. Stoddard Publishing Co. [1996] 30 OR(3d) 520 (GD) revd on other grounds and Horton v. Tim Donut Ltd(1997) 75 CPR(3d) 451,459-460.
② Estate v Stoddart Publishing, [1996] O.J. No.3288, September 26,1996.Gould Estate v Stoddart Publishing, (1998),39 O.R. (3d) 545; (1998),161 D.L.R. (4th) 321; (1998),80 C.P.R. (3d) 161; (1998),114 O.A.C.178, May 6th 1998
① Simon Smith, Image, Persona and the Law, London:Sweet & Maxwell Ltd.2001,p2
② K. Zweigert & H. Kotz, Introduction to Comparative Law,3rd edn (Oxford 1998),702.
③ Samuel Warren & Louis Brandeis, The Right to Privacy,4 Harv. L. Rev (1890),193,195-212
① Roberson v. Rochester Folding Box Co.,171 NY 538 (1902).
② Ibid,171 NY 538 (1902),542-543
③ Roberson v. Rochester Folding Box Co.,64 N.E.442 (1902).
④ Pavesich v. New England Life Insurance Co.,122 Ga.190,50 S.E.68 (Ga 1905).
⑤ Pavesich v. New England Life Insurance Co.,122 Ga.190,50 S.E.68 (Ga 1905).
①50 SE.68(1905),69-70.
②50 SE.68(1905),78-80.
③ William Prosser的见解,侵犯隐私权的情形主要包括打扰宁静(intrusion upon one's seclusion)、披露私人事情(the public disclosure of private facts)、虚假暴光(false light privacy)、基于商业目的盗用他人的名字和肖像(the misappropriation of one's name and likeness for commercial purposes)等See William Prosser, Privacy,48 CAL. L. REV (1960) p.383,389.《侵权法重述》第652条B对隐私空间的侵入；第652条C盗用他人的姓名或肖像,第652条D公开私生活,第652条E扭曲他人形象公之于众。
① Flecher/Rubin, Privacy, Publicity, and the Portrayal of Real People by the Media,88 YALE L. J.1577 (1978-1979), p.1582
② William L. Prosser, Privacy,48 Cal. L. Rev. (1960) 383, p.388-389.
③ See William L. Prosser, Privacy,48 Cal. L. Rev. (1960) 383,p.400-407.
① Edward J. Bloustein, Privacy as Human Dignity,39 N. Y. U. L. Rev. (1964) 962, p.968.
② See Edward J. Bloustein, Privacy as Human Dignity,39 N. Y. U. L. Rev. (1964) 962, p.965.
③ See William L. Prosser, Privacy,48 Cal. L. Rev. (1960) 383, p.401.
④ See William L. Prosser, Privacy,48 Cal. L. Rev. (1960) 383, p.406.
⑤ See William L. Prosser, Privacy,48 Cal. L. Rev. (1960) 383, p.405.
⑥ See William L. Prosser, Privacy,48 Cal. L. Rev. (1960) 383, p.405.
① Huw Beverley-Smith, The commercial appropriation of Personality, Cambridge University Press,2008, p.156.
② See William L. Prosser, Privacy,48 Cal. L. Rev. (1960) 383, p.407.
③ Marc A. Franklin,Robert L. Rabin, Michael D. Green, Tort Law and Alternatives cases and Materials(Eight Edition), Thomson west Foundation Press,2006,p.1208
④ Munden v. Harris,134 SW 1076(1911).
⑤ Munden v. Harris,134 SW 1076 (1911).,134 SW 1076 (1911), p.1078.
⑥ 134 SW 1076 (1911),1079.
① Edison v. Edison Polyform Mfg. Co.,73 N.J.Eq.136,67 A.392 (1907).
② Edison v. Edison Polyform Mfg. Co.,73 N.J.Eq.136,67 A.392-394 (1907).
③ Flake v. Greensboro News Co.,212 N.C.780,195 S.E.55 (1938).
④ Flake v. Greensboro News Co.,212 N.C.780,195 S.E.55 (1938).Id.,212 N.C.780,195 S.E.55, p.62-64.
⑤ Uproar Co. v. N.B.C.,8 F. Supp.358 (D. Mass.1934), p.361.
① Samuel Warren & Louis Brandeis, The Right to Privacy,4 Harv. L. Rev (1890),205.
② Julius C. S. Pinckaers, From Privacy Toward a New Intellectual Property Right in Persona, Kluwer Hague,1996.p. 24. Huw Beverley-Smith, Ansgar Ohly and Agn6s Lucas-Schloetter, Privacy, Property and Personality:Civil Law Perspectives on Commercial Appropriation, Cambridge University Press,2005. p.53.
① Melvin v. Reid,112 Cal. App.285,297 P.91, p.92 (1931);Leon R Yankwich, the Right of Privacy,27 Notre Dame Law,499(1952)
② O'Brien v. Pabst Sales Co.,124 F 2d 167 (5th Cir.1941).
③ 124 F 2d 167 (5th Cir.1941),170.
① M. B. Nimmer, The Right of Publicity,19 Law & Contemp. Probs (1954), p 203,205-206.
② 304 N. Y.354,107 N. E.2d 485 (1952).
③ 304 N. Y.354,107 N. E.2d 485 (1952).
④ Chavez v. Hollywood American Legin PostNo.43,16 U. S. L. Week 2362 (U. S. Feb.3,1948).
⑤ M. B. Nimmer, The Right of Publicity,19 Law & Contemp. Probs (1954),203,206.
⑥ O'Brien v. Pabst Sales Co.,124 F 2d 167 (5th Cir.1941).,p171.
① 40 Cal.2d 224,253 P.2d 441 (1953).
② M. B. Nimmer, The Right of Publicity,19 Law & Contemp. Probs (1954),203,207.
③ O'Brien v. Pabst Sales Co.,124 F 2d 167 (5th Cir.1941).,p169-170.
④[美]阿丽塔·L·艾伦,理查德·C·托克音顿.美国隐私法学说判例与立法[M].冯建妹等译.中国民主法制出版社.2004.289.
⑤ M. B. Nimmer, The Right of Publicity,19 Law & Contemp. Probs (1954),203,209. See also, Julius C. S. Pinckaers, From Privacy toward a New Intellectual Property Right in Persona, (Kluwer Hague 1996), P.24-25.
①[美]阿丽塔·L·艾伦,理查德·C·托克音顿.美国隐私法学说判例与立法[M].冯建妹等译.中国民主法制出版社.2004.289.
②Hanna Mfg.Co.v.Hillerich & Bradsby Co.,78 F. 2d 763(5th Cir.1936).
③78F.2d 763(5th Cir. 1936),766.
④78F. 2d 763(5th Cir. 1936),766.
① Miller v. Madison Square Garden,278 App.Div.438,106 N.Y.S.2d 553,556 (1st Dep't 1951), aff'd 304 N.Y.354, 107 N.E.2d 485 (1952)在Fisher v. Murray M. Rosenberg Inc.案Fisher v. Murray M. Rosenberg, Inc.,175 Misc. 370,23 N. Y. S.2d 677 (Sup. Ct.1940).
② Fisher v. Murray M. Rosenberg, Inc.,175 Misc.370,23 N. Y. S.2d 679 (Sup. Ct.1940).
③ Bronwn Denicola, Case on Copyright, Unfair Competition and Related Topics,5th. ed.,Foundation Press, p.685.
④ Haelan Laboratories Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum Inc.,202 F.2d 866 (2nd Cir.1953).
①202F. 2d 866(2nd Cir. 1953).
①202 F.2d 866(2nd Cir.1953),868.
②180 Fed.688(2d Cir.1910).
③8 F.Supp.358,361(D.Mass.1934).
④202 F. 2d 866(2nd Cir.1953),868.
⑤Huw Beverley.Smith,The commercial appropriation of Personality,Cambridge University Press,2008,p 176.
① Huw Beverley-Smith, The commercial appropriation of Personality, Cambridge University Press,2008, p175.
② Martin Luther King, Jr., Center for Social Change, Inc. v. American Heritage Products, Inc.,250 Ga.135,296 S.E.2d 697 (1982).p704
③ Halpern, The of Publicity:Commercial Exploitation of the Associative Value Personality,39 VAND. L. REV. 1199(1986), p.1217; Hyldon, Baseball Cards and the Birth of the Right of Publicity:The Curious Case of Haelan Laboratories v. Topps Chewing Gum,12 MARQ. SPORT L. REV.273 (2001), p.274.
④ J.R..Grodin, Rights of Publicity and Privacy:A Doctrinal Innovation(1954) 19 Law ContProbl, p203.
⑤ Stickler v. National Broadcasting Co.,167 F Supp at 70 (SD Cal 1958). hts. McCarthy, The Right of Publicity and Privacy, Vol.Ⅰ, West Group,1999, § 1.9,1-36,
① Hogan v. A. S. Barnes & Co. Inc,114 U.S. P. Q.314 (Pa. Comm. Pl.1957).
② Hogan v. A. S. Barnes & Co. Inc,114 U.S. P. Q.314 (Pa. Comm. Pl.1957),320-321.
③ Hogan v. A. S. Barnes & Co. Inc,114 U.S. P. Q.314 (Pa. Comm. Pl. 1957),320.
④ Hogan v. A. S. Barnes & Co. Inc,114 U.S. P. Q.314 (Pa. Comm. Pl.1957),320.
⑤ 316 F Supp.1277(1970).
⑥ 316 F Supp.1277 (1970),1282.
① J. Thomas. McCarthy, Rights of Publicity and Privacy, Deerfield, vii (Rev.1993)§1.10.
② Motschenbacher v. R.J. Reynolds Tovacco Co.,498 F 2d 821 (9th Cir.1974),p.826.
③ Gordon, Right of Property in Name, Likeness, Personality and History,55 Nw. U.L.Rev.553 (1960).
④ Gordon, Right of Property in Name, Likeness, Personality and History,55 Nw. U.L.Rev.553 (1960), p.556.
⑤ Gordon, Right of Property in Name, Likeness, Personality and History,55 Nw. U.L.Rev.553 (1960), p.557-558.
⑥ Gordon, Right of Property in Name, Likeness, Personality and History,55 Nw. U.L.Rev.553 (1960), p.611-612
⑦ Gordon, Right of Property in Name, Likeness, Personality and History,55 Nw. U.L.Rev.553 (1960), p612.
⑧ Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.,433 US 562 (1977).
①Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.,433 US 562 (1977),573-576.
① H. Kalven, Privacy in Tort Law:Were Warren and Brandeis Wrong? 31 Law & Contemp. Probs (1966) 326,331.
② 385 U.S.374,17 L.Ed.2d 456,87 S.Ct.534 (1967).
③ New York Times Co. v. Sullivan,376 U.S.254,84 S.Ct. 710,11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964).
④ 376 U.S.254,11 L.Ed.2d 686,84 S.Ct.710,95 A.L.R.2d 1412 (1964).
⑤ 433 US 562 (1977),572.
⑥ 433 US 562 (1977),573.
① Nimmer为文当时,为派拉蒙电影公司(Paramount Pictures Corp.)法务部门之首长,Harold R. Gordon, Right of Property in Name, Likeness, Personality and History,55 Nw. U. L. Rev (1960-1961),553,p 607.
② M. B. Nimmer, The Right of Publicity,19 Law & Contemp. Probs (1954),203-204.
③ M. B. Nimmer, The Right of Publicity,19 Law & Contemp. Probs (1954),203,216.
④ M. B. Nimmer, The Right of Publicity,19 Law & Contemp. Probs (1954),203,216-217.
⑤ M. B. Nimmer, The Right of Publicity,19 Law & Contemp. Probs (1954),203,217.
⑥ Ausness教授也认为公开权保护两种利益：在大多数的案件中,公开权保护的是“识别价值”,公开权的价值来源于将名人的姓名和肖像与某种商品联系在一起,以促销此类商品；此外,公开权还保护“表演价值”。公开权不仅保护个人在人格标志上的商业价值免遭未经许可的商业利用,还保护个人的现场表演免遭他人的复制。Ausness, The Right of Publicity:a'Haystack in a Hurricane',55 Temp. L. Q. (1982) 977,980-994.
⑦433US 562(1977).
① McCarthy, Melville B. Nimmer and the Right of Publicity:A Tribute,34 UCLA L. REV.1703 (1987),p1706.
② J. Thomas. McCarthy, Rights of Publicity and Privacy, Deerfield, vii (Rev.1993). From, Julius C. S. Pinckaers, From Privacy Toward a New Intellectual Property Right in Persona, (Kluwer Hague 1996), P.29.
③ J. Thomas McCarthy, Public Personas and Private Property:The Commercialization of Human Identity,79, Trademark Rep. (1989) 681,687.
① See Restatement (Second) of torts §652, comment a.
② Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition §46 (1995).《不正当竞争法重述(第三次)》第47条还承认了未经许可播放他人的表演或者持续性地模仿他人的表演风格也构成对该他人公开权的侵犯。
③就美国目前的规范现况而言,以普通法承认公开权者,共十一州阿拉巴马、亚利桑纳、康乃狄克、乔治亚、夏威夷、缅因、密西根、明尼苏达、密苏里、纽泽西、奥勒冈。；以成文法承认者,则有十九州。加州、佛罗里达、伊利诺、印第安那、肯塔基、麻塞诸塞、内布拉斯加、内华达、俄亥俄、奥克拉荷马、宾州、罗德岛、田纳西、德州、犹他、维吉尼亚、华盛顿、威斯康辛、纽约州。资料来源：National Conference of State Legislatures, http://www.ncsl.org/programs/lis/privacy/publicity04.htm.
④ Marc A. Franklin,Robert L. Rabin, Michael D. Green, Tort Law and Alternatives cases and Materials(Eight Edition), Thomson west Foundation Press,2006,p.1122
①由于《加利福尼亚州民权法案》第99条和第3344条条文很长,故不再正文中译出,请参见附录部分。
① EG. M. B. Nimmer, The Right of Publicity,19 Law & Contemp. Probs (1954),203,217; Harold R. Gordon, Right of Property in Name, Likeness, Personality and History,55 Nw. U. L. Rev (1960-1961),553,610-612; J. Thomas McCarthy, Public Personas and Private Property:The Commercialization of Human Identity,79, Trademark Rep. (1989) 681,686; James M. Treece, Commercial Exploitation of Names, Likenesses and Personal Histories,51 Tex. L. Rev. (1972-1973) 637,648.
② 498 F.2d 821 (9th Cir.1974).
③ 498 F.2d 821 (9th Cir.1974),824
④ 97 N. J. Super.327 (N. J. Super. L.1967).
⑤ 97 N. J. Super.327 (N. J. Super. L.1967),351.
⑥ Groucho Marx Productions, Inc. V. Day & Night Co.,523 F Supp 485, rev'd on other grounds,689 F.2d 317,216 USPQ 553 (2d Cir.1982).
⑦ Tenn. Stat § 47-25-1103(b).Martin Luther King Jr. Ctr. v. American Heritage Products,296 S.E.2d 697 (Ga 1982), p.706. J. Thomas McCarthy, Public Personas and Private Property:The Commercialization of Human Identity,79 在 Martin Luther King Jr. Ctr. v. American Heritage Production一案的判决中,乔治亚州最高法院明确否定所谓生前利用要件,其意旨为,死者在生前拒绝利用其名气获利,有其自身之考量,法律应加以保护。一个知名的牧师藉其名气获利,会伤害其传道。应保护其家属得控制、维护并延展其人格形象及死后名声。
⑧ Haelan Laboratories Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum Inc.,202 F.2d 866 (2nd Cir.1953). Halpern, The of Publicity: Commercial Exploitation of the Associative Value Personality,39 VAND. L. REV.1199 (1986), p.1217; Hyldon, Baseball Cards and the Birth of the Right of Publicity:The Curious Case of Haelan Laboratories v. Topps Chewing Gum,12 MARQ. SPORT L. REV.273 (2001), p.274.
① Estate of Presley v. Russen,513 F. Supp.1339 (D.N.J.1981)
② Lugosi v. Universal Pictures Co. Inc.,172 USPQ 541 (Cal Super 1972), rv 25 Cal 3d 813,160 Cal Rptr 323,603 P2d 425,205 USPQ 1090 (1979).
③ Guglielmi v. Spelling-Goldberg Prods.,73 Cal. App.3d 436,140 Cal.Rptr.775 (Cal.App.2 Dist.1977).
④ Groucho Marx Productions, Inc. v. Day & Night Co.,523 F. Supp.485 (S.D.N.Y.1981), rev'd on other grounds, 689 F.2d 317 (2d Cir.1982).
⑤ Martin Luther King, Jr., Center for Social Change, Inc. v. American Heritage Product, Inc.,296 S.E.2d 697 (Ga. 1982).
⑥ Hicks v. Casablanca Records,464 F. Supp.426 (S.D.N.Y.1978).
⑦ 616 F.2d 956 (6th Cir 1980).
⑧ Lugosi v. Universal Pictures.25 Cal.3d 813(1979),821-824.
⑨ Lugosi v. Universal Pictures Co. Inc.,400 F. Supp.836 (S. D. N. Y.1975),843-844.
⑩ Martin Luther King Jr. Ctr. v. American Heritage Production,250 Ga.135 (1982),145-146.
11 State ex. Rel. Elvis Presley It Mem'Found v. Cromwell,733 S.W.2d 89,98-99 (Tenn. App..1977).
①例如加利福尼亚州《民权法案》规定死者公开权的保护期限一直推延到其死后的第50年,田纳西则规定10年,维吉尼亚州是死后20年,而奥克拉荷马州及印第安那州的死后保护期为100年。See Wikipedia, Personality rights, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights. hts. McCarthy, The Right of Publicity and Privacy, Vol.Ⅰ, West Group,1999, § 6.3 Charts of Statutory Provisions.
② Julius C. S. Pinckaers, From Privacy Toward a New Intellectual Property Right in Persona, (Kluwer Hague 1996), P.63.; McCarthy.the Right of Publicity and Privacy,§3.6[F](Rev.1993.); Douglass V.Hustler Magazine,Inc.,769
F.2d1128,p 1140,11 Media L.Rep.2264(C.A.7 1985).
③ Welch v. Mr. Christmas, Inc.,57 N.Y.2d 143 (1982).see http:/www.courts.state.ny.us/comdiv/Law%20Report%20Files/VOL%209%20NO%202/Austin%20Schoeman.pdf.
① Hoerst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, JC:B:Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tubingen,1994, S. 215-216
② McCarthy, The Right of Publicity and Privacy, Vol.1, West Group,1999, § 3.4 [C],3-18. Hirsch v. Johnson & Son, Inc.,90 Wis 2d 379,280 NW2d 129 (Sup. Ct. Wis.1979), p.137; Negriv. Schering Corp.,333 F. Supp.101 (S.D.N.Y.1971), p.104
③ Pesina v. Midway Mfg. Co.,948 F Supp 40 (ND Ill 1996), p.42.
④ hts. McCarthy, The Right of Publicity and Privacy, Vol.Ⅰ, West Group,1999, § 3.4 [D],3-20.
⑤ Midler v. Ford Motor Co.,849 F.2d 460 (9th Cir.1988); Waits v. Frito-Lay Inc.,978 F.2d 1093 (C.A.9 1992)
⑥⑥ Carson v. Here's Johnny Portable Toilets Inc.,698 F.2d 831 (6th Cir.1983).
⑦ Motschenbacher v. R. J. Reynnolds Tobacco Co.,498 F.2d 821 (9th Cir.1974). Cf. Bronson v. Fawcett Publications,124 F. Supp.429 (E.D.Ill.1954). Motchenbacher v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.498 F.2d 821 (9thCir.1974).被告在威士顿香烟的电视广告中,使用了著名的赛车手LotharMotchenbacher所驾驶的车的照片。法院认为：虽然原告的脸部特征没有出现在广告中,但是,原告一直驾驶着一部和其他的赛车手不同的车,而且公众知道这辆车就是原告所使用的车；而被告在电视广告中凸显了这辆车,很明显,被告希望通过这样的凸显标识出原告；所以,被告的行为构成了对原告的公开权的侵犯。
⑧ White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,91 F.2d 1395 (9th Cir.1992). White v. Samsung Electronics AmericaInc案中第九巡回法院在谈到这种主张的理由时说道：“被告是怎样窃占原告的人格标志的,这并不重要,重要的是被告是否这么做了……如果认为只有当被告采用九种不同的方式窃占原告的人格标志时,才构成对原告公开权的侵犯,这样的一条规则只会挑战那些广告业的谋略家们采取第十种方式。”；Wendt v. Host International, Inc.,125 F.3d 806 (9th Cir.1997).
① M. B. Nimmer, The Right of Publicity,19 Law & Contemp. Probs (1954),203,216.;Ausness, The Right of Publicity:a'Haystack in a Hurricane',55 Temp. L. Q. (1982) 977,980-994.;J. Thomas McCarthy, Public Personas and Private Property:The Commercialization of Human Identity,79, Trademark Rep. (1989) 681,687.Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition ⑥46 (1995).;Marc A. Franklin,Robert L. Rabin, Michael D:Green, Tort Law and Alternatives cases and Materials(Eight Edition), Thomson west Foundation Press,2006,p.1121
② Goodenough, Retheorising Privacy and Publicity, Intellectual Property Quaterly,1997,1, p 37-70.
③ Presley's Estate V.Russen,513 F.Supp.1339,211 u.s.p.Q,415(D.C.N.J.1981)
④ J. Thomas. McCarthy, Rights of Publicity and Privacy, Deerfield, ⑥3.1[B] (Rev.1993). Cited,Julius C. S. Pinckaers, From Privacy Toward a New Intellectual Property Right in Persona, (Kluwer Hague 1996), P.62-63.
① See,California Civil Code section 99 and 3344.
② Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition §49 commernt d.
③ Zim v. Western Publishing Co.,573 F 2d (1978) (5th Cir CA),1327.
④ Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition §49 commernt d.
⑤ Zim v. Western Publishing Co.,573 F 2d (1978) (5th Cir CA),1327.
⑥ Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition §49 commernt d.
⑦ Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition §49 commernt d.
① EDWARD J. KIONKA, Torts, Wset Group,1992, p 25 et seq.李亚虹.美国侵权法[M].北京：法律出版社.1999,76-87.
② 936 F.2d 889 (6th Cir.1991).
③ 936 F.2d 889 (6th Cir.1991),896.
④ Julius C. S. Pinckaers, From Privacy Toward a New Intellectual Property Right in Persona, (Kluwer Hague 1996), P.64.
① Bronwn Denicola, Case on Copyright, Unfair Competition and Related Topics,5th. ed.,Foundation Press, p.685.
①在英文文献中经常会出现"endorsement"-一词,该词的本意是票据的背书行为,在本文语境中学者们翻译出来的词汇花样翻新,有的翻译为“认证”,有的翻译为“背书”,笔者探究文义和上下文语境,将其译为“许可使用”更好理解,也贴近文义,下文不再赘述。
② Howell, The Common Law Appropriation of Personality Tort, (1986) 2, [Can] IPJ,p149,170-172.
① Athens v. Canadian Adventure Camps Lts,(1977) 34 C.P.R.2d 126,p136.
① Marc A. Franklin,Robert L. Rabin, Michael D. Green, Tort Law and Alternatives cases and Materials(Eight Edition), Thomson west Foundation Press,2006,p.1209
① Cour d'Appel de Paris,1 June 1947, Annales de la Propriete Intellectuelle 1940-1948,p 395.
② Charles de Haas, Chapter 11 France, Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 144-145.
③ Philippe v France Editions Publications,Cour d'Appel de Paris,Semaine Juridique 1965, No.14223.
① Brigitte Bardot v. Beaverbrook Ltd., Tribunal Grand Instance Seine, Semaine Juridique 1966, No.14521.
② Rosa Biasini (Romy Schneider) v. Societe Union des Editions modernes and Daniel Angeli, Cour d'appel de Paris.Semaine Juridique 1980, No.19343.
③ Rosa Biasini (Romy Schneider) v. Societe Union des Editions modernes and Daniel Angeli, Cour d'appel de Paris,Semaine Juridique 1980, No.19343.
④ Francoise Bornet v. R.Doisneau,GP 1994,16.
⑤ Johnny Halliday v. Soc. Hachette Filipachi,Arret No.979 P, La S6maine Juridique Edition Generale 2001, p.937 No.10524.
⑥ T.G.I. Paris,1982,D.1983,147.
① [Claude]Pieplu v. Regie Francaise de Publicite T.G.I. Paris, December 3,1975,D.1977 221.
② Les Editions Sand & M. Pascuito v. M.Kantor, Mme Colucci; CA Paris, September 10,1996,R.D.P.I., NO.68.63.
① Bundesgerichtshof, Nena, (1987) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift RR 231.
② Bundesgerichtshof, Fuchsberger, (1992) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2084.
① BGH Caroline von Monaco, (1996) NJW,984-985.
② Bundesgerichtshof, Fuchsberger, (1992) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2084.
③ Bundesgerichtshof, Fuchsberger, (1992) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2084.
④ BGHZ Herrenreiter,,26,349.
⑤ Thomas R Kloetzel, Chapter 12, from Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 179.
① BGHZ 15,107,111; BGHZ 21,85,90ff; BGHZ 28,320,322ff; NJW=RR 1990,1318,1319ff; GRUR Int.1984, 246,248.另参见邵建东.德国反不正当竞争法研究[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2001.240.
② Michael Gerlinger part3 germany, Ian S.Blackshaw and Robert C.R. Siekmann,Sport Image Rights In Europe,Hague:T.M.C.Asser press, The Hague, The Netherlands,2005, p 121.
① Boeckh GRUR 2001, p.33
② LG Dusseldorf NJW-RR 1998,p.979.
③ Michael Gerlinger part3 germany, Ian S.Blackshaw and Robert C.R. Siekmann,Sport Image Rights In Europe,Hague:T.M.C.Asser press, The Hague, The Netherlands,2005,p 122. Civil Appeal No 20.904 (Campinas)—Lapis Johann Faber v. L Faber & Cia Ltda, in Revista dos Tribunais no 101, May 1936。 Federal Court of Appeals of the City of La Plata, Division I, judgement rendered on 30 March 1979, La Ley 14 November 1979.
④ Michael Gerlinger part3 germany, Ian S.Blackshaw and Robert C.R. Siekmann,Sport Image Rights In Europe.Hague:T.M.C.Asser press, The Hague, The Netherlands,2005, p 121.
① Marlene Dietrich Urteil.BGHZ 143,214; NJW 2000,2195;NJW 2001,2317.
② Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 264.
① Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 265.
② Martucelli, An Up-and-coming right-The Right of Publicity:Its Birth in Italy and its Consideration in the United States,4 Ent. L. Rev.109 p.115(1993).
③ Lucio Dalla v. Autovox,Pretura di Roma,April 18,1984, For,1,2030.
④ Monica Vitti v. Doimo SpA, Rizzoli Periodici SpA and Rusconi Editore SpA, Pretura di Roma, July 6,1987, in Dir. Aut p.774.
⑤ Marchesi v. Federazione Europea Cuochi d'Oro.
① Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 266-267.
② Martucelli, An Up-and-coming right-The Right of Publicity:Its Birth in Italy and its Consideration in the United States,4 Ent. L. Rev.109 p.115(1993).
③ Loeb, Naam en recht, Ptaktische beschrijving van bet naamrecht in Nederland,1990, p.122. from Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p.311
① [Dutch Football team] District Court the Hague,16 May 1986,IER 1986, No.56, P.120. from Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p.311
② Technisch Bureau v. Dover, NJ 1958,31.
③ Bert-Jan van den Akker and Dolf Segaar, part1 The Netherlands, Ian S.Blackshaw and Robert C.R. Siekmann.Sport Image Rights In Europe,Hague:T.M.C.Asser press, The Hague, The Netherlands,2005,p 17.
① Ja zuster/nee zuster",NJ 1970,220.
② Bert-Jan van den Akker and Dolf Segaar, part1 The Netherlands, Ian S.Blackshaw and Robert C.R. Siekmann,Sport
Image Rights In Europe,Hague:T.M.C.Asser press, The Hague, The Netherlands,2005,p13-14.
③ [Teddy Scholten] Pres. District Court Rotterdam, April 14,1959,648
④ Het schaep met de vijf poten, NJ 1979,73.
⑤ Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 317-318.
⑥ Bert-Jan van den Akker and Dolf Segaar, part1 The Netherlands, Ian S.Blackshaw and Robert C.R. Siekmann,Sport Image Rights In Europe,Hague:T.M.C.Asser press, The Hague, The Netherlands,2005, p21.
⑦ Mies Bouwman v. Fino Fabrieken, Dristrict Court Zwolle,11.24,1971, NJ 1972,285.
① Spoor/Verkade, Auteursrecht,1993, chpater; Oppenoorth, Fracets of Dutch Portrait law, Copyright Word, (1998)38,p.28.; Nimmer-Geller International Copyright Law and Practice.
②一般而言,世界上绝大多数国家将肖像权要么规定在民法典中,要么规定在诸如著作权法等特别法,属于私法上的权利,而西班牙将其上升到宪法的高度。
① Emilio Arag6n Alvarez v Proborin, S.L., STC 81/2001, Recurso de amparp.
② Dofia Elena Riera Blume v Interviu20010726 《 BOE》 num.178 156/2001.
① Simon Smith, Image, Persona and the Law, London:Sweet & Maxwell Ltd.2001, p.30.
② Simon Smith, Image, Persona and the Law, London:Sweet & Maxwell Ltd.2001, p.30.
③ RB v. Ediciones Zeta SA。 From, Simon Smith, Image, Persona and the Law, London:Sweet & Maxwell Ltd. 2001,p31.
④ LRC,8-VI-1957,BOE,No 151,10-VI-1957
⑤ STS 26-1-1990, RJ 1990/26.
① Isabel Hernando, Chapter 26, Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 404-405.
② Isabel Hernando, Chapter 26, Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 405
③ STS 10-X-1992.RJ 1992/8079.
④ Art.1902 Spanish Codigo Civil:"El que por accion u omision causa dano a otro, interviniendo culpa o negligencia, esta obligado a reparar el dano causado", Real Orden De 29 De Julio De 1889; Art.2043 Italian Codice Civile: "Qualunque fatto doloso o colposo, che cagiona ad altri un danno ingiusto, obbliga colui che ha commesso il fatto a risarcire il danno (Cod. Pen.185).", R.D.16 marzo 1942, n.262 Approvazione del testo del Codice Civile (Pubblicato nella edizione straordinaria della Gazzetta Ufficiale, n.79 del 4 aprile 1942).
⑤ Julius C.S. Pinckaers, From Privacy toward a New Intellectual Property Right in Persona, (Kluwer Hague 1996), p 12
①五十岚清.人格权法[M].铃木贤,葛敏译.北京：北京大学出版社.2009.116-140.
①东京地判昭和51.6.29,「判例畴报」 817号第23页。
③东京地判平成2.12.21,「判例时报」 1400号第10页。
④东京高判平成3.9.26,「判例时报」第1400号第3页。。
⑥东京高判平14.7.17,「判例时报」 1809号第39页。
①具体详见五十岚清.人格权法[M].铃木贤,葛敏译.北京：北京大学出版社.2009.149.
③「藤冈弘」事件,富山地裁昭和61.10.31,「判例时报」 1218号128页。
④ Japanese Supreme Court, Mark Lester v Tokyo Daiichi Film, Tokky (Patent and Enterprise) Sep.1976, p.47; Japanese Supreme Court of 11.6.1986, Minsh 40-4, p.872.
⑥ H Ruijsenaars, "Character Merchandising:A European view on Japanese case law", (1996) 7 (3) Entertainment Law Review, p.111.
①名古屋地判平12.1.19,「判例タィムズ」 1070号第223页,
②大阪高判平13.3.8,「判例时报」 1071号第294页
④东京地判平13.8.27,「判例时报」 1758号第3页。
⑤东京高判平14.9.12,「判例タィムズ」 1114号第187页。
⑦横滨地判平4.6.4「判例时报」 1434号第116页
① Charles de Haas, Chapter 11 France, Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 148.
②[法]雅克·盖斯旦,吉勒·.法国民法总论[M].陈鹏等译.北京：法律出版社,2004.164.
③ Tribunal de Grande Instance de la Seine,22 October 1963,p 1964.1.86.
④ Charles de Haas, Chapter 11 France, Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 148.
① Cour d'Appel de Paris,10 July 1957 Dalloz 1957.622.
② [Mr Pic]Cour d'Appel de Paris,7 February 1989 Dalloz 1990.124.
③ Charles de Haas, Chapter 11 France, Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 149.
④ Cour d'Appel de Paris,30 October 1985, Annales de la Propriete Industrielle 1986, p157.
⑤ Charles de Haas, Chapter 11 France, Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London,
Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 149.
⑥ Cassation Civile,19December 1967 and 26 May 1970, Annales de la Propriete Industrielle 1968,p 188 and 1970, p 98.
① Paul Mathely-Le Nouveau Droit des Signes Distinctfs, EdJNA 1994, p 192.
② Cassation Commercaile,26 April 1988, Annales de la Propriete Intellectuelle 1988,p 163.
③ Charles de Haas, Chapter 11 France, Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 151.
④ Tribunal de Grande Instance de Chalon-sur-Saone,29 July 1988 Bulletin Information Cour de Cassation 1989 1/2,No.135.
⑤ Charles de Haas, Chapter 11 France, Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 150.
① [Au Due de Praslin] Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, May 25,1984 Gazette de Palais 1996 No.215 & 216, p11.
② See Jurisclasseur Ed E 1997, supplement No 5, p 30.
③石井智弥：「人格权固有の利益の保护」,露木美幸、柴山美穗等「专修法研论集」第32号,2003(平成15)年发行,P25-33。
③ Gaillard," La double nature du droit a l'image et ses consequences en droit positif francais", D.1984, Chron.161.; Serna L'image des personnes physiques et des biens 1997. P.48.;Beignier L'honneur et le droit t.234, LGDL.1995, p.74s.
① [Valery Giscard] d'Estaing v. M.Ways, T.GI. Nancy, October 22,1976,JCP 1977, Ⅱ,18526.
② CA Paris,11 ech., July 2,1997.D.1977,596.
③ Philippe v France Editions Publications,Cour d'Appel de Paris.Semaine Juridique 1965, No.14223.
④ Brigitte Bardot v. Beaverbrook Ltd., Tribunal Grand Instance Seine, Semaine Juridique 1966, No.14521.
① Brigitte Bardot v. Beaverbrook Ltd., Tribunal Grand Instance Seine, Semaine Juridique 1966, No.14521.
② Rosa Biasini (Romy Schneider) v. Societe Union des Editions modernes and Daniel Angeli, Cour d'appel de Paris,Semaine Juridique 1980, No.19343.
③ Rosa Biasini (Romy Schneider) v. Societe Union des Editions modernes and Daniel Angeli, Cour d'appel de Paris.Semaine Juridique 1980, No.19343.
④ Chambre Civile 1,8 janvier 1980, Jacqueline H.,78-14218,Revue trimestrielle de droit civil,1983,.
⑤ Chambre Civile 1,8 janvier 1980, Jacqueline H.,78-14218,Revue trimestrielle de droit civil,1983, n.1, p.116.
① Farah Diba,Chambre Civile 1,86-15524,13 avril 1988,Bulletin 1988 Ⅰ N° 98.
② Farah Diba,Chambre Civile 1,86-15524,13 avril 1988,Bulletin 1988 Ⅰ N° 98 p.67.
①[法]雅克·盖斯旦,吉勒·古博.法国民法总论[M].陈鹏等译.北京：法律出版社,2004.172.
②[Petula Clark]JCP 1966,Ⅱ.14711.
① [Petula Clark] JCP 1966,Ⅱ.14711.
② JCP 1966,Ⅱ.14890.
③ Cf Denis Tallon,Repertoire. Civil Dalloz, October 1996, ss7 and 11.
④ B Sa. C., Cour D'Appel Bordeaux, La Semaine Juridique 1999, No.1641
① B Sa. C., Cour D'Appel Bordeaux, La Semaine Juridique 1999, No.1641
② 200,000 Francs for Caroline de Monaco, Tribunal de Grande Instance de Nanterre 8 April 1998, Legipresse 1998 No 155 Ⅰ,122.
③ Astier v. Julien,Cour de Cassation, La Semaine Juridique 2001, No.1255
① See Lindon, Les droits de la personnalite,1983,114-120.
② Logeais, The French Right to One's Image:A Legal Lure? 5 Ent.L.Rev.163 (1994).,p.166.
③ Charles de Haas, Chapter 11 France, Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 145.
①Charles de Haas, Chapter 11 France, Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 152.
②[Catherine]Deneuve v. Siemens, T.G.I. lere Ch.1987.
① Brun v. Expobat,Trib. Gr. Inst. Aix-en-Province, November 24,1988, Jurisclasseur 1989, Ⅱ21 329.
② Charles de Haas, Chapter 11 France, Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 153.
③ Logeais, The French Right to One's Image:A Legal Lure? 5 Ent.L.Rev.163 (1994).,p.164
④ Stoufflet,"Le droit de la personne sur son image", JCP.157.Ⅰ.1374.
①Stoufflet,"Le droit de la personne sur son image", JCP.157.1.1374.
②Gaillard," La double nature du droit a l'image et ses consequences en droit positif francais", D.1984, Chron.161.
③Gaillard," La double nature du droit a l'image et ses consequences en droit positif francais", D.1984, Chron.161.
④Acquarone," l'ambiguite du droit a l'image", D.1985, Chron.129.
⑤Serna L'image des personnes physiques et des biens 1997. P.48.
①Beignier L'honneur et le droit t.234, LGDL,1995, p.74s.
②Goubeaux DROIT CIVIL les personnes,1989 n.316.
① D.1993.IR.118.
② D.1993.IR.118.
③ Trib. Gr. Inst. Lyon, December 17,1980, D.1981,202.
④ Miss X v. Atlas, Chambre Civile 1,27 mars 1990,88-18396,Bulletin 1990 1 N° 72 p.52.
⑤ janvier, Chambre civile 1,13,95-13694, Bulletin 19981 N° 14.
⑥ janvier, Chambre civile 1,13,95-13694, Bulletin 19981 N° 14 p.9.
⑦ Laporte P., Fedou and Coupin JJ.,Sas Calendriners Jean Lavigne v Ste Universal Music, cour d'appel, Versailes,September 22,2005. [2006]E.M.L.R.22,Issue 5, September-October,2006 P.679-.
① Laporte P., Fedou and Coupin JJ.,Sas Calendriners Jean Lavigne v Ste Universal Music, cour d'appel, Versailes,September 22,2005.[2006]E.M.L.R.22,Issue 5, September-October,2006, P.679.
② Laporte P., Fedou and Coupin JJ.,Sas Calendriners Jean Lavigne v Ste Universal Music, cour d'appel, Versailes,September 22,2005. [2006]E.M.L.R.22,Issue 5, September-October,2006, P.680-681.
① 200,000 Francs for Caroline de Monaco, Tribunal de Grande Instance de Nanterre 8 April 1998, Legipresse 1998 No 155 Ⅰ.122.
② Charles de Haas, Chapter 11 France, Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 155.
① Michel Leeb v. Xodo, Chambre Civile 1,12 juin 1990,89-11485,Bulletin 19901 N° 164.
② Michel Leeb v. Xodo, Chambre Civile 1,12 juin 1990,89-11485,Bulletin 19901 N° 164 p.116.
① Tribunal de Grande Instance Paris,18 December 1985, Dalloz 1986 IR 446.
② Cour d'appel de Versailes,27 January 2000 D 2000 IR 56.
③ Tribunal de Grande Instance de la Seine,26 June 1966, Jurisclasseur 1966Ⅱ,14875
④ [Gerard]Depardieu v. Suchard T.G.I. Paris, October 17,1984,D.1985,Somm.324.
⑤ Charles de Haas, Chapter 11 France, Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 153.
⑥ Cour d'Appel de Paris,19 September 1994, Revue Trimestrielle de Droit Civil 1995,326.
⑦ Cour d'Appel de Paris,11 February 1987, Dalloz, Som 385.
⑧ Cf Tribunal de Grande Instance Paris, summary proceeding,6 June 1974, J 95.; Cour d'Appel de Paris,14 June 1985, Dalloz 1986 IR 50.
① Cour d'Appel de Paris,26 February 1991, D 1991 2.538.
② Cour d'Appel de Paris,26 February 1991, D 19912.538.; Cassation lere Civile 13 January 1998, Jurisclasseur 1998 Ed G,10.082 and Legipresse 1998 No 52 p 77.
③ Cour d'Appeal de Paris,24 March 1985, Jurisclasseur 1965 Ⅱ 14.305.
④ Isabelle X v Entrevue & Conception de presse, Civile 1,17 september 2003,00-16849.
⑤ Isabelle X v Entrevue & Conception de presse, Civile 1,17 september 2003,00-16849.
⑥ Isabelle X v Entrevue & Conception de presse, Civile 1,17 september 2003,00-16849.
① janvier, Chambre civile 1,13,95-13694, Bulletin 1998 Ⅰ N° 14.
② janvier, Chambre civile 1,13,95-13694, Bulletin 1998 Ⅰ N° 14 p.9.
③ Johnny Halliday v. Soc. Hachette Filipachi,Arret No.979 P, La Semaine Juridique Edition Generale 2001, p.937 No.10524.
① Johnny Halliday v. Soc. Hachette Filipachi,Arret No.979 P, La Semaine Juridique Edition Generale 2001, p.937 No.10524.
① ZWEIGERT&KOTZ, Einfuhrung in die Rechtsvergleichung auf dem Gebiete des Privatrechts", Vol.Ⅱ.Tubingen (1984),464.
①在对德国人格标识商业利益保护进行具体考察前,必须稍加交代的是,德国肖像权和姓名权的内涵远比法国、日本、我国大陆及台湾地区的姓名权和肖像权的内涵狭窄。德国两个法定人格权制定于百年前,其旨在维护主体自身的人格形象不受歪曲和贬损以及维护主体自我形象的正确展示等,尚无法预料晚近以来人格标识的商业利用现象。因此,德国私法上的肖像权和姓名权的内容并不涵摄姓名或肖像上所生的财产利益。经由学说判例的推动,人格标识上的财产利益转由起替补作用的一般人格权制度予以具体规范。德国的一般人格权是具体人格权的补充,不同于我国大陆及台湾地区、日本、韩国将一般人格权视为具体人格权的上位概念。为便于比较法的考察,本文在写作体例上不将德国姓名、肖像上的利益分别以姓名权、肖像权和一般人格权为名单独阐述,而是结合到一起,只以姓名权和肖像权为名展开阐述,在各自相应部分插入一般人格权的保护方式。
②Hefermehl,Festschr fur A Hueck, S.519,520,Aus,Soergel-Heinrich § 12 Rn 2.
③Soergel-Heinrich § 12 Rn 2.
①陈忠诚.姓名权论[J].新法学.第2卷(1).
②[德]卡尔·拉伦茨.德国民法通论[M](上).王晓哗等译.法律出版社.2003.167.
③BGH 43,345.§12,S.43-44.转引自[德]卡尔·拉伦茨.德国民法通论[M](上).王晓哗等译.法律出版社.2003.167.
④王泽鉴.民法总则[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社.2005.134.
① Staudinger-Habermann § 12 Rn 15
② Staudinger-Habermann § 12 Rn 15; Thorsten Funkel, Schutz der Personlichkeit durch Ersatz immaterieller Schaden in Geld, Munchen,2001, S.10; Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.82.
③ Vgl. Hubmann, Das Personlichkeitsrecht,2. Aufl, S.276. Aus, Soergel-Heinrich § 12 Rn 2.
④ Staudinger-Habermann § 12 Rn 16.
⑤ Hoerst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, JC:B:Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tubingen,1994, S.82 f.
⑥有关德国法学界对“无权”解释的百余年之争的阐述,可详见Klippel, Der zivilrechtliche Schutz des Namens,1985,S.375-382.。不过大多数国家民法上的姓名权并无“无权使用同一姓名”的概念,而是泛指有关姓名的一切权利。法国和日本没有明确规定姓名权制度,但是在司法实践中法院均认为做扩大解释。我国台湾地区和大陆民法虽明定“姓名权”,但也无此规定。
⑥ Klippel, Der zivilrechtliche Schutz des Namens,1985, S.379.
① Vgl. Hoerst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, JC:B:Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tubingen,1994.S.84.
②德国曾有学者所主张的姓名隐匿权Vol. Dunnwald, UFITA 49 (1967),129,140f.; Koebel, JZ 1966,389ff.; Neumann-Duesberg, JZ 1970,564,566f.; dies., JZ 1971,305,311; ahnlich schon Bussmann, Name, Fima, Marke, Berlin,1937, S.227f.比一主张遭到联邦最高法院和大多数学者的批评。Forkel, FS fur Hubmann,93,103; Kruger, GRUR 1980,628,633. Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S. 97, Fn.131. Hubmann, Das Personlichkeitsrecht,2. Aufl.,1967, S.280; BGHZ 30,7ff-Caterina Valente. Bruno Seemann, Prominenz als Eigentum:Pararelle Rechtsentwicklung einer Vermarktung der Persoenlichkeit im amerikanischen, deutschen und schweizerischen Persoenlichkeitsschutz,1. Aufl., Baden-Baden,1996, S.137, Fn. 119.
③ Vol. Koehler, BGB Allegemeiner Teil,27. Aufl.2003, S.310.
④[德]迪特尔·梅迪库斯.德国民法总论[M]邵建东等译.法律出版社2001.797
⑤[德]迪特尔·梅迪库斯.德国民法总论[M]邵建东等译.法律出版社2001.799.
①[德]卡尔·拉伦茨.德国民法通论[M](上).王晓晔等译.法律出版社.2003.168.
② Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.86.
③ MunchKomm/Schwerdtner(2001) § 12 Rn 3,183ff; Staudinger-Coing-Habermann § 12 Rn 133; Staudinger-Habermann§ 12 Rn 15,288ff; Soergel-Heinrich §12 Rn 174; RGRK/Krilger-Nieland (1979) § 12 Rn 87.
① Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.86 f.
② Klippel, Diethelm, Der zivilrechtliche Schutz der Namens. Eine historische und dogmatische Untersuchung, Paderborn/Munchen/Wien/Ziirich,1985, S.403.
③ Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.87-88.
④ Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.87-88.
⑤ BGH GRUR 1959,430-Caterina Valente
⑥ BGH GRUR 1981,846-Rennsportgemeinschaft.
①MunchKomm/Schwerdtner(2001) § 12 Rn 191,.
②Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Verm6gensrechte, Tubingen,1995,S.90.
③BGHZ 119,237,245-Universitatswappen.[德]卡尔·拉伦茨著：《德国民法通论》(上册),王晓晔、邵建东、程建英、徐国建、谢怀栻,谢怀拭校,法律出版社.2003.168.“联邦最高法院认为：只有在人们将所推销的产品或劳务以某种方式看作是属于姓名权人时,方可谈的上对姓名权的损害。如果不是这种情况,就可能仅是一般人格权的损害。”
④Schertz, Christian, Merchandising:Rechsgrundlagen und Rechtspraxis, Munchen 1997, S.149.
①MunchKomm,Schwerdtner(2001)§12 Rn 39.
① Wenzel,Das Recht der Wort-und Bildberichterstattung,1994, Absatz 9.7, from Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 179.
① BGH 1954,1 ZR 73/82; WRP 1984,681; MDR 1984,997; GRUR 1984,907.
② BGH GRUR 1959,430-Caterina Valente
③ BGH GRUR 1981,846-Rennsportgemeinschaft.
④ BGH GRUR 1981,846,847-Rennsportgemeinschaft.
⑤ BGH GRUR 1981,846,847-Rennsportgemeinschaft.
① MunchKomm/Schwerdtner(2001) § 12 Rn 300.
② Vgl. Bruno Seemann, Prominenz als Eigentum:Pararelle Rechtsentwicklung einer Vermarktung der Persoenlichkeit im amerikanischen, deutschen und schweizerischen Persoenlichkeitsschutz,1. Aufl., Baden-Baden, 1996, S.136; MunchKomm/Schwerdtner(2001) § 12 Rn 301.
③ Vgl. Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.100.
④ BGH Urteilvom 26.06.1981, GRUR 1981, S.846-847ff.
① BGHZ 60,206= NJW 1973,622-Miss Petite.
② RG vom 28.12.1899, RGZ 45,170.
③KUG的全称为Gesetz betreffend das Urheberrecht an Werken der bildenden Kuenste und der Photographie KUG也即《关于保护艺术作品和摄影作品著作权的法律》,本文为简略起见,直接译为《艺术品和摄影作品著作权法》。
③ Drucksachen des Reichstags Nr.30, S.29; GRUR 1906,11,25.
①根据KUG第22条第1款的规定：“肖像特征只能在当事人同意的前提下方可以公开流通。”"Bildnisse duerfen nur mit Einwilligung des Abgebildeten verbreitet oder oeffentlich zur Schau gestellt werden."
② BGH NJW 1957,1315.
③ Vgl. Bruno Seemann, Prominenz als Eigentum:Pararelle Rechtsentwicklung einer Vermarktung der Persoenlichkeit im amerikanischen, deutschen und schweizerischen Persoenlichkeitsschutz,1. Aufl., Baden-Baden, 1996, S.140.
① Vgl. Wandtke-Bullinger, Urheberrecht muenchen:2002,Abs.22 KUG,Anzahl 5. Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.26.
② BGH GRUR 1962MP.211-Hochzeitsbild; NIW 1971,p700-Paraiser Liebestropfen.
③ Vgl. Bruno Seemann, Prominenz als Eigentum:Pararelle Rechtsentwicklung einer Vermarktung der Persoenlichkeit im amerikanischen, deutschen und schweizerischen Persoenlichkeitsschutz,1. Aufl., Baden-Baden, 1996, S.141.
④ BGH GRUR 1979,732,733-FuBballtor.
⑤ Thomas R Kloetzel, Chapter 12, from Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London,
Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001, p 166.
⑥ OLG Diisseldorf GRUR 1970,618-Schleppjagd.
⑦ BGH GRUR 1979,732,733-FuBballtor.
⑧ LG vom Landgericht Muenchen I,7O 16812/02.
① Thomas R Kloetzel, Chapter 12, from Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001, p 166.
② Wandtke-Bullinger, Urheberrecht muenchen:2002,Abs..22 KUQAnzahl 12
③ Thomas R Kloetzel, Chapter 12, from Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,166.
④ Schricker, Urheberrecht (MueCHEN:1999) Abs.22 KUQ,Anzahl 14
⑤ NJW-RR,1990, S..999/1000.
①[德]迪特尔·梅迪库斯.德国民法总论[M]邵建东译.法律出版社.2001.802
②BGH GRUR 1979,S.426-FuBballspieler.
②[德]霍尔斯特·埃曼.德国民法中的一般人格权制度——论从非道德行为到侵权行为的转变[A].邵建东等译.载梁慧星.民商法论丛(第23卷)[C].香港：金桥文化出版社(香港)有限公司,2002.461.
① Michael Gerlinger part3 germany, Ian S.Blackshaw and Robert C.R. Siekmann,Sport Image Rights In Europe,Hague:T.M.C.Asser press, The Hague, The Netherlands,2005, p 113.
② Schricker, Urheberrecht (MueCHEN:1999) Abs.23 KUG,,Anzahl 6
③ Wandtke-Bullinger, Urheberrecht muenchen:2002,Abs..23 KUG,Anzahl 6.
④ BGH NJW2001,p.1922/1923
①BGH NJW2001,p.1922/1923
②BGH NJW2001,p.1924
③Wandtke-Bullinger, Urheberrecht muenchen:2002,Abs..23 KUQAnzahl 23.
④Schricker/Gotting, UrhG, § 60/§ 23 KUG, Rdn.19.
①参见[德]霍尔斯特·埃曼.德国民法中的一般人格权制度——论从非道德行为到侵权行为的转变[A].邵建东等.梁慧星.民商法论丛(第23卷)[C].香港：金桥文化出版社(香港)有限公司,2002.461.
② BGH GRUR 1979S.427-Fuβballspieler.
③ BGHZ GRUR 2000.S..450
④ BGH NJW 1996, S.984-985-Caroline von Monaco.
⑤ OLG Hamburg,Archiv fuer Presserecht (AfP) 1972, S.150.
⑥ OLG Frankfurt, NJW 2000, S.595-Katharina Witt.
① Vgl. Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.27-28; dazu Bruno Seemann, Prominenz als Eigentum:Pararelle Rechtsentwicklung einer Vermarktung der Persoenlichkeit im amerikanischen, deutschen und schweizerischen Persoenlichkeitsschutz,1. Aufl., Baden-Baden,1996, S.142.
② Siehe etwa BGH vom 8.5.1956, GRUR 1956,427,428-Paul Dahlk; BGH vom 14.21958,408,409-Herrenreier; BGH vom 10.11.1961, GRUR 1962,211,213-Hochzeitsbild; BGH vom 14.10.1986, GRUR 1987, 128-Nena. aus, Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.29, Fn.88.
③例如,Schricker/Gerstenberg, UrhG(1987), Anh.§ 60/§ 22 KUG, Rdn.2; Staudinger/Schafer, § 823, Rdn.212; von Gamm, UrhG(1968), Einf., Rdn.103; Karl Egbert Wenzel, Das Recht der Wort-und Bildungberichterstattung,3. Aufl., Koln 1986, Rdn.7.32, S.298.Aus, Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.29, Fn.89. Carsten Heisig, Personlichkeitsschutz in Deutschland und Frankreich, Hamburg 1999, S.22; Bruno Seemann, Prominenz als Eigentum:Pararelle Rechtsentwicklung einer Vermarktung der Persoenlichkeit im amerikanischen, deutschen und schweizerischen Persoenlichkeitsschutz,1. Aufl., Baden-Baden, 1996. S.142.
④ Vgl. Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.29.
① Vgl. Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.29.
② Vgl. Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.29-30.
③ Hans-Martin Pawlowski, Allgemeiner Teil des BGB,5.Aufl., Heidelberg,1998, Rn.343, S.150.Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.37. Nobert Dasch, Die Einwilligung zum Eingriff in das Recht am eignen Bild, Munchen 1990, S.22;Jurgen Helle, Besondere Personlichkeitsrechte im Privatrecht, Tubingen 1991, S.52; ders., AfP 1985,93,99.
④ Vgl. Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.38.
⑤[德]卡尔·拉伦茨.德国民法通论(上册)[M].王晓晔等译.北京：法律出版社,2003.282. Bernd Ruthers, Allgemeiner Teil des BGB,12. Aufl., Munchen 2002, S.51.
① Julius C.S. Pinckaers, From Privacy toward a New Intellectual Property Right in Persona, (Kluwer Hague 1996), p 8
② RG vom 28.10.1910, RGZ 74,313-Graf Zeppelin. Aus. Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tiibingen,1995, S.46.
③ Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.43.
④ RG vom 26.6.1929, RGZ 125,80.
① RG vom 26.6.1929, RGZ 125,82f.
② BGHZ 20,345-Pual Dahlke; BGH NJW 1956,1554-Pual Dahlke.本案被告共有三方,为简化援引与本文直接相关的内容,故对案件作了缩减。
① BGHZ 20,345,353=NJW 1956,1554,1555-Paul Dahlke.
② BGHZ 20,345,353=NJW 1956,1554,1555-Paul Dahlke.; Marcel Bartnik, Der Bildnisschutz im deutschen und franzosischen Zivilrecht, Tubingen,2004, S.247.
③ BGHZ 20,345,353-Paul Dahlke; BGH NJW 1956,1554,1555-Paul Dahlke.
① Wenzel.Das Recht der Wort-und Bildberichterstattung,1994, Absatz 9.7, from Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001, p 179.
② BGHZ 26,349-Herrenreite; NJW 1958,827-Herrenreiter.
③ BGHZ 26,349,353-Herrenreite; NJW 1958,827,829-Herrenreiter.
①Vgl.BGHZ 128,1,14f.口Erfundenes Exklusivinterview;BGH NJW 1996,984,985.
① Vgl. Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tiibingen,1995, S.52.
②齐晓琨.“索拉娅案”评注——德国民法中对损害一般人格权的非物质损害的金钱赔偿[J].现代法学.2007,(1).
② BGH NJW 1996,985-Caroline.
① Prinz/Peters, Medienrecht— Die zivilrechtlichen Ansprueche[M].C. H. Beck sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Muenchen 1999:S.51]齐晓琨.“索拉娅案,,评注——德国民法中对损害一般人格权的非物质损害的金钱赔偿[J].现代法学.2007,(1).
② BGHZ 35,363,368 f; BGHZ 132,13,27; BGH NJW 1996,985,986; BGHZ 143,214,218; BVerfG NJW 2004, 591,592.
③ BGHZ 143,214,218; BVerfG NJW 2004,591,592; BGHZ 132,13,29.
④ BGHZ 50,133,137= NJW 1968,1773-Mephisto.
⑤ BGH vom 14.10.1986, GRUR 1987,128.
① Hans Forkel, Lizenzen an Personlichkeitsrechten durch gebundenen Rechtsiibertragung, GRUR 1988,492.
② Vgl. Hans Forkel, Lizenzen an Personlichkeitsrechten durch gebundenen Rechtsiibertragung, GRUR 1988,492.
③ MunchKomm/Rixecker (2001) § 12 Anh. Rn 42.Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.64,65.
④ Vgl. Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tiibingen,1995, S.61.
⑤ BGHZ 143,214=NJW 2000,2195=NJW 2001,2317-Marlene□Dietrich.
⑥ Vgl. Hans Forkel, Lizenzen an Personlichkeitsrechten durch gebundenen Rechtsubertragung, GRUR 1988,491ff. MunchKomm/Rixecker (2001) § 12 Anh. Rn 44.
⑦ Vgl. Hans Forkel, Lizenzen an Personlichkeitsrechten durch gebundenen Rechtsubertragung, GRUR 1988,491, 495.
① Vgl. Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.65.
② BGHZ 143,214,223 unter Hinweis auf Helle Rabels (1996) 448,459ff.
③在1956年的"Paul Dahlke"案判决中,联邦最高法院将肖像权称为“具有财产价值的排他性权利”；在1968年的"Mephisto"案判决中,其又指出人格权“具有财产价值的成分”；在1987年第"Nena"案和1992的年"Fuchsberger"等案件中联邦最高法院不断重申肖像权具有财产利益的一面。但是联邦最高法院此前从未就人格权二元利益合并在一起正式确认,更未就两者之间的存在怎样的关系发表意见。
④ OLG Hamburg, NJW 1990,1995-Heinz Erhardt.本件系一假处分事件,声请人系已故知名演员Heinz Erhardt之子,被声请人以一声音模仿者模仿其父亲之口音,在广播节目中朗读广告台词,声请人声请禁止之。
⑤ BGHZ 143,214=NJW 2000,2195=NJW 2001,2317--Marlene□Dietrich.
⑥ OLG Hamburg, NJW 1990,1995-Heinz Erhardt.本件系一假处分事件,声请人系已故知名演员Heinz Erhardt之子,被声请人以一声音模仿者模仿其父亲之口音,在广播节目中朗读广告台词,声请人声请禁止之。
①BGHZ 50,133,137=NJW 1968,1773-Mephisto.
②OLG Hamburg,NJW 1990,1995-Heinz Erhardt.本件系一假处分事件,声请人系已故知名演员Heinz Erhardt之子,被声请人以一声音模仿者模仿其父亲之口音,在广播节目中朗读广告台词,声请人声请禁止之。
③BGHZ 143,214=NJW 2000,2195=NJW 2001,2317-Marlene口Dietrich.
④BGHZ 26,349,353=NJW 1958,827,829-Herrenreiter.本案的判决书很长,本文对判决作了缩减,并在结构上做了调整。
⑤BGH,NJW 1992,S.2084-Fuchsberger.
①[德]马克思米利安·福克斯.侵权行为法[M].齐晓琨译.北京：法律出版社2006.第56页。
① BGHZ 143,214;NJW 2000,2001;NJW 2002,2317-Marlene Dietrich.
② BGH vom 20.3.1968, NJW 1968,1773,1774-Mephiso. Aus Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.8, Fn.20.
① Botticher, AcP 158 (1959/1960),385,403f.; Beuter, Claudia, Die Kommerzialisierung des Personlichkeitsrecht, Diss. Konstanz 2000, S.73.; Hoerst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, JC:B:Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tubingen,1994, S.53.
①杨立新.人身权法论[M].北京：人民法院出版社,2002,第555页。
②程合红.商事人格权论——人格权的经济利益内涵及其实现与保护[M].北京：中国人民出版社,2002.第28页；冯象.鲁迅肖像权问题[J].读书.2001,(3).
③王胜明.中华人民共和国侵权责任法解读[M].中国法制出版社,2010.89-92.
①Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.,433 US 562 (1977).
①王晓晔.竞争法学[M].北京：中国社科文献出版社,2007.第82-86页。程合红.商事人格权论——人格权的经济利益内涵及其实现与保护[M].中国人民大学出版社.2002.254-256.
① Georger Koumantos, Reflections on the Concept of Intellectual Property, Intellectual Property and Information Law, published by KluwerLaw International, Hague,1998.
②郑成思教授谈到了,我国部分学者反对在诸如知识产权法等没有在其法律内部增加不正当竞争的原因。“我国一直把知识产权与反不正当竞争相联系让很多人难以接受。我国学术界很多人反对在知识产权法中增加反不正当竞争条款,其理由是：(1)知识产权单行法已经保护了知识产权,还有什么必要再以“反不正当竞争法给予保护”?(2)反不正当竞争法所犯规的范围很广,远远不止知识产权保护,怎么能把反不正当竞争统统纳入到知识产权保护范围呢?(3)知识产权法重在保护私权,反不正当竞争法重在界定国家在市场 管理上的工行为,不应把公、私两种法相混淆。对此,中国的知识产权单行法确实已经相当完备,但这与反不正当竞争法的附加保护,并不矛盾。而且,如果没有了后者,则完善的知识产权单行法,离完善的知识产权保护,还会有相当长的路。当初《反不正当竞争法》立法时,有立法者说,这可以放在第5条中去管,但是第5条只规范“经营者”,而搭人家作品名称便车者,多数不属于经营者,不受第5条管。又如,搭别人“商品样式”的便车,虽然属于经营者,却又偏偏是上述第5条没有列进去的。”
①郑成思.知识产权论[M].北京：法律出版社.2007.186-188.
①北京市第一中级人民法院(2006)一中民终字第10912号民事判决书。
②傅沙沙.羽坛名将董炯向7被告追债[N].京华时报.2007年7月31日,第012版.
③费文彬“无痕丰胸”广告侵犯肖像权,柳州一医院向演员王雅劫赔偿8万元[N].人民法院报.
①田浩.摄影师侵犯女模特肖像权,吉林美术出版社承担连带赔偿责任[N].人民法院报.2006-02-18.
②胡沛.不含“新闻”的照片不是“新闻照片”,一陕北老汉赢得肖像权诉讼.[Z].综合新闻——政法新闻2003-06-2307：17：57.
①杨宗霈.韩雪照片登上医院广告,索赔百万最终只得2万[N].时代信报.2008年01月17日.
①陈坚.“刀郎”之争出结果西域刀郎被判侵权[Z].http://bjgy.chinacourt.org/public.2006-01-17.
②王杨.照片上了内衣广告,前奥运射击冠军打赢维权官司[N].人民法院报.2009-04-21.
①向红林.没有脸仍被判侵犯肖像权.三峡都市报[N].2007-4-2,A7.
②李晓明.侵权”椰岛鹿龟酒”广告连播两年半去世演员家属获赔6万元[N].新闻晨报,2007-10-10.
③孙思娅.电视台擅用已故外科专家照片做广告被判赔1 5万[N].京华时报.2009-03-17.
①以下的案件简介,系参见胡喜盈,丁淼.“鲁迅的姓名肖像权之争”[J].律师世界.2001,(6)
①BGH NJW 1996,985-Caroline.
②陈美凤米酒代言案,原审台北地方法院93年诉字第1820号民事判决,判决被告应赔偿原告非财产上损害新台币60万元,并不得使用原告姓名及肖像于其生产制造或代理销售的料理米酒及广告物上。被告不服提起上诉,二审维持原判,驳回被告上诉。详见台湾高等法院94年度上易字第616号判决。
① Arinton v. New York Time,55 N.Y.2d 433,434 N.E.2d 1319,499 N.Y.S.2d 941(1982).
② Erman/Ehmann, Kommentar zum Buergerlichen Gesetzbuch.10. Aufl.2001,465.
①BGHZ 143,214=NJW 2000,2195=NJW 2001,2317--Marlene□Dietrich.
①“版权”通常是英美法系国家的用法,而大陆法系国家则用为“著作权”,因此在本文的论述中会交替使用这两个概念。
① Manfred Rehbinder, Urheberrecht, Munchen:C.H.,2003, S.3.
② Schricker/Dietz, Urheberrecht 2. A.,1999,§ 11 Rdnr.1,2.
① Manfred Rehbinder, Urheberrecht, Miinchen:C.H. Beck:C.H. Beck,2003,S.26
② Dieselhorst, Was bright das Urheberpersonlichkeitsrecht? Urheberpersonlichkeitsschutz im Vergleich: Deutschland-USA,1994,17, Fn 54.
③ v. Gierke, Deutsche Privatrecht, S.103.766.
④ v. Gierke, Deutsche Privatrecht, S.766-767.
⑤ Dieselhorst, Dieselhorst, Was bright das Urheberpersonlichkeitsrecht? Urheberpersonlichkeitsschutz im Vergleich: Deutschland-USA,1994,17,19-20.
① Manfred Rehbinder, Urheberrecht, Munchen:C.H. Beck:C.H. Beck,2003,S.27
② Manfred Rehbinder, Urheberrecht, Munchen:C.H. Beck:C.H. Beck,2003, S.27-28
③ Manfred Rehbinder, Urheberrecht, Munchen:C.H. Beck:C.H. Beck,2003, S.75-77
③ Manfred Rehbinder, Urheberrecht, Munchen:C.H. Beck:C.H. Beck,2003,S.28
① Manfred Rehbinder, Urheberrecht, Munchen:C.H. Beck:C.H. Beck,2003,S.18
② Manfred Rehbinder, Urheberrecht, Munchen:C.H. Beck:C.H. Beck,2003,S.77
③ Schricker, Hundert Jahre Urberrechtsentwicklung, in Beier/Kraft/Schricker/Waldle(Hrgb.), Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht in Deutschland,1991,1116.
④ Manfred Rehbinder, Urheberrecht, Munchen:C.H. Beck:C.H. Beck,2003,S.296
① Merkin/Black, Copyright and Designs Law,1993,16.1.
② Peifer, Moral Rights in den USA, ZUM 7/1993,325-352(327).
③ M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright,1994,8D-10; Nimmer/Marcus/Myers/Nimmer, Cases and Materials on Copyright and Other Aspects of Entert ainment Litigation,1991,4th. ed,603.
④ 198 F.2d 585 (2d Cir.1952).
⑤ 538 F.2d 14. (2d Cir 1976).
① 538 F.2d at 24.
②刘孔中：《著作人格权之比较研究》,《台大法学论丛》(2002),第31卷4期,第26页。
② Paul Goldstein. Copyright, Patent, Trademark and Related State doctrines [M]. The Foundation Press, Inc.1981: 855
① Yosolde Gendreau. Digital Technology and Copyright:Can Moral Right Survive the isappearance of the Hard Copy[J/OL]. http://Canada. Justice. gc. ca/commerce/index-en. html.
③小林寻次,现行著作权法の立法理由解释,页12-18,文部省,1958。
⑤萧雄淋.同一性保持权侵害之若干问题——评台湾高等法院八十四年上字第三一四号判决[J].资讯法务透析.1996,(12)：18-25；冯震宇.著作权法解读[M].1981.38-39,45,59；罗明通.著作权法论[M].1986.179-182.
①郑成思.知识产权论[M].北京：法律出版社,2007.347-348；杨延超.作品精神权利论[M].北京：法律出版社,2007.49.
②郑成思.知识产权论[M].北京：法律出版社,2007.347-348.
③Rebinder,Urheberrecht,S.12.
① Schricker, Hundert Jahre Urheberrechtsentwicklung,1118.
② Manfred Rehbinder, Urheberrecht, Munchen:C.H. Beck:C.H. Beck,2003,S.27-28.
① BGH GRUR 1981,846,847-Rennsportgemeinschaft.
② MunchKomm/Schwerdtner(2001) § 12 Rn 300.
③ Vgl. Bruno Seemann, Prominenz als Eigentum:Pararelle Rechtsentwicklung einer Vermarktung der Persoenlichkeit im amerikanischen, deutschen und schweizerischen Persoenlichkeitsschutz,1. Aufl., Baden-Baden, 1996, S.136; MunchKomm/Schwerdtner(2001) § 12 Rn 301.
④ Vgl. Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.100.
⑤ BGHZ 143,214=NJW 2000,2195=NJW 2001,2317-Marlene□Dietrich.
⑥ BGHZ 20,345-Pual Dahlke; BGH NJW 1956,1554-Pual Dahlke.
① BGHZ 20,345,353-Paul Dahlke; BGH NJW 1956,1554,1555-Paul Dahlke.
②当然德国学术界早期的通说是人格权的非财产性,不具财产内容,如有学者认为“人格权是以人之尊严的尊重为其主要内容。人格权的目的并不在某些外在于个人的法益的归属,而在保护精神利益。据此人格权非属支配权(Herrschaftsrecht),通常其并未使权利人对一定法益可以享有并利用,而仅为排除他人侵害的排他权(Ausschlussrecht) "。 Mestmacker, JZ 1958,521,525; Raiser, JZ 1961,465,471.现今这种传统见解很少有人继续主张,因此正文中对此不作介绍。
③ v. Gierke, Deutsches Privatrecht, S.706-707.
① Peukert, ZUM 2000,710,719 ff.
② Vgl. Hans Forkel, Allgemeines Personlichkeitsrecht und wirtschaftliches personlichkeitsecht, in:Festschrift fur Karl H. Neumauer, Baden-Baden 1985, S.229-237.
③ Vgl. Hans Forkel, Lizenzen an Personlichkeitsrechten durch gebundenen Rechtsubertragung, GRUR 1988,491ff.
④ Vgl. Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.137.
⑤ Vgl. Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.137-138.
⑥ Vgl. Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.138-139; ders., Die Vererblichkeit der vermogenswerten Bestandteile des Pers6nlichkeitsrechts-ein Meilenstein in der Rechtsprechung des BGH, NJW 2001,585,586.
① Manfred Rehbinder, Urheberrecht, Munchen:C.H. Beck:C.H. Beck,2003, S.28
② Vgl. Hans Forkel, Lizenzen an Personlichkeitsrechten durch gebundenen Rechtsubertragung, GRUR 1988,491ff.
③ Magold, Hanns Arno, Personenmerchandising:der Schutz der Persona im Recht der USA und Deutschlands, Diss. Frankfurt am Main/Berlin/Bern 1994, S.523-537 ff.
① Hubamann, Das Personlichkeitsrecht, S.132 f. Aus Magold, Hanns Amo, Personenmerchandising:der Schutz der Persona im Recht der USA und Deutschlands, Diss. Frankfurt am Main/Berlin/Bern 1994, S.523ff.
② Hubamann, Das Personlichkeitsrecht, S.132 f. Aus Jung, Alexander, Die Vererblichkeit des allgemeinen Personlichkeitsrechts. Diss. Remscheid 2005. S.126 f.
③ Vgl. Klippel, Der zivilrechtliche Schutz des Namens,1985, S.503f.,531 ff., Aus, Hans Forkel, Lizenzen an Personlichkeitsrechten durch gebundenen Rechtsubertragung, GRUR 1988,491, Fn.85.
④[德]迪特尔·施瓦布.民法导论[M].法律出版社.2006.223.
① Vgl. Lutz Heitmann, Der Schutz der materiellen Interesse an der eigenen Personlichkeitsspahre durch subjekti-private Rechte, Hamburg,1963, S.78ff. Aus,Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.136.
② Vgl. Lutz Heitmann, Der Schutz der materiellen Interesse an der eigenen Personlichkeitsspahre durch subjekti-private Rechte, Hamburg,1963, S.76ff.,81-108.
③ Vgl. Wolfgang Fikentscher, Wirtschaftsrecht, Bd. Ⅱ, Miinchen 1983, S.112,132f.
④ Vgl. Wolfgang Fikentscher, Wirtschaftsrecht, Bd. Ⅱ, Munchen 1983, S.112,132f.
⑤ Beuthien/Schmolz, Personlichkeitsschutz durch Personlichkeitsguterrechte,1999, S.19ff.
⑥ Beuthien/Schmolz, Personlichkeitsschutz durch Personlichkeitsguterrechte,1999, S.19ff.
⑦ Ullmann AfP 1999,209,210.
① Ullmann WRP 2000,1049,1052-1053.
②[德]赫尔穆特·科尔.人格尊严和商业利益间的一般人格权[A].米健.中德法学学术论文集[C].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2006.279.
③本人在此将法国财产性姓名权和财产性肖像权称之为“商事人格权”和我国学者程合红所主张的“商事人格权”略微有所不同,程氏认为商事人格权中也有人格利益,两者相互联系。程合红.商事人格权论——人格权的经济利益内涵及其实现与保护[M].中国人民大学出版社.2002.
② See, Francois Dessemontent, Chapter 28, from Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001, p 433.
① Deneuve v. Siemens. T.G.I. lere Ch.1987-Catherine.
② Laporte P., Fedou and Coupin JJ.,Sas Calendriners Jean Lavigne v Ste Universal Music, cour d'appel, Versailes,September 22,2005.[2006]E.M.L.R.22,Issue 5, September-October,2006 P.680-681.
③ Gaillard," La double nature du droit a l'image et ses consequences en droit positif francais", D.1984, Chron.161. Acquarone," l'ambiguiite du droit a l'image", D.1985, Chron.129. Serna L'image des personnes physiques et des biens 1997. P.48. Beignier L'honneur et le droit t.234, LGDL,1995, p.74s. Goubeaux DROIT CIVIL les personnes, 1989 n.316.Charles de Haas, Chapter 11 France, Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 145.
④ Brun v. Expobat,Trib. Gr. Inst. Aix-en-Province, November 24,1988, Jurisclasseur 1989, Ⅱ21 329.
⑤ Charles de Haas, Chapter 11 France, Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 153.
⑥ Goubeaux DROIT CIVIL les personnes,1989 n.316.
① Logeais, The French Right to One's Image:A Legal Lure? 5 Ent.L.Rev.163 (1994).,p.164
② Charles de Haas, Chapter 11 France, Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 152.
④东京地判昭和51.6.29「判例时报」 817号第23页。
⑤具体详见五十岚清.人格权法[M].铃木贤,葛敏译.北京：北京大学出版社.2009.149.
② Right of identity是美国公开权(right of publicity的另一种表达法。
① British Telecommunication Plc and Others v. One in a Millon Ltd and Others[1999]FSR 1,10 per Aldous LJ.
② McCulloch v May [1947] All ER 845
① Krouse v. Chrysler Canada Ltd.(1973),1 OR (2d)255,40 DLR(3d) 15(Ont CA)
② Gould Estate v. Stoddard Publishing Co. [1996] 30 OR(3d) 520 (GD) revd on other grounds and Horton v. Tim Donut Ltd(1997) 75 CPR(3d) 451,459-460.
③ Haelan Laboratories Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum Inc.,202 F.2d 866 (2nd Cir.1953).
④ Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.,433 US 562 (1977).
⑤ Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.,433 US 562 (1977),573-576.
⑥ Marc A. Franklin,Robert L. Rabin, Michael D. Green, Tort Law and Alternatives cases and Materials(Eight Edition), Thomson west Foundation Press,2006,p.1209事实上,在美国法考察部分的参考文献中大量文献的标题便是"intellectual"(“知识产权”)。
① Stephano v. News Group Press,64 N.Y 2d 174,474 N.E.2d 580,485 N.Y.S.2d 220 (1984).
①[德]考夫曼.法律哲学[M].刘幸义译.北京：法律出版社,2005.116-117.
②[德]拉伦茨.法学方法论[M].陈爱娥译.北京：商务印书馆,2005.300；考夫曼.法律哲学[M].刘幸义译.北京：法律出版社,2005.132.
①在台湾高等法院94年度上易字第616号判决中,被告为生产并销售料理米酒之厂商,发现艺人陈美凤因受邀主持数个美食节目,陆续出版多本料理书籍,并拍摄广告代言食品、餐具、家电等,在消费大众心目中奠定美食代言人之地位遂在未经其同意之情况下,在酒瓶外包装及广告物使用陈美凤之姓名及照片。原告陈美凤提起诉讼,请求财产上及非财产上损害赔偿。法院认定被告未经同意即将原告姓名及照片用于产品外包装及广告物之行为,成立对原告姓名权及肖像权之侵害。在法律效果方面,就财产上损害而言,法院不采原告以过去授权金额计算之主张,并以被告行为并未阻滞原告另接受他人广告合约,而否定原告受有「所失利益J之财产上损害。惟法院仍肯认原告受有非财产上损害,并就慰抚金之酌定,认为应衡量「原告具有一定之公众形象,依社会通念,原告推荐之商品,必有助于商品之销路」及原告之身分、地位及被告误认已获授权之因素。台湾高等法院94年度上易字第616号判决——陈美凤案。
②佟柔.民法原理[M].北京：法律出版社,1983.34-478.江平主.民法学[M].北京：中国政法大学学版社，2000.280；李锡鹤.民法哲学论稿[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2000.176；屈茂辉,黄劲.论人格权法的基本 原理[J].云南大学学报(法学版).2003,(2).另见最高人民法院《民法通则》培训班编(1986年)《民法通则讲座》。219-220.
①梁慧星.民法总论(第二版)[M].北京：法律出版社,2001.70,113；王利明.人格权法研究[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005.45；尹田.自然人具体人格权的法律探讨[J].河南省政法管理干部学院学报,2004,(3)：20；李琛.质疑知识产权之“人格财产一体性”[J]..中国社会科学.2004,(2).69.郑永宽.人格权的价值与体系研究[M].知识产权出版社.2008.63-64.
②杨立新.中国人格权法立法报告[M].北京：知识产权出版社,2005.143.
③王利明.人格权法研究[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005.283；尹田.自然人具体人格权的法律探讨[J].河南省政法管理干部学院学报,2004,(3)：20.
④王泽鉴.人格权保护的课题与展望(三)——人格权的具体化及保护范围(2)——姓名权[J].台湾本土法学,2006,(9)：44,55；王泽鉴.人格权保护的课题与展望(三)——人格权的具体化及保护范围(3)——肖像权[J].台湾本土法学,2006,(10)：67,75,78,86.
①程合红.商事人格权论——人格权的经济利益内涵及其实现与保护[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2002.51.
②程合红.商事人格权论——人格权的经济利益内涵及其实现与保护[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2002.5].
③郑成思.商品化权刍议[J].中华商标.1996,(2);杨素娟,杜颖.商品化权议[J].河北法学.1998,(1);刘春霖.商品化权[J].西北大学学报(哲社版).1999,(4);孙美兰.“奥特曼”纠纷案引发的思考[J].法学.1999,(7);杜颖.论商品化权[A].民商法论丛(第13卷)[C].法律出版社,2000.；朱川.商品化权研究[J].复旦民商法学评.2001,(1)；梅慎实.试论影视作品中“虚构角色”商品化之知识产权保护[J].版权参考资料.1989,(6);郭玉军.论角色商品化权之法律性质[J].知识产权.2000(6);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[J].电子知识产权.2005,(9)；蓝蓝.人格与财产二元权利体系面临的困境与突破——以“人格商品化”为视角展[J].法律科学.2006,(3);张丹丹,张帆.商品化权性质的理论之争及反思[J].当代法学,2007,(5);谢晓尧.商品化权：人格符号的利益扩张与衡平[J].法商研究,2005,(3).
① Heijo E.Ruijsenaars Legal Aspects of Merchandising:The ATPPI Resolution,[1996]6,EIPR。
② See Ruijsenaars'The WIPO Report on Character Merchandising'25 International Review of Industrial property and Copyright Law(1994)532,p 536.
③郑成思.商品化权刍议[J].中华商标.1996,(2);杨素娟,杜颖.商品化权议[J].河北法学.1998,(1);刘春霖.商品化权[J].西北大学学报(哲社版).1999,(4);孙美兰.“奥特曼”纠纷案引发的思考[J].法学.1999,(7)；杜颖.论商品化权[A].民商法论丛(第13卷)[C].法律出版社,2000.；朱川.商品化权研究[J].复旦民商法学评.2001,(1)；梅慎实.试论影视作品中“虚构角色”商品化之知识产权保护[J].版权参考资料.1989,(6);郭玉军.论角色商品化权之法律性质[J].知识产权.2000(6);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[J].电子知识产权.2005,(9)；蓝蓝.人格与财产二元权利体系面l临的困境与突破——以“人格商品化”为视角展[J].法律科学.2006,(3);张丹丹,张帆.商品化权性质的理论之争及反思[J].当代法学,2007,(5);谢晓尧.商品化权：人格符号的利益扩张与衡平[J].法商研究,2005,(3).。
④谢晓尧.商品化权：人格符号的利益扩张与衡平[J].法商研究,2005,(3)：84-86.
①黄立的表述是：“不过有人在甲死后,将其肖像制成金币或者出版邮票,此时甲之肖像权则系有财产价值之标的。如仍不得让与或继承,恐非妥当。此时宜仿照著作权法上,将著作权区分为著作人格权与著作财产权的做法,对于精神人格权的侵害,因自然人之死亡或法人人格之丧失而消灭,其受侵害之损害赔偿请求权,非经转换为金钱债权,不得让与或继承。但对于财产人格权的侵害,其请求权应认为当然得让与或继承。”参见,黄立.民法债编总论[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2002.264.
②袁雪石.姓名权本质变革论[J].法律科学,2005,(2).
③何爱文.美国法之个人公开权于‘我国’法上受保护之可能性[J].全国律师.1992,(12);熊伟.形象权法律制度研究[D].武汉大学博士学位论文.2002;郑成思.商品化权刍议[J].中华商标.1996,(2);薛虹.名人的商标权——公开形象权[J].中华商标.1996,(3);董炳和.论形象权[J].法律科学.1998,(4);赖国钦.形象宣传权之研究[D].私立中国文化大学法律研究所硕士论文.1999;李明德.美国形象权法研究[J].环球法律评论.2003,冬季号;吴汉东.形象的商品化与商品化的形象权[J].法学.2004,(10);蓝蓝.人格与财产二元权利体系面临的困境与突破——以“人格商品化”为视角展[J].法律科学.2006,(3);李智仁.人格权经济利益之保障,个人公开权之探讨[J].法令月刊.55(11).不过在日本和我国有部分学者直接将公开权译为商品化权。见上文商品化权部分的脚注,五十岚清.人格权法口[M].铃木贤,葛敏译.北京：北京大学出版社.2009.141以下.
④李明德.美国形象权法研究[J].环球法律评论.2003,冬季号.
①赖国钦.形象宣传权之研究[D].私立中国文化大学法律研究所硕士论文.1999.186.
②张丹丹,张帆.商品化权性质的理论之争及反思[J].当代法学,2007,(5).
③ See Marco De Boni. Martyn Prigmore, A Hegelian Basis For Privacy As An Economic Right, http://wwwusers.cs.york.ac.uk/～mdeboni/papers/Hegelian_Basis_For_E-privacy.pdf.
① Brehmer\Voegeli, Das allgemeine Personlichkeitsrecht,1978 JA 374,377.
② BGHZ 143,214=NJW 2000,2195=NJW 2001,2317-Marlene□Dietrich.
③ SCHACK.,2000 JZ 1060.
④ Hilty, Unubertragbarkeit urheberrechtlicher Befugnisse:Schutz des Urhebers oder dogmatisches Ammenmarchen?, in:Festschrift Rehbinder,Munich/Berne 2002, S.275ff..
⑤ SCHACK,2000 JZ 1062.Klaver, "Vermogensrechtliche Aspekte des zivilrechtlichen allgemeinen Personlichkeitsrechts,2002 ZUM 205. PEUKERT, "Personlichkeitsbezogene Immaterialguterrechte?,"2000 ZUM 710,
⑥ Hilty, Unubertragbarkeit urheberrechtlicher Befugnisse:Schutz des Urhebers oder dogmatisches Ammenmarchen?, in:"Festschrift Rehbinder",Munich/Berne 2002, S.282ff.
⑦ Hilty, "Unubertragbarkeit urheberrechtlicher Befugnisse:Schutz des Urhebers oder dogmatisches Ammenmarchen?," in:"Festschrift Rehbinder",Munich/Berne 2002, S.282-284ff.
① Llewellyn and Hoebel, The Cheyenne Way(1941),p274. From Rosco Pound. S17
② Llewellyn and Hoebel, The Cheyenne Way(1941),p274. From Rosco Pound. S17
③陈忠五.论契约责任与侵权责任的保护客体：“权利”与“利益”区别正当性的再反省[J].台大法学论丛.2007,36(3)：127.
①简资修.违法保护他人法律之过失推定：经济功效与司法仙丹[J].政大法学评论.2003,(75)：90-92；陈忠五.论契约责任与侵权责任的保护客体：“权利”与“利益”区别正当性的再反省[J].台大法学论丛.2007,36(3)：128.
①王泽鉴.侵权行为[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2009.7-8.
②简资修.违法保护他人法律之过失推定：经济功效与司法仙丹[J].政大法学评论.2003,(75)：90-92.陈忠五.论契约责任与侵权责任的保护客体：“权利”与“利益”区别正当性的再反省[J].台大法学论丛.2007,36(3)：128.
①谢晓尧.商品化权：人格符号的利益扩张与衡平[J].法商研究,2005,(3).
① P.J.Bohannan.Ethnography and Comparision in Legal Anthropology[A].In Laura Nader.Law in Culture and Society[C] Chicago:Chicago Aldine Publishing Company,1969:410.
① Tamar Gidron,The Publicity Right in Israel An Example of Mixed Origins, Values, Rules, Interests and Branches of Law.Electronic Journal of Comparative Law,vol.12.1(May2008),p 1-19.JoelKarni Schmid, McDonald's cries foul:Trademark rights versus Right of Publicity in Israel, Trademark World,168,1 June 2004,p 18.
② Krouse v. Chrysler Canada Ltd.(1973),1 OR (2d)255,40 DLR(3d) 15(Ont CA)
③ BGHZ143.214=NJW 2000.2195=NJW 2001.2317-Marlene□Dietrich.
④ Lugosi v. Universal Pictures Co. Inc.,400 F. Supp.836 (S. D. N. Y.1975),843-844.
⑤ WAGNER, BGH,2000 GRUR 717,720. From Daniel Biene,CELEBRITY CULTURE,INDIVIDUALITY AND RIGHT OF PUBLICITY AS A EUROPEAN LEGAL ISSUE, International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law,2005,36(5),P,505-506
① Biene, Starkult, Individuum und Personlichkeitsgiiterrecht 24,(Baden-Baden/Berne 2004).p.167.
② Daniel Biene.CELEBRITY CULTURE,INDIVIDUALITY AND RIGHT OF PUBLICITY AS A EUROPEAN LEGAL ISSUE, International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law,2005,36(5),P,505-506
③ MULLER,2003 GRUR 31;KLAVER,2002 ZUM 205;GOTTING,2001 NJW 585;SCHACK,2000 JZ 1060;PEUKERT,2000 ZUM 710;LADEUR,2000 ZUM 879;ULLMANN,2000 WRP 1049;WAGNER,2000 GRUR 717;JACOBS,2000 WRP 896;HILTY,in:"Festschrift Reh-binder"275 et seq.Daniel Biene,CELEBRITY CULTURE,INDIVIDUALITY AND RIGHT OF PUBLICITY AS A EUROPEAN LEGAL ISSUE, International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law,2005,36(5),P,505-506
①名古屋地判平12.1.19,「判例タィムズ」 1070号第223页。大阪高判平13.3.8,「判例时报」 1071号第294页。
① Lawrence v. Ylla,184 Misc.807,55 N.Y.S.2d 343 (Sup. Ct.1945).Gautier v. Pro-Football,278 App. Div.431,106 N.Y.S.2d 553 (1st Dep't 1951), aff'd,304 N.Y.354,107 N.E.2d 485 (1952); maysville Transit Co. v. Ort,296 Ky.524,177 S.W.2d 369 (1943); Vassar College v. Loose-Wiles Biscuit Co.,197 Fed.982 (W.D. Mo1912).
② EG M. B. Nimmer, The Right of Publicity,19 Law & Contemp. Probs (1954),203,217; Harold R. Gordon, Right of Property in Name, Likeness, Personality and History,55 Nw. U. L. Rev (1960-1961),553,610-612; J. Thomas McCarthy, Public Personas and Private Property:The Commercialization of Human Identity,79, Trademark Rep. (1989) 681,686; James M. Treece, Commercial Exploitation of Names, Likenesses and Personal Histories,51 Tex. L. Rev. (1972-1973) 637,648.
④498F.2d 821(9thCir.1974).
①498 F. 2d 821(9th Cir.1974),824
②97 N.J.Super. 327(N.J.Super. L.1967).
③97 N.J.Super. 327(N.J.Super. L.1967),351.
④Harold R.Gordon,Right of Property in Name,Likeness,Personality and History,55 Nw.U.L.Rev(1960-1961), 553.611.
① Tenn. Stat § 47-25-1103(b).Martin Luther King Jr. Ctr. v. American Heritage Products,296 S.E.2d 697 (Ga 1982), at 706.J. Thomas McCarthy, Public Personas and Private Property:The Commercialization of Human Identity,79在Martin Luther King Jr. Ctr. v. American Heritage Production一案的判决中,乔治亚州最高法院明确否定所谓生前利用要件,其意旨为,死者在生前拒绝利用其名气获利,有其自身之考量,法律应加以保护。一个知名的牧师藉其名气获利,会伤害其传道。应保护其家属得控制、维护并延展其人格形象及死后名声。另见Groucho Marx Productions, Inc. V. Day & Night Co.,523 F Supp 485, rev'd on other grounds,689 F.2d 317, 216 USPQ 553 (2d Cir.1982).
② Midler v. Ford Motor Co.,849 F.2d 460 (9th Cir.1988); Waits v. Frito-Lay Inc.,978 F.2d 1093 (C.A.9 1992);;Motschenbacher v. R. J. Reynnolds Tobacco Co.,498 F.2d 821 (9th Cir.1974).;Cf. Bronson v. Fawcett Publications,124 F. Supp.429 (E.D.Ill.1954).;White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,91 F.2d 1395 (9th Cir.1992).White v. Samsung Electronics America Inc; Motchenbacher v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.498 F.2d 821 (9th Cir.1974).
③程合红.商事人格权论——人格权的经济利益内涵及其实现与保护[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社.2002.220-221.
① Carson v. Here's Johnny Portable Toilets Inc.,698 F.2d 831 (6th Cir.1983).
② Restatement (third) of Unfair Competition, American law institute,1995,§
③ Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.,433 US 562 (1977).
④ Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition §47 (1995).
① Haelan Laboratories Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum Inc.,202 F.2d 866 (2nd Cir.1953). Halpern, The of Publicity: Commercial Exploitation of the Associative Value Personality,39 VAND. L. REV.1199 (1986), at 1217; Hyldon, Baseball Cards and the Birth of the Right of Publicity:The Curious Case of Haelan Laboratories v. Topps Chewing Gum,12 MARQ. SPORT L. REV.273 (2001), p.274.
② Laporte P., Fedou and Coupin JJ.,Sas Calendriners Jean Lavigne v Ste Universal Music, cour d'appel, Versailes,September 22,2005.[2006]E.M.L.R.22,Issue 5, September-October,2006 P.679-.
③苏平.无锡宣判国内最大肖像权案,张柏芝一审获赔百万[N].人民日报.2006-04-12,第02版：赵正辉,潘志江.无锡中院一审宣判一起侵权案,影星张柏芝胜诉获赔百万元[N].人民法院报.2006-04-11.
④江彬.孙悦肖像权案和解[N].楚天都市报.2009-1-22,B25版。
⑤ Lugosi v. Universal Pictures Co. Inc.,400 F. Supp.836 (S. D. N. Y.1975),843-844.
① Martin Luther King Jr. Ctr. v. American Heritage Production,250 Ga.135 (1982),145-146.
② BGHZ 143,214=NJW 2000,2195=NJW 2001,2317-Marlene□Dietrich.
③例如加利福尼亚州《民权法案》规定死者公开权的保护期限一直推延到其死后的第50年,田纳西则规定10年,维吉尼亚州是死后20年,而奥克拉荷马州及印第安那州的死后保护期为100年。See Wikipedia, Personality rights, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights. McCarthy, The Right of Publicity and Privacy, Vol.Ⅰ, West Group,1999, § 6.3 Charts of Statutory Provisions.
④刘润华.中国首例亡人肖像使用权纠纷案[J].法庭内外.2000,(2).
⑤李晓明.侵权”椰岛鹿龟酒”广告连播两年半去世演员家属获赔6万元[N].新闻晨报,2007-10-10.
⑥孙思娅.电视台擅用已故外科专家照片做广告被判赔15万[N].京华时报.2009-03-17.
⑦以下的案件简介,系参见胡喜盈,丁淼.“鲁迅的姓名肖像权之争”[J].律师世界.2001,(6).
⑧ Tribunal de Grande Instance Paris,18 December 1985, Dalloz 1986 IR 446.
① Thomas R Kloetzel, Chapter 12, from Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,166.
② Schricker, Urheberrecht (MueCHEN:1999) Abs.22 KUG,,Anzahl 14
③ NJW-RR,1990, pp.999/1000.
④胡沛.不含“新闻”的照片不是“新闻照片”,一陕北老汉赢得肖像权诉讼.[Z].综合新闻——政法新闻2003-06-2307：17：57.
①[美]约翰·D·泽莱兹尼.传播法——自由、限制于现代媒介[M].张金玺、赵刚译.北京：清华大学出版社,2007166.
① Erman/Ehmann, Kommentar zum Buergerlichen Gesetzbuch.10. Aufl.2001,465.
② Erman/Ehmann, Kommentar zum Buergerlichen Gesetzbuch,10. Aufl.2001,494.
① Wandtke-Bullinger, Urheberrecht muenchen:2002,§23 KUG, Nr.24.
② Michael Gerlinger part3 germany, Ian S.Blackshaw and Robert C.R. Siekmann T.M.C.Asser press, The Hague, The Netherlands,2005, p 123-124.
③ Michael Gerlinger part3 germany, Ian S.Blackshaw and Robert C.R. Siekmann T.M.C.Asser press, The Hague, The Netherlands,2005, p 124.
① Michael Gerlinger part3 germany,Ian S.Blackshaw and Robert C.R. Siekmann T.M.C.Asser press, The Hague, The Netherlands,2005, p 124.
① See Huw Beverley-Smith, Ansgar Ohly and Agnes Lucas-Schloetter, Privacy, Property and Personality:Civil Law
Perspectives on Commercial Appropriation, (Cambridge 2005), P.190.德国联邦最高法院在"Paul Dahlke"阳"Herrenreiter"案判决中确立的立场,得到许多后续判决的支持。详请参见,本文第四章德国法考察部分关于这些案件的相关阐述。
② See Huw Beverley-Smith, Ansgar Ohly and Agnes Lucas-Schloetter, Privacy, Property and Personality:Civil Law Perspectives on Commercial Appropriation, (Cambridge 2005), P.143.
① Presley's Estate V.Russen,513 F.Supp.1339,211 u.s.p.Q,415(D.C.N.J.1981)
② J. Thomas. McCarthy, Rights of Publicity and Privacy, Deerfield, §3.1[B] (Rev.1993). From, Julius C. S. Pinckaers, From Privacy Toward a New Intellectual Property Right in Persona, (Kluwer Hague 1996), P.62-63.
③ See,California Civil Code section 99 and 3344.
④ Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition §49 commernt d.
① Zim v. Western Publishing Co.,573 F 2d (1978) (5th Cir CA),1327.
② Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition §49 commernt d.
③ Zim v. Western Publishing Co.,573 F 2d (1978) (5th Cir CA),1327.
④ Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition §49 commernt d.
⑤ Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition §49 commernt d.
① BGHZ 20.345-Paul Dahlke.
② BGHZ 143,214-Marlene Dietrich; BGH NJW 2000,2201-Der blaue Engel.
③ BGHZ 44,372,378-MeBmer-Tee; BGHZ 57,116,118-Wandsteckdose; BGHZ 119,20,23-Tchibo/Rolex Ⅱ. BGHZ 119,20,23-Tchibo/Rolex Ⅱ.
〖梁慧星.中国民法典草案建议稿附理由债权总则编[M].北京：法律出版社,2006.12；王泽鉴.债法原理(二)不当得利[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2002.24-31；王利明.民法新论(下)[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,1988.426.
②BGHZ GRUR1979,S.734-FuBballspieler.
③BGHZ 20,345,353-Paul Dahlke; BGH NJW 1956,1554,1555-Paul Dahlke.
④杨宗霈.韩雪照片登上医院广告,索赔百万最终只得2万[N].时代信报.2008年01月17日.
① Vgl. Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Verm6gensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.52. BGHZ 30,75,78-Caterina Valente; BGHZ 35,363-Ginseng.
② Vgl. Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.53;[德]M·雷炳德.著作权法[M].张恩民译.北京：法律出版社,2005.586.
③ Pietzko, AfP 1988,209,220. Aus. Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, J.C.B.Mohr(Paul Siebeck) Tubingen,1995, S.55, Fn.212.赞同这个观点的有, Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.55; Marcel Bartnik, Der Bildnisschutz im deutschen und franzosischen Zivilrecht, Tubingen,2004, S.249; Huw Beverley-Smith, Ansgar Ohly and Agnes Lucas-Schloetter, Privacy, Property and Personality:Civil Law Perspectives on Commercial Appropriation, (Cambridge 2005), P.141.
① Beuthien/Schmolz, Personlichkeitsschutz durch Personlichkeitsguterrechte, Munchen,1999, S.19fff.
② Simon Smith, Image, Persona and the Law, London:Sweet & Maxwell Ltd.2001, P 6.
③ Beuthien/Schmolz, Personlichkeitsschutz durch Personlichkeitsgiiterrechte, Munchen,1999, S.23ff.
④王泽鉴.债法原理(二)不当得利[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2002.267；王泽鉴.人格权保护的课题与展望[J].人大法律评论,2009.98.
①[日]藤原正则.不当得利法[M].日本信山社.2002.268,转引自五十岚清.人格权法[M].铃木贤,葛敏译.北京：北京大学出版社.2009.151.
① See, e.g., Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway (2000)30 EHRR 878,908.
② Zana v. Turkey(l999) 27 EHRR 667,689.
③ Muller v. Switzerland (1991)13 EHRR 212,228.
④阿布照哉等：《宪法——基本人权篇》(下册)中国政法大学出版社2006年版,第128页以下。[德]康德拉·黑塞.联邦德国宪法纲要[M].北京：商务印书馆,2007.306.
⑤BverfGE 7,198(208); 25,256(265).
⑥ R.Smend, Das Recht der freien Meinungsaeusserung, VVDStRL 4(1928) S.50.
①《德国基本法》第5条；美国联邦最高法院在沙利文一案发展出的真实恶意(real malice)的判断标准。
② R.Smend, Das Recht der freien Meinungsaeusserung, WDStRL 4(1928) S.56ff.[德]康德拉·黑塞塞.联邦德国宪法纲要[M].北京：商务印书馆,2007.314.
③ Davis v. High Society Magazine, Inc.,90 Appellate Division, second 374,457 N. Y. S.2d 308 (1982).
④ Paulsen v. Personality Posters, Inc.,59 Misc.2d 444,299 N. Y. S.2d 501 (1968).
① Goodenough, Retheorising Privacy and Publicity, Intellectual Property Quaterly,1997,1, p 37-70.
② Hillary Rodham Clinton received $8 million from Simon & Schuster for her memoir "Living History," see "Drehpunkt-die Schweizer Literaturzeitschrift," Vol.109 of March 2001; O.J. Simpson multiplied his assets by the factor nine through his book "I want to tell you," see SEEMANN, "Prominenz als Eigentum" 53 (Baden-Baden 1996).
① Olaf Weber, Human Dignity and the Commercial Appropriation of Personality:Towards a Cosmopolitan Consensus in Publicity Rights?, SCRIPT-ed, Volume 1, Issue 1, March 2004, p.185
② Richard Clayton & Hugh Tomlinson, The Law of Human Rights, Volume2, Oxford University Press,2000, p 1067.
①参见,[德]霍尔斯特·埃曼著：“德国民法中的一般人格权制度——论从非道德行为到侵权行为的转变”,邵建东、常青、虞蓉、邹海蓉译,载于梁慧星主编《民商法论丛》,总第23卷,第461页。
②我国和欧美诸国有所不同的是,部分新闻媒体在政府主导下运作,但是大多数媒体是纯粹的营利性企业,特别是出版业和互联网。
①王泽鉴先生认为,我国最高人民法院和英美法系的普通法院一样,在法律上并没有授予它一种违宪审查权,但是它应该做符合宪法的解释,这样并不超越它的权限,如果选的例子适当,做一个解释,法律的解释跟宪法的规范连在一起,并不是在否定宪法的效力,而是在发挥宪法保障功能,规范的功能,这样会改变整个宪法基本权利和司法的关系。参见,王泽鉴：“人格权、基本权利与言论自由”,http://www.xici.net/b46489/d43059183.htm.也就是说,不论一国采用何种释宪制度,即使这个国家或者这个地方法院没有违宪审查权,但是它也可以做符合宪法的法律解释,这是每一个法院所应该有的责任。因此,除了国家积极履行保障公民人格权的义务,创设保障人之尊严和人格自由发展的制度和实施条件外,在现行司法资源下我们完全有能力开启最高人民法院的释宪之门。
②佟柔.民法原理[M].北京：法律出版社,1989.486.
① Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broasting Co.,433 US 562 (1977),575.
② Sides v. F-R Publish Press,113F.2D 806 (2d. Cir), cert. Denied,311 U.S.711 (1940).
③ Sides v. F-R Publish Press,113F.2D 806 (2d. Cir), cert. Denied,311 U.S.711 (1940).
①BGH NJW2001,p.1922/1923
②BGH NJW2001,p.1922/1923
③Manfred Rehbinder, Urheberrecht, Munchen:C.H. Beck:C.H. Beck,2003,S.432.
④Preston v Martin Bregman Productions, Inc,765 F Supp 116 (SDNY 1991).
①[美]阿丽塔·L·艾伦,理查德·C·托克音顿.美国隐私法学说判例与立法[M].冯建妹等译.北京：中国民主法制出版社.2004.339.
①胡沛.不含“新闻,”的照片不是“新闻照片”,一陕北老汉赢得肖像权诉讼.[Z].综合新闻——政法新闻2003-06-2307：17：57.
① Arinton v. New York Time,55 N.Y.2d 433,434 N.E.2d 1319,499 N.Y.S.2d 941 (1982).
③本案的被告是一家杂志社,其刊登了一篇讨论受孕的文章,认为使用咖啡因可以增加受孕的可能性,并在文章中使用了一对夫妻和他们的6个孩子的照片。法院裁定,在以受孕为主题的文章和这幅大家庭的照片之间,存在着一种“真正的联系”,因而未经许可的使用符合“具有新闻价值的例外”,没有侵犯原告的公开权。Finger v. Omni Publications Ltd.,77 N. Y.2d 138,564 N. Y. S.2d 1014 (1990).
② Stephano v. News Group Publications,64 N. Y.2d 174,485 N. Y. S.2d 220 (1984).
⑤李明德.美国形象权法研究[J].环球法律评论.2003,冬季号：486.
① Joe Montana v. San fose Mercury News, Inc.,40 Cal Rrtr 2d 639 (Cal Ct App 1995).
② Messenger v Gruner,Fabr Printing Publishing,208 F3d 122(2d Cir 2000).
③ Manfred Rehbinder, Urheberrecht, Munchen:C.H. Beck:C.H. Beck,2003,S.432.
④ BGHZ,24,208ff. BGH GRUR,1985 S.398—Naktfoto.
⑤ BGH ZUM,1996,405.
⑥ BverFG, GRUR,2000, S.158-Caroline
① BGH NJW,1965,2149.
②BGH ZUM,2000,589-Der Blaue Engel.
① M Madow, "Private Ownership in Public Image:Popular Culture and Publicity Rights", (1993) 81 California Law Review 125, p135
② S Fraser, "The Conflict between the First Amendment and Copyright Law and its Impact on the Internet", (1998) 16 Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Journal 1.
③ UK:sec.76 CDPA 1988; Germany: §24 UrhG 1965.
④ UK:sec.20 CDPA 1988; Germany:§51 UrhG 1965.
⑤ UK:sec.30 CDPA 1988; Germany: §50 UrhG 1965.
⑥ Rogers v Grimaldi,875 F2d 994(2d Cir 1989)
⑦ DeClemente v Columbia Pictures Indus,860 F Supp 30(ENDY 1994)
⑧ Husterler Magazine v. Falwell,485 U.S.46; 108 S. Ct.876; 99 L. Ed.2d 41 (1988).
⑨ D Bedingfield,"Privacy or publicity? The enduring confusion surrounding the American tort of privacy", (1992) 55 Modern Law Review 108,p 166.
① BVerfG NJW 1995.1702 Grimm S.142.
② BVerfGE 75.369.
③ Erman/Ehmann, Kommentar zum Buergerlichen Gesetzbuch,10. Aufl.2001,370-375.
④ BverfG ZUM,2000,589-Der blaue Engel.
⑤ BGHZ 50,133.BverfGZ 30,173.
⑥ Manfred Rehbinder, Urheberrecht, Munchen:C.H. Beck:C.H. Beck,2003,S.435.
① J V Muhonen, "Right of Publicity", (1997) 8 (3) Entertainment Law Review 103, p 104.
② M Madow, "Private Ownership in Public Image:Popular Culture and Publicity Rights", (1993) 81 California Law Review 125, p.225 et seq.
③ Compare an equivalent provision in copyright, UK:sec.63 CDPA 1988.
④ R Badin, "USA & Germany:publicity protection-recent developments", (2000) 11(4) Entertainment Law Review, N43.
⑤ BGHZ 143,214=NJW 2000,2195=NJW 2001,2317-Marlene Dietrich
⑥ Jacubowski v. Germany (1995) 19 EHRR 64,77.
⑦BverfGE 21,271(278ff.)[德]康德拉·黑塞.联邦德国宪法纲要[M].北京：商务印书馆,2007.310.
⑥阿布照哉.宪法——基本人权篇(下册)[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2006.158.
① Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc.,425 u.s.748-756 (1976).
② Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc.,425 u.s.763-765. (1976).
③ Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp.,463 U.S.60,66 (1983).
④ Bates v. State Bar of Arizona,433 U.S.350 (1977).
⑤ Bates v. State Bar of Arizona,433 U.S.350,404(1977).
① Central Hudson Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Service Commission of New York,447 U.S.557, P.566. "In commercial speech cases, then, a four-part analysis has developed. At the outset, we must determine whether the expression is protected by the First Amendment. For commercial speech to come within that provision, it at least must concern lawful activity and not be misleading. Next, we ask whether the asserted governmental interest is substantial. If both inquiries yield positive answers, we must determine whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted, and whether it is not more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest. "
② Board of Trustees v. Fox,492 U.S.469,480(1989).
③ See, Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico,478 U.S.328,341; In re R. M. J.,455 U.S.191,203.
④ Board of Trustees v. Fox,492 U.S.469,480(1989), p.475-481.
① Central Hudson Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Service Commission of New York,447 U.S.557, P.563, Footnote 5.
② Kasky v. Nike, Inc.,27 Cal 4th 939,960 (2002).
③ Anderson v. Fisher Broadcasting Co.,712 P.2d 803(Or.1986).
④ Anderson v. Fisher Broadcasting Co.,712 P.2d 803(Or.1986).
⑤在Cher v. Forum International, Ltd.一案中,Cher接受了《美国》杂志的访谈,条件是：如果她不喜欢访谈结 果,她可以阻止杂志出版该访谈。访谈结束后,Cher决定不出版这次访谈。但是记者仍将这份访谈卖给了名叫Forum的Cher并不认可的杂志。除了发表访谈外,该杂志还在订阅卡上使用了Cher的名字,并且卡片声称,Cher告诉了Forum-一些她不会告诉《美国》杂志的事情,它写到：“因此,今天加入Cher和几十万具有冒险精神的读者吧”。法院判决,这是对公众人物肖像的高度误导性和商业性的使用。Cher v. Forum International, Ltd.,692 F.2d 634 (9th Cir.1982).
① BGH, NJW 1987. RR 231-Nena.
② Lyngstad et al. v Anabas Products et al. (ABBA) [1977] FSR 62.
③ F Ponthieu, "France:Sport-Right to protection of your own image", (2001) 12 (6) Entertainment Law Review N59.
④ Compare Laddie J's view with Arsenal FC v Reed, The ECJ, case C-206/01,(2003).
⑤ Elvis Presley Trade Marks case [1999] RPC 567
① Murray v. New York Magazine,267 N.E.2d 256(N.Y.1971).
② Spellman v. Simon & Schuster,3 Media L. Rep.2406 (N.Y. Civ Ct.1978).
③ Solano v. Playgirl, Inc.,292 F.3d 1078(9th Cir.2002)
④ Solano v. Playgirl, Inc.,292 F.3d 1078(9th Cir.2002)
⑤ Ali v. Playgirl, Inc.,447 F. Supp.723,727 (S.D.N.Y.1978)
① OLG Hamburg, Archiv fuer Presserecht (AfP),1988.
② OLG Hamburg, Archiv fuer Presserecht(AfP),1988, S.62
③ Bundesgerichtshof, Willy Brandt,8.9.1994, (1996) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift,593.
④ Bundesgerichtshof, Football calendar,6.2.1979, (1979) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2293
⑤ Bundesgerichtshof, Willy Brandt,8.9.1994, (1996) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift,593.
① Beverley v Choices Women's Medical Center, Inc,78 NY 2d 745(NY Ct App 1991)
② Oliver Kahn v Electronic Arts case, (2003) Zeitschrift fur Urheber-und Medienrecht 658.
③ Olaf Weber, Human Dignity and the Commercial Appropriation of Personality:Towards a Cosmopolitan Consensus in Publicity Rights?, SCRIPT-ed, Volume 1, Issue 1, March 2004, p 199。
① BGH ZUM,1996,240-Abschiedmedaille Willy Brandt.
② BGH GRUR 1968--Ligaspieler.
③ BGH GRUR 1968--Ligaspieler,S.652.
④ BGH GRUR 1979,--Fuβballspieler.
①BGH GRUR 1979,S.425-Fuβballspieler.
②[美]约翰·D·泽莱兹尼.传播法——自由、限制于现代媒介[M].张金玺、赵刚译.北京：清华大学出版社,2007.309.
②Cardtoons, L, C.V. Major League Baseball Players Association,95 F.3d 959,972-973(10th Cir.1996).
① Haper & Row Publishers v.Nation Enterprises,471 U.S.539,545.567(1985).
②Cardtoons,LC v Major League Baseball Players Assoc,95 F3d 959(10th Cir 1996)
③Campbell v.Acuff-Rose Music,Inc.,144 S.Ct.1164(1994).
④Campbell v.Acuff-Rose Music,Inc.,144 S.Ct.1164(1994).
① Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 482.
② Maxine Lans Retsky, Celebrities'rights of Publicity Are Limited to First Sale, Marketing News, Chicago,1998, Vol.32(9),p 14-15.
③ Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001, p 482.
④ Maxine Lans Retsky, Celebrities'rights of Publicity Are Limited to First Sale, Marketing News, Chicago,1998, Vol.32(9),p 15-17.
①北京市第一中级人民法院(2006)一中民终字第10912号民事判决书。
②王鑫.形象代言有期限超期使用应赔偿,汤镇宗在成都打赢肖像权官司.2008-07-22.
③张理.照片本系免费拍摄用做广告引来纠纷,洛阳一影楼被判赔偿[N].人民法院报.2008-09-03.
④金川.厨师照片登上宣传画构成侵权被判赔万元[N].人民法院报.2009-02-20.
①曹书瑜.桐乡11天促成一涉外肖像权纠纷和解[N].人民法院报.2007-02-05.
②傅沙沙.羽坛名将董炯向7被告追债[N].京华时报.2007年7月31日,第012版.
③殷超.擅用员工照片做成广告,汽车公司侵权被判赔偿[N].人民法院报.2007-05-21.
①费文彬“无痕丰胸”广告侵犯肖像权,柳州一医院向演员王雅劫赔偿8万元[N].人民法院报.
②苏平“无锡宣判国内最大肖像权案,张柏芝一审获赔百万”[N].人民日报.2006-04-12,第02版；赵正辉,潘志江.无锡中院一审宣判一起侵权案,影星张柏芝胜诉获赔百万元[N].人民法院报.2006-04-11.
③田浩.摄影师侵犯女模特肖像权,吉林美术出版社承担连带赔偿责任[N].人民法院报.2006-02-18.
④范静.广告公司自作主张擅自使用他人肖像,北京海淀宣判一肖像侵权案[N].人民法院报.2005-07-04.
①文刚.海口:“花仙子”私用女客浴巾照,一审被判赔2万[N].海南日报.2007-09-17
②胡沛.不含“新闻”的照片不是“新闻照片”,一陕北老汉赢得肖像权诉讼.[Z].综合新闻——政法新闻2003-06-2307：17：57.
①常亮.模特状告出版社侵犯肖像权胜诉[Z].案件时空.2003-09-13.
②王正平.“东方神鹿”侵权案王军霞胜诉,昆明卷烟厂赔偿80万元.[Z].重要新闻->大政要闻.2001-05-16.
③贾冬梅,郑颖.《亮剑》女主演童蕾诉现代艺术杂志社及上海万豪医院[N].人民法院报.2006-07-04.
④祝茜.用日本新娘婚纱照宣传,摄影公司被判赔偿六千[Z]. http://bjgy.chinacourt.org.2005-10-12
⑤杨潇.说说广告这点事之一：商家宣传广告不能侵犯公民肖像权[Z].http://bjgy.chinacourt.org/public 2008-10-06.
①祝茜.广告擅用他人肖像,丽姿减肥被判赔偿[Z]. http://bjgy.chinacourt.org/public/.2006-11-24 13:20:26
②擅自出售警花照片,安然兴华被判侵权祝茜,发布时间：2006-11-2210:42:37http://bjgy.chinacourt.org/public/detail.php?id=38231&k_w=肖像权
③王艳.张娜拉状告《甜蜜公主张娜拉》案调解结案[Z]. http://bjgy.chinacourt.org/public/.2006-05-29.
①石岩.世界旅游小姐肖像权官司一审胜诉[Z].http://bjgy.chinacourt.org/public/2006-09-22.
②祝茜.杨氏侵犯肖像权,色彩专家于西蔓胜诉[Z].http://bjgy.chinacourt.org/public/.2006-09-20.
①杨宗霈.韩雪照片登上医院广告,索赔百万最终只得2万[N].时代信报.2008年01月17日.
②下列案件如果没注明出处,皆来自人民法院网,http://www.chinacourt.org.
③江彬：《孙悦肖像权案和解》,楚天都市报,2009.1.22,B25版。
①尤文军.一报社擅自使用他人照片被判支付精神抚慰金[N].人民法院报,2008年8月13日.
①刘光峰.姓名岂可盗用,侵权理应担责[Z].重要新闻->大政要闻2003-04-02.
②祝茜.MBA联考状元赢姓名权官司获赔八千[Z]. http://bjgy.chinacourt.org/public.2006-11-20
①陈坚.“刀郎”之争出结果西域刀郎被判侵权[Z]. http://bjgy.chinacourt.org/public.2006-01-17.
②王杨.照片上了内衣广告,前奥运射击冠军打赢维权官司[N].人民法院报.2009-04-21.
①胡瑜.孙道临等与青春宝肖像权案宣判,青春宝、焦点公司赔偿145万元[N].人民法院报.2005-07-28.
②郭京霞.沈阳一家音乐公司使用腾格尔的姓名和照片侵权,腾格尔终审胜诉获赔两万[N].人民法院报.2004年7月14日.
③北京市海淀区人们法院(2005)海民初字第12312号民事判决书,以及北京市第一中级人民法院(2006)一中民终字第3240号民事判决书。
①刘润华.中国首例亡人肖像使用权纠纷案[J].法庭内外.2000,(2).
②李晓明.侵权”椰岛鹿龟酒”广告连播两年半去世演员家属获赔6万元[N].新闻晨报,2007-10-10·
③孙思娅.电视台擅用已故外科专家照片做广告被判赔15万[N].京华时报.2009-03-17.
①以下的案件简介,系参见胡喜盈,丁淼.“鲁迅的姓名肖像权之争’[J].律师世界.2001,(6).
②叶彦.只使用他人舞姿刊发广告也侵犯肖像权,江西省兴国县人民法院。
[1]祝建军.人格要素标识商业化利用的法律规制[M].北京：法律出版社,2009.
[2]梁慧星.民法总论(第二版)[M].北京：法律出版社,2001.
[3]王泽鉴.民法总则[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2005.
[4]王利明.人格权法研究[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[5]杨立新.中国人格权法立法报告[M],北京：知识产权出版社,2005.
[6]程合红.商事人格权论——人格权的经济利益内涵及其实现与保护[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2002.
[7]黄立.民法债编总论[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[8]佟柔.民法原理[M].北京：法律出版社,1983.
[9]江平.民法学[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2000.
[10]王利明.中国民法典学者建议稿·人格权法编[M].北京：法律出版社,2002.
[11]赵宾,李林启,张艳.人格权商品化法律问题研究[M].北京：知识产权出版社,2009.
[12][德]恩斯特·卡西尔.符号、神话、文化[M].李小兵译.上海：东方出版社,1998.
[13]牛宏宝.西方现代美学[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2002.
[14][德]恩斯特·卡西尔.人论[M].甘阳译.上海：上海译文出版社,1985.
[15]张俊浩.民法学原理[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2000
[16][德]罗尔夫·克尼佩尔.法律与历史——论“德国民法典”的形成与变迁[M].朱岩译.北京：法律出版社2003.
[17][英]巴里·尼古拉斯.罗马法概论[M].黄风译.北京：法律出版社,2002.
[18][法]阿·布瓦斯泰尔.法国民法典与法哲学[M].钟继军译.徐国栋.罗马法与 现代民法(第2卷)[M].北京：中国法制出版,2001.
[19][英]洛克.政府论(下)[M].叶启芳,瞿菊农译.北京：商务印书馆;1964.
[20][德]康德.法的形而上学原理[M].沈叔平译.北京：商务印书馆,1991.
[21][日]星野英一.私法中的人——以民法财产法为中心[M].王闯译.北京：中国法治出版社,2004.
[22]梅仲协.民法要义[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2000.
[23][日]五十岚清.人格权法.[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2009.
[24]郑玉波.民法总则[M].台北：三民书局,1998.
[25][美]R·考特,T·尤伦.法和经济学[M].张军译.上海：三联出版社,1991.
[26][德]拉德布鲁赫.法哲学[M].北京：法律出版社,2005.
[27][英]巴里·尼古拉斯.罗马法概论.黄风译.
[28][美]阿丽塔·L·艾伦等.美国隐私法学说判例与立法[M].北京：中国民主法制出版社,
[29][法]雅克·盖斯旦,吉勒·古博.法国民法总论[M].陈鹏等.北京：法律出版社,2004.
[30]李锡鹤.民法哲学论稿[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2000.
[31][德]霍尔斯特·埃曼.德国民法中的一般人格权制度——论从非道德行为到侵权行为的转变[A].邵建东等译.载梁慧星.民商法论丛(第23卷)[C].香港：金桥文化出版社(香港)有限公司,2002.
[32]甘绍平.人权伦理学[M].北京：中国发展出版社,2009.
[33]邵建东.德国反不正当竞争法研究[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2001.
陈忠诚.姓名权论[A].载新法学第2卷第1期[C].
[34][德]马克思米利安·福克斯.侵权行为法[M].齐晓琨译.北京：法律出版社,2006.
[35][德]康德拉·黑塞.联邦德国宪法纲要[M].北京：商务印书馆,2007.
[36]杨立新.人身权法论[M].北京：人民法院出版社,2002.
[37]王晓晔.竞争法学[M].北京：中国社科文献出版社,2007.
[38]郑成思.知识产权论[M].北京：法律出版社,2007.
[39]杨延超.作品精神权利论[M].法律出版社,2007.
[40][德]拉伦茨.法学方法论[M].陈爱娥译.北京：商务印书馆,2005.
[41][德]考夫曼.法律哲学[M].刘幸义译.北京：法律出版社.
[42][德]卡尔·拉伦茨.德国民法通论(上册)[M].王晓晔,邵建东等译.北京：法律出版社2003.
[43]黄立.民法债编总论[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[44]王泽鉴.侵权行为[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2009.
[45][美]约翰·D·泽莱兹尼.传播法——自由、限制于现代媒介[M].张金玺、赵刚译.北京：清华大学出版社,2007.
[46][日]阿布照哉等.宪法——基本人权篇(下册)[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2006.
[1]张丹丹,张帆.商品化权性质的理论之争及反思[J].当代法学,2007,(5).
[2]谢晓尧.商品化权：人格符号的利益扩张与衡平[J].法商研究,2005,(3).
[3]王泽鉴.人格权保护的课题与展望[J].人大法律评论,2009.
[4]严城.物权的正当性解说[J].黑龙江省政法管理干部学院学报,2008,(5).
[5]王泽鉴.人格权保护的课题与展望(三)——人格权的具体化及保护范围(2)——姓名权[J].台湾本土法学,2006,(9).
[6]尹田.自然人具体人格权的法律探讨[J].河南省政法管理干部学院学报,2004,(3).
[7]郑成思.商品化权刍议[J].中华商标.1996,(2)
[8]杨素娟,杜颖.商品化权议[J].河北法学.1998,(1)
[9]刘春霖.商品化权[J].西北大学学报(哲社版).1999,(4)
[10]孙美兰.“奥特曼”纠纷案引发的思考[J].法学.1999,(7)
[11]杜颖.论商品化权[A].民商法论丛(第13卷)[C].法律出版社,2000.
[12]梅慎实.试论影视作品中“虚构角色”商品化之知识产权保护[A].版权参考 资料[C].1989,(6).
[13]郭玉军.论角色商品化权之法律性质[J].知识产权.2000(6).
[14]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[J].电子知识产权.2005,(9).
[15]袁雪石.姓名权本质变革论[J].法律科学,2005,(2).
[16]何爱文.美国法之个人公开权于‘我国’法上受保护之可能性[J].全国律师.1992,(12).
[17]熊伟.形象权法律制度研究[D].武汉大学博士学位论文.2002.
[18]薛虹.名人的商标权——公开形象权[J].中华商标.1996,(3).
[19]董炳和.论形象权[J].法律科学.1998,(4).
[20]赖国钦.形象宣传权之研究[D].私立中国文化大学法律研究所硕士论文.1999.
[21]陈文吟.探讨美国Moore v. Regents of the University of California对生化科技之影响[A].智慧财产权与国际私法一曾陈明汝教授六秩诞辰祝寿论文集[C]
[22]李明德.美国形象权法研究[J].环球法律评论.2003,冬季号.
[23]吴汉东.形象的商品化与商品化的形象权[J].法学.2004,(10).
[24]蓝蓝.人格与财产二元权利体系面临的困境与突破——以“人格商品化”为视角展[J].法律科学.2006,(3).
[25]李智仁.人格权经济利益之保障,个人公开权之探讨[J].法令月刊.55(11).
[26]王素珍.人体组织之保障与管制—财产权与人格权结合的另类思考[D].台湾辅仁大学法律研究所硕士论文.2003.
[27]黄映智.人体组织提供者就该组织衍生利益所得主张之私法上权利[D].国立台北大学法研所硕士论文.2006.
[28]刘承庆、刘承愚.人体组织应用于生物科技之管制法令与财产权[J].月旦法学杂志.2003,(93).
[29]刘承庆.生物科技智慧财产权归属之研究—以人体组织所衍生之权利为中心
[D].国立成功大学法律研究所硕士论文.2004.
[30]汪洪,祝建军.人格符号的财产利益保护之法理思考[J].法律适用.2007,(3).
[31]杨立新,林旭霞.论人格标识商品化权及其民法保护[J].福建师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版).2006,(1).
[32]冯象.鲁迅肖像权问题[J].读书.2001,(3).
[33]屈茂辉,黄劲.论人格权法的基本原理[J].云南大学学报(法学版).2003,(2).
[34]马俊驹.人与人格分离技术的形成、发展与变迁[J].现代法学.2006,(4).
[35]马俊驹,张翔.人格权的理论基础及其立法体例[J].法学研究.2004,(6).
[36]马俊驹.论作为私法上权利的人格权[J].法学.2005,(12).
[37]李琛.质疑知识产权之“人格财产一体性”[J]..中国社会科学.2004,(2).
[38]林凤海.论法律政策在法哲学体系中的地位[D].吉林大学硕士论文.2007
[39]彭汉英.当代西方的法律政策思想[J].外国法译评.1997,(2)
[40]胡平仁.法律政策学：平衡权与权力的科学[J].当代法学.2001,(3).
[41]齐晓琨.“索拉娅案”评注——德国民法中对损害一般人格权的非物质损害的金钱赔偿[J].现代法学.2007,(1).
[42]朱川.商品化权研究[A].复旦民商法学评论(第1期)[C].北京：法律出版社,2001
[43]刘孔中.著作人格权之比较研究[J].台大法学论丛.2002,31(4).
[44]萧雄淋.同一性保持权侵害之若干问题——评台湾高等法院八十四年上字第三一四号判决[J].资讯法务透析.1996,(12).
[45]简资修.违法保护他人法律之过失推定：经济功效与司法仙丹[J].政大法学评论.2003,(75).
[46]陈忠五.论契约责任与侵权责任的保护客体： “权利”与“利益”区别正当性的再反省[J].台大法学论丛.2007,36(3).
[47][美]威廉·费歇尔.知识产权的理论[M].黄海峰译.刘春田.中国知识产权评
论第1卷[C],北京：商务印书馆,2002.[48][德]霍尔斯特·埃曼.德国法中一般人格权的概念和内涵[J].南京大学法律评论(特刊).2000.
[49]杜颖.论商品化权[A].民商法论丛(第13卷)[C].北京：法律出版社,2000.
[50][德]赫尔穆特·科尔.人格尊严和商业利益间的一般人格权[A].米健.中德法学学术论文集[C].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2006.[51]颜厥安.财产、人格,还是资讯?论人类基因的法律地位[A].台大法学论丛[C].2002,31(1)
[1]Huw Beverley-Smith, The commercial appropriation of Personality, Cambridge University Press,2008.
[2]Huw Beverley-Smith, Ansgar Ohly and Agnes Lucas-Schloetter, Privacy, Property and Personality:Civil Law Perspectives on Commercial Appropriation, Cambridge University Press,2005.
[3]Ian S.Blackshaw and Robert C.R. Siekmann T.M.C.Asser press, The Hague, The Netherlands,2005.
[4]McCarthy, J. Thomas, The Rights of Publicity and Privacy, New York,1998.
[5]M. B. Nimmer, Paul Marcus, David A. Myers, David Nimmer, Cases and Materials on Copyright,4th,N. M. M.& N.1985.
[6]Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001.
[7]Julius C. S. Pinckaers, From Privacy Toward a New Intellectual Property Right in Persona, Kluwer Hague,1996.
[8]Simon Smith, IMAGE,PERSONAAND THE LAW, London:Sweet & Marwell,2000.
[1]Andrew B. Sims, Right of Publicity:Survivability Reconsidered,49 Fordham L. Rev. (1981)453.
[2]Amy D. Hogue & Michael B. Garfinkel, The Right of Publicity:Does it Survive Death and Abandonment,30 Tort & Ins. L. J. (1994-1995),663.
[3]Armstrong, George M., The Reification of Celebrity:Person as Property,51 LA. L.REV.443 (1990).
[4]Ausness, Richard, TheRihtofPublct A"Haytc iaHuri ne,55 TEMP. L. Q.977 (1982).
[5]Bloustein, Edward J., Privacy as an Aspect of Human Dignity:An Answer to Dean Prosser,39 N. Y. U. L. REV.962,965 (1964).
[6]Cohen, Felix S., Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach,35 COLUM. L.REV.809(1935).
[7]D'Amato, Comment on Professor Posner's Lecture on Privacy,12 Ga. L. Rev. (1978), 497.
[8]Donenfeld, Property or Other Rights in the Names, Likenesses or Personalities of Deceased Persons,16 Bull. Copyright Soc'y. (1968),17.
[9]Douglas G Baird, Note, Human Cannonballs and the First Amendment:Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.,30 Stan. L. Rev. (1978),1185.
[10]Eileen R. Reilly, Note, The Right of Publicity for Political Figure:Martin Luther King, Jr., Center for Social Change, Inc. v. American Heritage Products, Inc.,46 U. Pitt. L. Rev. (1985),1161.
[11]Edward J. Bloustein, Privacy as Human Dignity,39 N. Y. U. L. Rev. (1964),962.
[12]Flecher, Peter L.&Rubin, Edward L., Privacy, Publicity, and the Portrayal of Real People by the Media,88 YALE L. J.1577 (1979).
[13]G. Dickler, The Right of Privacy,70. U. S. L. Rev. (1936),435.
[14]Ginsburg, Jane C., Creation and Commercial Value:Copyright Protection of Works of Information,90 COLUM. L. REV.1865 (1990).
[15]Goodenough, Retheorising Privacy and Publicity, Intellectual Property Quaterly, 1997.
[16]Gordon, Harold R., Right of Property in Name, Likeness, Personality and History,55 NW.U. L.REV.553(1960).
[17]Gordon, Wendy J., On Owning Information:Intellectual Property and the Restitutionary Impulse,78 VIRG. L. REV.147 (1992).
[18]Green, The Right of Privacy,27 ILL.L. Rev. (1932),237.
[19]Gross, Hyman, The Concept of Privacy,42 N. Y. U. L. REV.34 (1967).
[20]Haemmerli, Alice, Whose Who? The Case for Kantian Right of Publicity,49 DUKE L. J.383 (1999).
[21]H. Kalven, Privacy in Tort Law:Were Warren and Brandeis Wrong? 31 Law & Contemp. Probs (1966),326.
[22]Halpern, Sheldon, The of Publicity:Commercial Exploitation of the Associative Value Personality,39 VAND. L. REV.1199 (1986).
[23]Harold R. Gordon, Right of Property in Name, Likeness, Personality and History,55 Nw. U. L. Rev (1960-1961),553.
[24]Halpern, Sheldon, The Right of Publicity:Maturation of an Independent Right Protecting the Associative Value of Personality,46 HASTINGS L. J.853 (1995).
[25]Hetherington, Direct Commercial Exploitation of Identity:A New Age for the Right of Publicity,17 COLUM. VLA J. L.& ARTS 1 (1992).
[26]Hoffman, The Right of Publicity:An Analytical Update,14 Int. Prop. L. Rev. (1982), 3.
[27]Hoffman, The Right of Publicity-Heir's Right, Advertisers' Windfall, or Courts' Nightmare?
[28]Hughes, Justin, The Philosophy of Intellectual Property,77 GEO. L. J.287 (1988).
[29]Joseph. R. Gordin, The Right of Publicity:A Doctrinal Innovation,62 Yale L. J(1952-1953),1123.
[30]Justin Hughes, The Philosophy of Intellectual Property,77 Georgetown L. J. (1988-1989),287.
[31]Kwall, Roberta Rosenthal, Is Independence Day Dawning for the Right of Publicity? 17 U. C. DAVIS L. REV.191 (1983).
[32]Kwall, Roberta Rosenthal, The Right of Publicity vs. the First Amendment:A Property and Liability Rule Analysis,70 IND. L. J.47 (1994).
[33]Madow, Michael(1993), Private Ownership of Publicity Image:Popular Culture and Publicity Right,81 CAL. L. REV.149.
[34]M. B. Jacoby & D. L. Zimmerman, Foreclosing on Fame:Exploring the Uncharted Boundaries of the Right of Publicity,77 N.Y. L. Rev. (2002),1322.
[35]Malkan, Jeffrey, Stolen Photographs:Personality, Publicity and Privacy,75 TEX. L. REV.779 (1997).
[36]McCarthy, J. Thomas, Melville B. Nimmer and the Right of Publicity. A Tribute,34 UCLA L. REV.1703(1987).
[37]Mac J. Apfelbaum, Copy Right and Right of Publicity:One Pea in Two Pods,71 Geo L.J. (1982-1983),1567.
[38]Nimmer, Melville B., The Right of Publicity,19 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS.203 (1954).
[39]Nizer, Louis, The Right of Privacy,39 MICH. L. REV.526 (1941).
[40]Pilpel, Harriet F., The Right of Publicity,27 BULL COPYRIGHT SOC 249 (1980).
[41]Post, Robert C., Rereading Warren and Brandeis:Privacy, Property, and Appropriation,41 CASE W. RES. L. REV.647 (1991).
[42]Prosser, Willian L., Privacy,48 CAL. L. REV.383 (1960).
[43]Reilly, Eileen R., Note, The Right of Publicity for Political Figures:Martin Luther King, Jr., Center for Social Change, Inc. v. American Heritage Products,46 U. PITT. L REV.1161(1985).
[44]Richard E. Fikes, The Right of Publicity:A Descendible and Inheritable Property Right,14 Cumb. L. Rev. (1984),347.
[45]Salomon, J Eugene, The Right of Publicity Run Riot:The Case for a Federal Statute, 60 S. CAL. L. REV.1179 (1987).
[46]Sheldon W. Halpern, The Right of Publicity:Commercial Exploitation of the Associative Value of Personality,39 Vand. L. Rev. (1986),1199.
[47]Treece, James M., Commercial Exploitation of Names, Likenesses, and Personal Histories,51 TEX. L. REV.637 (1973).
[48]Warren, Samuel D.&Brandeis, Louis D., The Right to Privacy,4 HARV. L. REV. 193(1890).
[49]Westfall, David&Landau, David, Publicity Rights as Property Rights,23 CARDOZO ARTS & ENT. L. J.71 (2005).
[50]Weber, Olaf, Human Dignity and the Commercial Appropriation of Personality: Toward a Cosmopolitan Consensus in Publicity Rights?, Script-ed, Volume 1, Issue 1,March 2004.
[51]W. J. Gordon, A Property Right in Self-Experience:Equality and Individualism in the Natural Law of Intellectual Property,102 Yale. L. J. (1992-1993),1533.
[52]William M. Landes & Richard A. Posner, An Economic Analysis of Copyright Law, 18 J. Legal Stud. (1989),325.
[53]Versailes, September 22,2005.[2006]E.M.L.R.22,Issue 5, September-October,2006.
[54]Logeais, The French Right to One's Image:A Legal Lure? 5 Ent.L.Rev.163 (1994).
[1]Bernd Ruthers, Allgemeiner Teil des BGB,12. Aufl., Miinchen 2002.
[2]Bruno Seemann, Prominenz als Eigentum:Pararelle Rechtsentwicklung einer Vermarktung der Persoenlichkeit im amerikanischen, deutschen und schweizerischen Persoenlichkeitsschutz,1. Aufl., Baden-Baden,1996.
[3]Beuter, Claudia, Die Kommerzialisierung des Personlichkeitsrecht, Diss. Konstanz 2000.
[4]Beuhien, Volker/Schmolz, Anton Sebastian, Personlichkeitsschutz durch Personlichkeitsguterrechte:Erlosherausgabe statt nur billige Entschadigung in Geld, Munchen 1999.
[5]Claus, Sabine, Postmortaler Personlichkeitsschutz im Zeichen allgemeiner ommerzialisierung, Baden-Baden 2004.
[6]Dasch, Norbert, Die Einwilligung zum Eingriff in das Recht am eigenen Bild,Munchen 1990, (zugl. Disss. Munchen 1989).
[7]Fischer, Annette, Die Entwicklung des postmortalen Personlichkeitsschutzes. Von Bismarck bis Marlene Dietrich, Munchen 2004.
[8]Funkel, Thorston, Schutz der Personlichkeit durch Ersatz immaterieller Schaden in Geld, Munchen 2001.
[9]Gauβ, Holger, Der Mensch als Marke:Lizenzierung von Name, Bild, Stimme und Image in deutschen und US-amerikanischen Recht, Diss. Baden-Baden 2005.
[10]v. Gierke,Otto, Deutsches Privatrecht, Duncker & Humblot, Miinchen/Leipzip 1936.
[11]Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995.
[12]Gregoritza, Anna, Die Kommerizialisierung von Personlichkeitsrechten Verstorbener.Ein Untersuchung der Rechtsforbildung durch den Bundesgerichtshof in den Marlene-Dietrich-Urteilen vom 1. Dezember 1999, Diss. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 2002.
[13]Helle, Jurgen, Besondere Personlichkeitsrechte im Privatrecht. Das Recht am eigenen Bild, das Recht am gesprochenen Wort und der Schutz des geschriebenen Wortes, Tubingen 1991.
[14]Honsell/Vogel/Geiser, Basler Kommentar zum Schweizerischen Privatrecht, Zivilgesetzbuch I,2. Aufl., Basel 2002.
[15]Hubmann, Heinrich, Urheber-und Verlagsrecht,2. Aufl., Munchen und Berlin 1966.
[16]Jung, Alexander, Die Vererblichkeit des allgemeinen Personlichkeitsrechts, Diss. Remscheid 2005.
[17]Klaver, Magdalene, Bereicherungsrechtliche Anspriiche bei einer Verletzung des allgemeinen Personlichkeitsrechts, Hamburg 1999 (zugl. Diss. GieBen 1999).
[18]Klippel, Diethelm, Der zivilrechtliche Schutz der Namens. Eine historische und dogmatische Untersuchung, Paderborn/Miinchen/Wien/Zurich,1985.
[19]Kotz, Hein, Deliktrecht,7 Aufl., Berlin 1996.
[20]Lange, Hermann/Schiemann, Gottfried, Schadensersatz,3. Aufl., Tubingen 2003.
[21]Larenz, Karl, Allgemeiner Teil des deutschen Burgerlichen Rechts,5. Auflage, Miinchen1980.
[22]Marcel Bartnik, Der Bildnisschutz im deutschen und franzosischen Zivilrecht, Tubingen,2004.
[23]Magold, Hanns Arno, Personenmerchandising:der Schutz der Persona im Recht der USA und Deutschlands, Diss. Frankfurt am Main/Berlin/Bern 1994.
[24]Miinchener Kommentar zum Burgerlichen Gesetzbuch,2. Aufl., Munchen (zit.:MiinchenerKomm/Verf.).
[25]Peifer, Karl-Nilolaus, Individualitat im Zivilrecht:Der Schutz personlicher, gegenstandlicher und wettbewerblicher Individualitat im Personlichkeitsrecht, Immaterialgiiterrecht und Recht der Unternehmen, Tiibingen 2001.
[26]Rebinder, Manfred, Urheberrecht,10 Aufl., Munchen 1998.
[27]Schack, Haimo, Rezension zu:Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrecht als Vermogensrechte, in:AcP 195 (1995).
[28]Schertz, Christian, Merchandising:Rechsgrundlagen und Rechtspraxis, Munchen 1997.
[29]Schricker, Gerhard, Urheberrecht, Kommentar, Munchen 2006 (zit.:Schricker/Verf.).
[30]Seemann, Prominenz als Eigentum, Baden-Baden 1996.
[1]Assmann, Heinz-Dieter, Schadensersatz in mehrfacher Hohe des Schadens:zur Erweiterung des Sanktionensystems fur die Verletzung gewerblicher Schutzrechte und Urheberrechte, in:BB 1985.
[2]Bender, Albrecht W., Das postmortale Personlichkeitsrecht:Dogmatik und Schutzbereich, in:VersR 2001.
[3]Botticher, Eduard, Zur Ausrichtung der Sanktion nach dem Schutzzweck der verletzten Privatrechtsnorm, in:AcP 158 (1959/1960).
[4]Biichler, Andrea, Die Kommerzialisierung Verstorbener. Ein Pladoyer fur die Vererblichkeit vermogenswerter Personlichkeitsaspekte, in:AJP 2003.
[5]Dies, Die Kommerzialisierung von Personlichkeitsgutern. Zur Dialektik von Ich und Mein, in:AcP 206 (2006).
[6]Canaris, Claus-Wilhelm, Gewinnabschopfung bei Verletzung des allgemeinen Personlichkeitsrechts, in:Festschrift fur Erwin Deutsch zum 70. Geburtstag, Koln 1999, S.85 ff.
[7]Freitag, Andreas, Die Nachahmung bekannter Personlichkeiten in der Werbung, in: GRUR 1994.
[8]Horst-Peter Gotting, Die Vererblichkeit der vermogenswerten Bestandteile des Personlichkeitsrechts-ein Meilenstein in der Rechtsprechung des BGH, NJW 2001, 585.
[9]Heil, Ulf/Roos, Mechael, Zur dreifachen Schadensberechnung bei ubernahme sonderrechtlich nicht geschutzter Leistung, in:GRUR 1994.
[10]Hubmann, Heinrich, Der Bereicherungsanspruch im Personlichkeitsrecht, in:UFITA 39(1963).
[11]Hans Forkel, Lizenzen an Personlichkeitsrechten durch gebundenen Rechtsiibertragung, GRUR 1988.
[12]Helmut Coing, Zur Geschichte des Betriffs,,Subjektives Recht", in Helmut Coing, Gesammelte Aufsatze zu Rechtsgeschichte,Rechtsphilosophie und Zivilrecht, 1974-1975, Bd 1, Frankfurt a.m.1982.
[13]Coing, Helmut, Zur Entwicklung des zivilrechtlichen Personlichkeitsschutzes, in:JZ 1958.
[14]Klaver, Vermogensrechtliche Aspekte des zivilrechtlichen allgemeinen Personlichkeitsrechts, ZUM 3/2002,205.
[15]Kleine, Anm. zu BGH vom 20.2.1968-Ligaspieler, in:GRUR 1968, S.654.-Koos, Stefan, Der Name als Immaterialgut, in:GRUR 2004.
[16]Kriiger, Christof, Personlichkeitsschutz und Werbung-Zugleich eine Besprechung der beiden BGH-Entscheidungen "White-Christmas" und "'FuBballtor", in:GRUR 1980.
[17]Mestmacker, Ernst-Joachim, Eingriffserwerb und Rechtsverletzung in der ungerechtfertigten Bereicherung, in:JZ 1958.
[18]Peukert, Alexander, Personlichkeitsbezogene Immaterialgiiterrechte, in:ZUM 2000, S.710ff.
[19]Sack, Rolf, Die eigenmachtige Werbung mit fremden Namen als Delikt, in:WRP 1984, S.
[20]Staudinger, J. v., Marlene Dietrich und der (postmortale) Schutz vermogensweter Personlichkeitsrechte, in:Jura 2001.
[21]Ullmann, Eike, Personlichkeitsrechte in Lizenz?, in:AfP 1999.
[22]Ders, Eike, Caroline v., Marlene D., Eheleute M.-fast geschlossener Kreis, in:WRP 2000.
[23]Wagner, Gerhard, Anm. zu BGH, Urt. v.1.12.1999-ZR 49/97 und BGH, Urt. V. 1.12.1999-ZR 226/97, in:GRUR 2000.
[24]Ders, Sanktion bei Verletzung des postmortalen Personlichkeitsrechts, in:GRUR 2004.
[25]Raiser, Ludwig, Der Stand der Lehre vom subjektiven Recht im Deutschen Zivilrecht, in:JZ 1961.
[1]Beignier L'honneur et le droit t.234, LGDL,1995.
[2]Cassation Commercaile,26 April 1988, Annales de la Propriete Intellectuelle 1988.
[3]Paul Mathely-Le Nouveau Droit des Signes Distinctfs, EdJNA 1994.
[4]Gerard Cornu. Vocabulaire jurisdique, P.U.F.2000.
[5]Stoufflet. Le droit de la personne sur son image, JCP.1957.
[1]田村善之「著作榷法概论」[第2版]有斐阁,2003年。
[2]齐藤博「著作榷法」,有斐阁,2000年。
[8]五十岚清(2003)。《人格榷法概说》,有斐阁2003。
[9]半田正夫「著作权法概说(第10版)」,一粒社,第八版,1997。
[10]大家重夫：「肖像权」(新版),株式会社太田出版2007年版。
[3]斋藤博「氏名·肖像の商业的利用に关する为榷利」特研15号,1993。
[5]竹田稔「知的财产榷侵害要论环正兢桨编)」,凳明协会,1997年。
[6]纹谷惕男「知的财产榷の国隙的保护」,泽木敬郎等一编「国际私法の争点(新
版)J,有斐阁,1996年。
[12]石井智弥：「人格权固有の利益の保护」,露木美幸、柴山美穗等「专修法研论集」第32号,2003(平成15)年。
① Article entitled'Branded'.'The Times',10 February 2001.②人格符号在学术文献中有很多称谓。英文文献中有"personal indicia"或"personal symbol",直译为“人格标识”或者“人格标志”,"personality'’或‘"valuable attributes of personality",直译应该是“人格”或“具有价值的人格要素”；"identity"或‘"persona",直译是“身份”、“同一性”或“人格”,荷兰学者Pinckaers倾向于用"persona",其指“所有确定特定人的符号或标志”,“这些符号包括姓名、肖像、声音、签字、特征以及其他别人据以识别特定人的区别性标志”。德文的表述有"Identitatsmerkmale",直译为“身份标记”,"Elemente der Personlichkeit",直译为“‘人格要素”。本文则用“人格标识”作为这类标记的统称。称为“标识”,是因为从字面上便可直观反映这些符号的共同点在于其具有可识别性功能,即它们往往是一些个性化的区别标志,人们在社会交往中可借助这些标志来识别出其所指代的人。称为“人格标识”,是因为姓名、肖像等符号具有识别功能,是个人在社会交往中对外表现自己的“人格形象”的媒介和工具。关于此项人格符号的学术用语可详见如下文献：Julius C.S. Pinckaers, From Privacy toward a New Intellectual Property Right in Persona, (Kluwer Hague 1996), P.3,265-266. Huw Beverley-Smith, The commercial appropriation of Personality, (Cambridge 2002), P.3. Haimo Schack, Urheber-und Urhebervertragsrecht,2. Aufl., Tubingen 2001, Rn.51, S.25. MunchKomm/Rixecker (2001) § 12 Anh. Rn 113. Beuthien/Schmolz, Personlichkeitsschutz durch Personlichkeitsguterrechte,1999, S.25ff.谢晓尧.商品化权：人格符号的利益扩张与衡平[J].法商研究.2005(3)：84-86.祝建军.人格要素标识商业化利用的法律规制[M].法律出版社,2009.26-29.
① "Pop Music Fashion Becomes a Sales Hit" in:"New York Times" of January 8,1991, at D1.
② BATTERSBY & GRIMES, "The Law of Merchandise and Character Merchandising-Merchandising Law and Practice," Sec.1-5 et seq. (St. Paul 2002); Madow, "Private Ownership of Public Image:Popular Culture and Publicity Rights," 81 Calif. L. Rev.125, (1993).Secs.1-10 et seq.
③ Ian S.Blackshaw and Robert C.R. Siekmann,Sport Image Rights In Europe.Hague:T.M.C.Asser press, The Hague, The Netherlands,2005, p3.
④ Hillary Rodham Clinton received $8 million from Simon & Schuster for her memoir "Living History," see "Drehpunkt-die Schweizer Literaturzeitschrift," Vol.109 of March 2001; O.J. Simpson multiplied his assets by the factor nine through his book "I want to tell you," see SEEMANN, "Prominenz als Eigentum" 53 (Baden-Baden 1996).
⑤ Daniel Biene,CELEBRITY CULTURE,INDIVIDUALITY AND RIGHT OF PUBLICITY AS A EUROPEAN LEGAL ISSUE, International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law,2005,36(5),P,505-506.
① Julius C.S. Pinckaers, From Privacy toward a New Intellectual Property Right in Persona, (Kluwer Hague 1996), p 239-242.Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broasting Co.,433 US 562 (1977).
② See the testimony of Michael Douglas in Lindsay J., Douglas v Hello (trial), [2003] 153 NJL 595.Uhlaender v. Henricksen,316 F. Supp.1277,1282 (D. Minn.1970).
⑨[英]洛克.政府论(下)[M].叶启芳,瞿菊农,译.北京：商务印书馆,1964：18-19.
③ M. B. Nimmer, The Right of Publicity,19 Law & Contemp. Probs (1954),203,216.
④ M. B. Nimmer, The Right of Publicity,19 Law & Contemp. Probs (1954),203,216.
⑤ BGH NJW 2000.2195,2198-Marlene Dietrich.
⑥ Eileen R. Reilly, Note, The Right of Publicity for Political Figure:Martin Luther King, Jr., Center for Social Change, Inc. v. American Heritage Products, Inc.,46 U. Pitt. L. Rev. (1985),p 1161,1168 note 37.
⑦ McCarthy, The Right of Publicity and Privacy, Vol.Ⅰ, West Group,1999, §5.8 [A],2-2.:王泽鉴.人格权保护的课题与
展望[J].人大法律评论.(2009年卷)：62.
① Flecher/Rubin, supra note 68, at 1601. Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.,422 U.S.563 (1977), at 576.
② Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.,433 US 562 (1977),573-576.
③ McCarthy, The Right of Publicity and Privacy, Vol.1, West Group,1999,§5.8[A],2-3.转引自王泽鉴.人格权保护的课题与展望[J].人大法律评论.(2009年卷)：62.
④ H. Kalven, Privacy in Tort Law:Were Warren and Brandeis Wrong? 31 Law & Contemp. Probs (1966) 326,331.
⑤ Michael Madow, Private Ownership of Public Image:Popular Culture and Publicity Rights,81 Cal. L. Rev. (1993), 125,196.
⑥ Richard A. Posner, The Right of Privacy,12 Ga. L. Rev. (1978), p 293.
① See Marco De Boni. Martyn Prigmore, A Hegelian Basis For Privacy As An Economic Right, http://wwwusers.cs.york.ac.uk/-mdeboni/papers/Hegelian_Basis_For_E-privacy.pdf.
② Hoerst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, JC:B:Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tubingen,1994, S. 210; Magold, Hanns Arno, Personenmerchandising:der Schutz der Persona im Recht der USA und Deutschlands, Diss. Frankfurt am Main/Berlin/Bern 1994. S.214.
③ Richard A. Posner, The Right of Privacy,12 Ga. L. Rev. (1978),393,411. William M. Landes & Richard A. Posner, An Economic Analysis of Copyright Law,18 J. Legal Stud. (1989),325,362-363.
④ 15 F 3d 432 (5th Cir.1994),437-438.
① see J Holyoak, "UK Character Rights and Merchandising Rights Today", (1993) JBL 444, p 456; I Davies & A Terry, "Passing off-celebrity endorsement", EIPR 2002, N134, N136:"Realities of the market".
② McCarthy, The Right of Publicity and Privacy, Vol.Ⅰ, West Group,1999,§5.8[A],2-4.转引自王泽鉴.人格权保护的课题与展望[J].人大法律评论.(2009年卷).62.
③ James M. Treece, Commercial Exploitation of Names, Likenesses and Personal Histories,51 Tex. L. Rev. (1972-1973) 637,647.Flecher/Rubin, supra note 68, at 1600; Hetherington, Direct Commercial Exploitation of Identity:ANew Age for the Right of Publicity,17 COLUM. VLA J. L.& ARTS 1,18 (1992); Kwall, The Right of Publicity vs. the First Amendment:A Property and Liability Rule Analysis,70 IND. L. J.47,75-79 (1994).
④ Baird, Note, Human Cannonballs and the First Amendment:Zacchini v. Schripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.,30 STAN. L. REV.1185 (1978), at 1187. cited. M Madow, "Private Ownership in Public Image:Popular Culture and Publicity Rights", (1993) 81 California Law Review 125, note 5, p 229.
⑤ Samuel Murumba, Character Merchandising in Australia—Welcome Home Wanderer, Intell. Prop. F., Nov.1990, 22. From, Michael Madow, Private Ownership of Public Image:Popular Culture and Publicity Rights,81 Cal. L. Rev. (1993),237.
⑥J Kahn, "Bringing dignity back to light:Publicity Rights and the eclipse of the tort of appropriation of identity", Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Journal, [1999] 17,p 319. O Goodenough, "A Right of Privacy in the United Kingdom:Why not the Courts?", (1993) 7 EIPR 227,p 45.
①严城.物权的正当性解说[J].黑龙江省政法管理干部学院学报,2008,(5)：98-100.[德]康德.法的形而上学原理[M].沈叔平,译.北京：商务印书馆,1991：68.
②严城.物权的正当性解说[J].黑龙江省政法管理干部学院学报,2008,(5)：98-100.
③ Haemmerli, Whose Who? The Case for Kantian Right of Publicity,49 DUKE L. J.383 (1999).
④ Hughes, The Philosophy of Intellectual Property,77 GEO. L. J.287,340 (1988).
⑤ BGH GRUR 1981,846,847-Rennsportgemeinschaft.
⑥ MunchKomm/Schwerdtner(2001) § 12 Rn 300.
⑦ Vgl. Bruno Seemann, Prominenz als Eigentum:Pararelle Rechtsentwicklung einer Vermarktung der
Persoenlichkeit im amerikanischen, deutschen und schweizerischen Persoenlichkeitsschutz,1. Aufl., Baden-Baden, 1996, S.136; MunchKomm/Schwerdtner(2001) § 12 Rn 301.
⑧ Vgl. Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.100.
① Vgl. Horst-Peter Gotting, Pers6nlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.137-138.
②王泽鉴.人格权保护的课题与展望[J].人大法律评论.(2009年卷).63.
③王泽鉴.人格权保护的课题与展望[J].人大法律评论.(2009年卷).63.
④ See William Prosser, Privacy,48 CAL. L. REV (1960) p.383,389. Pavesich v. New England Life Insurance Co., 122 Ga.190,50 S.E.68 (Ga 1905).
① JCP 1966,Ⅱ.14711-Petula Clark. Sa. C., Cour D'Appel Bordeaux,La Semaine Juridique 1999,No.1641.
② Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.43.
③ Peter Jaffey, Rights of Privacy, Confidentiality and Publicity and Related Rights,Paul L.C.Torremans (ed.),Copyright And Human Rights-Freedom of Expression Intellectual Property-Pricacy,Kluwer Law International 2004,Printed in the Netherlands,p.173-174
④ Samuel Warren & Louis Brandeis, The Right to Privacy,4 Harv. L. Rev (1890),p 193,195-212.
① Bronwn Denicola, Case on Copyright, Unfair Competition and Related Topics,5th. ed.,Foundation Press, p.685.
② BGHZ 26,349-Herrenreite; NJW-1958,827-Herrenreiter. BGH NJW 1996,985-Caroline.
③ Tamar Gidron,The Publicity Right in Israel An Example of Mixed Origins, Values, Rules, Interests and Branches of Law,Electronic Journal of Comparative Law,vol.12.1(May2008),p 1-19.JoelKarni Schmid, McDonald's cries foul:Trademark rights versus Right of Publicity in Israel, Trademark World,168,1 June 2004,p 18.
①祝建军.人格要素标识商业化利用的法律规制[M].法律出版社.2009.217-218.
②王泽鉴.人格权保护的课题与展望(三)——人格权的具体化及保护范围(2)——姓名权[J].台湾本土法学.2006,(9)：44-55；王泽鉴.人格权保护的课题与展望(三)——人格权的具体化及保护范围(2)——姓名权[J].台湾本土法学.2006,(10)：67,75,78,86；王利明.人格权法研究[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005：283；尹田.自然人具体人格权的法律探讨[J].河南省政法管理干部学院学报,2004,(3)：20；杨立新.中国人格权法立法报告[M].北京：知识产权出版社,2005.143.
③程合红.商事人格权论——人格权的经济利益内涵及其实现与保护[M].中国人民大学出版社,2002.51.
④郑成思.商品化权刍议[J].中华商标.1996,(2);杨素娟,杜颖.商品化权议[J].河北法学.1998,(1);刘春霖.商品化权[J].西北大学学报(哲社版).1999,(4);孙美兰.“奥特曼”纠纷案引发的思考[J].法学.1999,(7);杜颖.论商品化权[A].民商法论丛(第13卷)[C].法律出版社,2000.；朱川.商品化权研究[J].复旦民商法学评.2001,(1)；梅慎实.试论影视作品中“虚构角色”商品化之知识产权保护[J].版权参考资料.1989,(6);郭玉军.论角色商品化权之法律性质[J].知识产权.2000(6);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[J].电子知识产权.2005,(9)；蓝蓝.人格与财产二元权利体系面临的困境与突破——以“人格商品化”为视角展[J].法律科学.2006,(3);张丹丹,张帆.商品化权性质的理论之争及反思[J].当代法学,2007,(5);谢晓尧.商品化权：人格符号的利益扩张与衡平[J].法商研究,2005,(3).
⑤黄立的表述是：“不过有人在甲死后,将其肖像制成金币或者出版邮票,此时甲之肖像权则系有财产价值之标的。如仍不得让与或继承,恐非妥当。此时宜仿照著作权法上,将著作权区分为著作人格权与著作财产权的做法,对于精神人格权的侵害,因自然人之死亡或法人人格之丧失而消灭,其受侵害之损害赔偿请求权,非经转换为金钱债权,不得让与或继承。但对于财产人格权的侵害,其请求权应认为当然得让与或继承。”参见,黄立.民法债编总论[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2002.264；袁雪石.姓名权本质变革论[刀.法律科学.2005,(2).
⑥何爱文.美国法之个人公开权于‘我国’法上受保护之可能性[J].全国律师.1992,(12);熊伟.形象权法律制度研究[D].武汉大学博士学位论文.2002；郑成思.商品化权刍议[J].中华商标.1996,(2);薛虹.名人的商标权——公开形象权[J].中华商标.1996,(3);董炳和.论形象权[J].法律科学.1998,(4);赖国钦.形象宣传权之研究[D].私立中国文化大学法律研究所硕士论文.1999;李明德.美国形象权法研究[J].环球法律评论.2003,冬季号;吴汉东.形象的商品化与商品化的形象权[J].法学.2004,(10);蓝蓝.人格与财产二元权利体系面临的困境与突破——以“人格商品化”为视角展[J].法律科学.2006,(3);李智仁.人格权经济利益之保障,个人公开权之探讨[J].法令月刊.55(11).不过在日本和我国有部分学者直接将公开权译为商品化权。见上文商品化权部分的脚注,另见五十岚清.人格权法[M].铃木贤,葛敏译.北京：北京大学出版社.2009.141页以下.
①W Houseley, "The Unauthorised Commercial exploitation", Yearbook of Media and Entertainment Law 1996,295.
②[美]威廉·费歇尔.知识产权的理论[M].黄海峰译.刘春田.中国知识产权评论第1卷[C],北京：商务印书馆,2002.3,5.
②Council of Europe; Res.1165/1998 on public figures; Lord Woolf in B & C/A, (2002) HRLR 25, p 703,714.
④佟柔.民法原理[M].北京：法律出版社,1983.34,47.江平.民法学[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2000.280.
①[美]罗斯科·庞德.普通法的精神[M].唐前宏译.北京：法律出版社,2001.51—53.
①王利明.中国民法典学者建议稿·人格权法编[M].北京：法律出版社,2002.32.赵宾,李林启,张艳.人格权商品化法律问题研究[M].北京：知识产权出版社,2009.30.张翔.自然人人格的法律构造[M]法律出版社.2008.217.马俊驹.人格和人格权理论讲稿[M].法律出版社2009.105.马特,袁雪石.人格权法教程[M].中国人民大学出版社2007.136.梁慧星.民法总论[M](第二版).法律出版社.2001.113.
② Simon Smith, Image, Persona and the Law, London:Sweet & Maxwell Ltd.2001,pl,"Each individual has his own distinct persona made up of physical appearance (image or likeness),name,voice,signature and other recognisable elements,together the so-called "indicia of identity".;Olaf Weber, Human Dignity and the Commercial Appropriation of Personality:Towards a Cosmopolitan Consensus in Publicity Rights?, SCRIPT-ed, Volume 1, Issue 1, March 2004, p161Huw Beverley-Smith,Commercial appropriation of personality,Cambridge, UK; Cambridge University Press,2008,p3.程合红.商事人格权论——人格权的经济利益内涵及其实现与保护[M].中国人民大学出版社.2002.6.
③ See Julius C.S. Pinckaers, From Privacy toward a New Intellectual Property Right in Persona, (Kluwer Hague 1996), p3.Beuthien/Schmolz, Personlichkeitsschutz durch Personlichkeitsguterrechte,1999, S.19ff.祝建军.人格要素标识商业化利用的法律规制[M].法律出版社,2009.
④[德]恩斯特·卡西尔.符号、神话、文化[M].李小兵译.上海：东方出版社,1998.157.
①牛宏宝.西方现代美学[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2002.293.
②[德]恩斯特·卡西尔.人论[M].甘阳译.上海：上海译文出版社,1985.35.
③谢晓尧.商品化权：人格符号的利益扩张与衡平[J].法商研究.2005,(3).
①汪洪,祝建军.人格符号的财产利益保护之法理思考[J].法律适用.2007,(3).
②张俊浩.民法学原理[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2000.135.王利明.人格权法研究[M].中国人民大学出版社.2005.48. Philippe Malinvaud, Introduction a l'tude du droit,9e editon, Litec,2002, p 258.
③ Philippe Malinvaud, Introduction a l'tude du droit,9e editon, Litec,2002, P.259
④张俊浩.民法学原理[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2000.138-139.王利明.人格权法研究[M].中国人民大学出版社.2005.48.马特,袁雪石.人格权法教程[M].中国人民大学出版社2007.20.
⑤关于人格权的客体是什么,在我国学术界存在较大争议,大致可以分为两类。 标的即客体本身。可见,权利的内容和其客体,两者含义相距甚远,不可将两者相互混淆。而所谓“对人之重要性而为主体所必不可少的”不是人格利益,而是组成人格的诸多要素。
① See Julius C.S. Pinckaers, From Privacy toward a New Intellectual Property Right in Persona, (Kluwer Hague 1996), P.235; Olaf Weber, Human Dignity and the Commercial Appropriation of Personality:Towards a Cosmopolitan Consensus in Publicity Rights?, SCRIPT-ed, Volume 1, Issue 1, March 2004,162.
② See Julius C.S. Pinckaers, From Privacy toward a New Intellectual Property Right in Persona, (Kluwer Hague 1996), P.265-266.
③杨立新,林旭霞.论人格标识商品化权及其民法保护[J].福建师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版).2006,(1).
④ Cf. P. D. Ollier and J. P. Le Gall,'Various Damages'in A. Tune (ed.) International Encyclopaedia of Comparative Law (T ubingen,1981), Vol. XI:Torts(Tubingen:Martinus Nijihoff,1981).P.63
⑤ Beuthien/Schmolz, Personlichkeitsschutz durch Personlichkeitsguterrechte,1999, S.25ff.
① Memphis Development Foundation v. Factors Ent., Inc,616 F.2d 956 (6th Cir 1980),959.
①谢晓尧.商品化权：人格符号的利益扩张与衡平[J].法商研究.2005,(3).
②Lugosi v. Universal Pictures.,25 Cal.3d 813 (1979),845-846.
③冯象.鲁迅肖像权问题[J].读书.2001,(3).
① Beuthien/Schmolz, Personlichkeitsschutz durch Personlichkeitsguterrechte,1999, S.25ff.Beuthien, Personlichkeitsschutz vor und nach Tode:Marburger Medienschriften, Band 4,2002,S.76ff.
②谢晓尧.商品化权：人格符号的利益扩张与衡平[J].法商研究.2005,(3).
③ White V. Samsung Electronics American,23USPQ2d1583(9th.cir.1992).
①谢晓尧.商品化权：人格符号的利益扩张与衡平[J].法商研究.2005,(3).
②朱川.商品化权研究[J].复旦民商法学评论(第1期).北京：法律出版社.2001.86.
③具体新闻可参见“芙蓉姐姐签约富酷网”,http://ent.163.com/07/0614/02/3GTQ39050003rt.html;“芙蓉姐姐助兴徐州羽绒服博览会”,http://www.cnxz.com.cn/newscenter/xznews/sjbt/2005/2005103014693.htm。
④ See Juliuss C.S. Pinckaers, From Privacy toward a New Intellectual Property Right in Persona, (Kluwer Hague 1996), P.266.
①王泽鉴.民法总则[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2005.132.[德]迪特尔·梅迪库斯.德国民法总论[M].邵建东译.法律出版社,2001.794-800.
②张昌等诉天津泥人张彩塑工作室等侵犯姓名权、商标权、著作权、名誉权一案。清代泥塑艺人张长林,被人们称为“泥人张”。法院认为:“原告所称被告使用‘泥人张’,侵犯张明山姓名权,其实质是主张‘泥人张”称号作为 一种利益,不应由被告享有”。法院支持了该主张,但没有指出这种权利和利益的性质究竟是什么。参见天津市中级人民法院(1995)中知初字第1号民事判决书。
①在1979年美国Hirsch v. S.C. Johnson&Sons, Inc一案中,原告赫斯克是一位著名的橄榄球星,他被描述为那个时代的超级球星,并作过许多商业性广告。赫斯克的奔跑风格非常独特,就像一架忽忽旋转的飞轮,因而获得了“疯狂之腿”(Crazylegs)的绰号。被告是一家化妆品厂商,在女用剃须胶上使用了“疯狂之腿”的名字。而且,被告第一次促销该产品就是在一次女子赛跑活动中,被告推出的电视广告中所具有的“疯狂之腿”的欢呼声,也像橄榄球比赛中观众对赫斯克的欢呼一样。正是基于这样的事实,威斯康星上诉法院裁定被告侵犯了原告的形象权。在上诉中,被告提出了没有使用原告真实姓名的辩解。法院则在判决中指出：虽然被告所使用的‘疯狂之腿’是赫斯克的绰号而非他的真实姓名,但这并不妨碍原告提起诉讼。这里所需要的仅仅是,有关的姓名清楚地指示了受到伤害的个人。在眼前的案子中,在这个案子的关键点上,绰号毫无疑问地指示了原告赫斯克。Hirsch v. S.C. Johnson&Sons, Inc.,90 Wis.2d,205 USPQ 920 (1979).另外,阿根廷第22.362法律第3(h)节中,还对人的绰号进行保护。通过适用该条规定,同样拒绝了将著名球星Nelso Arantes Do Nascimiento的绰号“贝利”,登记为商标的申请。Federal Court of Appeals of the City of La Plata, Division I, judgement rendered on 30 March 1979, La Ley 14 November 1979.
②佟柔.民法原理[M].北京：法律出版社,1983.34,47.485
③北京市海淀区人民法院审理一起当事人索要家庭合影照片及家信的案件,因肖像权不等同肖像载体所有权,法院驳回了其索要家庭合影照片的诉讼请求。法院认为：就诉争照片,虽内容含有原告及家人肖像,但仅为照片记录内容,不能作为所有权依据,故原告主张对相片的所有权并要求返还,缺乏事实及法律依据,法院不予支持。 “索要家庭合影照片被驳 肖像权不等同肖像载体所有权”,http://www.civillaw.com.cn/article/default.asp?id=37744。
④在德国和荷兰的立法中,肖像权是被规定在有关著作权法中的。荷兰从1959年,法院开始承认肖像权人有权分享商业性公开其肖像所得的商业利润。学者称之为“商业肖象权”(commerical portrait right)Julius C.S. Pinckaers, From Privacy toward a New Intellectual Property Right in Persona, Kluwer Law International 1996,p.16.下文比较法部分还要细述。
① Trib Gr Inst Paris,29.03.1978, quoted by P Fremond, Le droit de la photographie. Le droit sur 1'image, Paris, Publicness,1985, p.352.
② J Corbet, note sous Civ Brussles,19.06.1981.RI/Ⅴ,1981-1982,col 2616.
③1988年由美国第九巡回上诉法院判决的“米德乐”是一个典型判例。原告米德乐是一位著名的女歌唱家,她的演唱声音具有独特的个人风格。被告福特汽车公司制作了一条关于自己产品的广告,想使用米德乐演唱的“你想跳舞吗”(Do You Want to Dance)作为背景音乐。被告虽然从词曲的版权人那里获得了授权,但米德乐却拒绝了福特公司的邀约,不同意使用自己的声音。在万般无奈的情况下,被告雇佣了另一名歌手,尽可能像地模仿了米德乐的演唱声音,并将模仿的演唱用在了广告之中。原告由此而诉被告侵犯了自己的形象权。第九巡回上诉法院认为,原告应当依据普通法而不是加州的形象权法律来主张权利。法院指出,加州的形象权法律确实保护每个人的声音,但这无助于原告主张自己的权利。因为,被告所使用的声音不是原告的声音,而是另一名歌手的声音。但是在另一方面,模仿原告独特的声音和演唱风格,其效果与使用录有原告演唱的磁带一样,都是对于原告形象权的侵犯。法院还在判决中谨慎地说,这样的裁定并不意味着为了商业性目的的每一种声音模仿都应当被禁止。但是,“当某一专业演唱家的声音广为人知的时候,当他的独特声音被刻意模仿以销售某种产品时,销售者就盗取了不属于他们自己的东西,就在加州侵犯了他人的权利。”See,Midler v. Ford Motor Co.,7 USPQ2d 1398 (9th Cir.1988).
④1983年的“卡森”一案中,原告约翰·卡森是电视节目“今夜秀”(Tonight Show)的主持人和明星。每当节目开始和卡森即将出场之时,都有一个拖长的声音介绍说“这里是强尼”(Here's Johnny).由于这个节目是由美国广播公司播放,每星期播放5次,观众非常广泛,所以人们在听到“这里是强尼”的声音时,都知道原告即将出场。也就是说,“这里是强尼”与原告密切相关,可以指示原告的身份。“卡森”一案的被告是一家方便厕所的出租和销售公司。当被告的公司开张时,公司的总裁为公司取名“这里是强尼方便厕所”。由于“这里是强尼”已经家喻户晓,于是,原告诉被告侵犯了自己的形象权。美国联邦第六巡回上诉法院法判决被上诉人盗用了上诉人的“商业身份”(commerical identity) See,Carson v. Here's Johnny Portable Toilets, Inc.,698 F.2d 831 (6th Cir.1983).美国“加州民法典”第3344条和900条就规定直接将声音规定为公开权的客体。
①Hoerst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, JC:B:Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tubingen,1994, S. 215-216
② McCarthy, The Right of Publicity and Privacy, Vol.Ⅰ, West Group,1999, § 3.4 [D],3-20.
③ Midler v. Ford Motor Co.,849 F.2d 460 (9th Cir.1988); Waits v. Frito-Lay Inc.,978 F.2d 1093 (C.A.91992)
④ Carson v. Here's Johnny Portable Toilets Inc.,698 F.2d 831 (6th Cir.1983).
⑤ Motschenbacher v. R. J. Reynnolds Tobacco Co.,498 F.2d 821 (9th Cir.1974). Cf. Bronson v. Fawcett Publications,124 F. Supp.429 (E.D.I11.1954). Motchenbacher v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.498 F.2d 821 (9thCir.1974).被告在威士顿香烟的电视广告中,使用了著名的赛车手Lothar Motchenbacher所驾驶的车的照片。法院认为：虽然原告的脸部特征没有出现在广告中,但是,原告一直驾驶着一部和其他的赛车手不同的车,而且公众知道这辆车就是原告所使用的车；而被告在电视广告中凸显了这辆车,很明显,被告希望通过这样的凸显标识出原告；所以,被告的行为构成了对原告的公开权的侵犯。等。
⑥ White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,91 F.2d 1395 (9th Cir.1992).White v. Samsung Electronics AmericaInc案中第九巡回法院在谈到这种主张的理由时说道：“被告是怎样窃占原告的人格标志的,这并不重要,重要的是被告是否这么做了……如果认为只有当被告采用九种不同的方式窃占原告的人格标志时,才构成对原告公开权的侵犯,这样的一条规则只会挑战那些广告业的谋略家们采取第十种方式。”；Wendt v. Host International, Inc.,125 F.3d 806 (9th Cir.1997).
①关于各国法制层面上的基本主张,后文两大法系比较法考察部分将对此予以详细阐述。
②[英]巴里·尼古拉斯.罗马法概论[M].黄风译.北京：法律出版社,2002.64.
①[法]阿·布瓦斯泰尔.法国民法典与法哲学[M].钟继军译.转引自徐国栋.罗马法与现代民法(第2卷),[M].北京：中国法制出版,2001.290.
②马俊驹.人与人格分离技术的形成、发展与变迁[J].现代法学.2006,(4).
③[德]罗尔夫·克尼佩尔.法律与历史——论《德国民法典》的形成与变迁[M].朱岩译.北京：法律出版社2003.60.
④[德]卡尔·拉伦茨.德国民法通论(上册)[M].王晓晔,邵建东等译.北京：法律出版社2003.43.
⑤马俊驹.人与人格分离技术的形成、发展与变迁[J].现代法学.2006, (4).
①王泽鉴.民法总则[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2005.127。
②[日]星野英一.私法中的人——以民法财产法为中心[M].王闯译.北京：中国法治出版社,2004.82-83.
① Conrad, Individuum und Gemeinschaft in der Privatrechtsordnung des 18. und beginnenden 19. Jahrhunderts, Karlsruhe 1956, S.37f.
②王泽鉴.民法总则[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2005.126.
② Otto von Gierke, Deutsches Privatrecht, Band 1:Sachenrecht, Leipzig 1895,S.702.
④[德]霍尔斯特·埃曼.德国法中一般人格权的概念和内涵[J].南京大学法律评论(特刊).2000.211-220.
⑤王泽鉴.民法总则[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2005.211-220.
①人格权一语,是德国学者所创设,按Egger氏之解释,“凡保证吾人能力所及,对于第三人得以享受之权利,无论为精神的、道德的或经济的关系,其与吾人生存上不可分离者,均属之。”梅仲协：《民法要义》,中国政法大学出版社2000,P61；德国法学家科勒认为：“人格权是一切法律的起点,人格权的客体为其自身之人格,故主体与客体同属一人。”Kohler, Das Eigenbild in Recht,1903,p.6德国学者Elzbacher认为：“人格权是保障个人人格,并与人格不能分离的法益为目的的排他权。”Elzbacher, Die Handlungsfaehigkeit nach deutschen buergerlichen Recht, p.304法国学者菲利普认为：“人格权是指作为人具有主体资格所必须具备的权利。”Philippe Malinvaud, Introduction a l'tude du droit,9e editon, Litec,2002, P.258-284;奥田义人认为,人格权是“保护人所以为人之存在条件,及附属一身状态之权利。”[日]奥田义人.法学通论[M].东京：同文印刷舍,1907.第287-288页；(日)富井政章认为：“人格权是指作为个人的存在而直接拥有的权利。”[日]富井政章.民法原论(第一卷)[M].1920.第124页。(日)五十岚清认为：“人格权主要将具有人格属性的生命、身体、健康、自由、名誉、意思等为对象的、为了使其自由发展,必须保障其不受第三这侵害的多种利益的总称。”[日]五十岚清.人格权法.[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2009.7；郑玉波先生认为：“人格权者,乃存在于权利人自己人格之权利,即吾人与其人格之不分离的关系上所享有的社会的利益,而受法律保护者也。”郑玉波.民法总则[M].台北：三民书局,1998.第6页。
②马俊驹.人格和人格权理论讲稿[M].法律出版社2009.101.
①[德]卡尔·拉伦茨.德国民法通论[M](上).王晓哗等译.法律出版社.2003.46-52.
②[美]R·考特,T·尤伦.法和经济学[M].张军.上海：三联出版社,1991.163.
③[德]迪特尔·施瓦布.民法导论[M].法律出版社.2006.206.
④BVerf GE24,367,389.
④严城.物权的正当性解说[J].黑龙江省政法管理干部学院学报,2008,(5).
①[德]迪特尔·施瓦布.民法导论[M].法律出版社.2006.207.
②[德]迪特尔·施瓦布.民法导论[M].法律出版社.2006.207.
① Z.B. Taupitz/Mueller, Rufausbeutung nach dem Tode:Wem gebilhrt der Profit?,2002, S.39; Beuthien, Pers6nlichkeitsschutz vor und nach Tode:Marburger Medienschriften, Band 4,2002,S.85; Cf. P. D. Ollier and J. P. Le Gall,'Various Damages'in A. Tunc (ed.) International Encyclopaedia of Comparative Law (T ubingen,1981), Vol.Ⅺ:Torts(Tubingen:Martinus Nijihoff,1981).P.63;[德]耶林.为权利而斗争[M].转引自王泽鉴.民法总则[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2005.6.
①[德]卡尔·拉伦茨.法学方法论[M].商务印书馆.2003.293-298,317,332,355.[德]拉德布鲁赫.法哲学[M].法律出版社.2005.7-14.
①王利明.人格权法研究[M].中国人民大学出版社.2005.45
②马俊驹.人格和人格权理论讲稿[M].法律出版社2009.80-82.张翔.自然人人格的法律构造[M]法律出版社.2008.216.
③ Karlowa 5,15 Gruenhut, Zeitschr.381,383.转引自[美]约翰·齐普曼·格雷.论法律主体[J]龙卫球译,清华法学,2004(2).
④ Roscoe Pound, Jurisprudence Volume 3 West Publishing Co.1959, §34.
①[德]耶林.为权利而斗争[M].转引自王泽鉴.民法总则[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2005.5.
② Roscoe Pound, Jurisprudence Volume 3 West Publishing Co.1959, §49.
②在西方私法史上,正如上文所言,当人类从丛林走向共同体,形成社会和政治国家时,人与人之间首先体现出来的最大诉求就是对彼此人身完整权和人身自由权的诉求。因此在古罗马《十二表法》中一开始只针对伤害身体的情况作出规定任何对个人尊严的侵犯变得可诉,并且发展出了‘"iniuria"(侮辱)的私犯形式(也就是侵辱诉讼),是古罗马时期裁判官法和法学理论显著发展的结果。英巴里·尼古拉斯：《罗马法概论》,黄风译,P226-227因此,在西方法制史上,最初受到保护的精神性人格利益是自然人的名誉利益。法律秩序最初把所有对人格权的侵害都视为对该人名誉的侵害；也即,首先被认可的个人利益,是自由民的名誉利益。对严格意义上损害财产的体系化的法律责任,是通过《阿奎利亚法》(lex Aquilia)进入罗马法的。·Girard, Manuel elementaire de droit romain (8ed.1929)441, n.2.;最初的倾向是把所有的过错都视为对人格的侵犯,而把所有对人格的侵害都视为一种侮辱。拉丁文"iniuria"一词的最初含义就是指侮辱,作为一种特定私犯的名称,它在古典法中产生了比较特殊的含义,泛指“任何对他人权利或者人格的轻蔑无视”,也即被用于泛指所有对人格利益的侵犯。可见,古典侵权法上的侮辱侵权,“不仅针对包括身体上的侵害、口头或者书面上的辱骂,还包括对他人尊严或者名誉的侮辱、对他人公共权利或者私人权利的不尊重,只要有关行为的实施是故意的并怀有轻蔑意图。”英巴里·尼古拉斯：《罗马法概论》,黄风译,P226
① Heinrich Hubmann, Das Personlichkeitsrecht verlag:Bohlau; Auflage:2., verand. u. erw. Aufl. (1967) 119
② Roscoe Pound, Jurisprudence Volume 3 West Publishing Co.1959,§47
③[德]卡尔·拉伦茨.法学方法论[M].商务印书馆.2003.355.
④[法]雅克·盖斯旦,吉勒·古博.法国民法总论[M].陈鹏等.北京：法律出版社.2004.172.另参见《法国民法典》第8条：“任何人都有私生活得到尊重的权利。”
①程合红.商事人格权论——人格权的经济利益内涵及其实现与保护[M].中国人民大学出版社.2002.28.张翔.自然人人格的法律构造[M]法律出版社.2008.208-221.马俊驹.人格和人格权理论讲稿[M].法律出版社.2009.80,104.
②Hoerst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, JC:B:Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tubingen,1994, S.137-166.
②[德]罗尔夫.克尼佩尔.法律与历史——论《德国民法典》的形成与变迁[M].朱岩译.北京：法律出版社2003.87-88
①拉伦茨教授也认为,人格权是一种受尊重权,也就是说,承认并且不侵害人所固有的“尊严”,以及人的身体和精神,人的存在和应然的存在,并且不能把人只当作工具或手段来对待。[德]卡尔·拉伦茨.德国民法通论[M](上).王晓晔等译.法律出版社.2003.282.佟柔.民法原理[M].北京：法律出版社,1983.478.江平.民法学[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2000.280.李锡鹤.民法哲学论稿[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2000.176.
②祝建军.人格要素标识商业化利用的法律规制[M].法律出版是,2009.30-31.
③ Beuthien, Personlichkeitsschutz vor und nach Tode:Marburger Medienschriften, Band 4,2002,S.85; Beuthien/ Schmolz, Personlichkeitsschutz durch Personlichkeitsguterrechte,1999, S.25ff.
④五十岚清.人格权法[M].铃木贤,葛敏译.北京：北京大学出版社.2009.9,141.王利明.人格权法研究[<].中国人民大学出版社.2005.25-26,45；梁慧星.民法总论[M].北京：法律出版社,2001.70.马特,袁雪石.人格权法教程[M].中国人民大学出版社2007.11,44-47.李琛.质疑知识产权之“人格财产一体性”[J]..中国社会科学.2004,(2)：69.郑永宽.人格权的价值与体系研究[M].知识产权出版社.2008.63-64.赵宾,李林启,张艳.人格权商品化法律问题研究[M].北京：知识产权出版社,2009.92-95.
①出版社.2003.48.[德]卡尔·拉伦茨.德国民法通论[M](上).王晓晔等译.法律[德]霍尔斯特.埃曼.德国民法中的一般人格权制度——论从非道德行为到侵权行为的转变[A].邵建东等.梁慧星.民商法论丛(第23卷)[C].香港：金桥文化出版社(香港)有限公司,2002.413.
②马俊驹,张翔.人格权的理论基础及其立法体例[J].法学研究.2004,(6).马俊驹.人格和人格权理论讲稿[M].法律出版社.2009.81
①马俊驹.人格和人格权理论讲稿[M].法律出版社2009.80.马俊驹.论作为私法上权利的人格权[J].法学.2005,(12).
②马俊驹,张翔.人格权的理论基础及其立法体例[J].法学研究.2004,(6).
③ Juergen Mittelstrass Influence of Neo-Biology on Ethics,The Journal of Molecular Biology,2002,pp.902-905;Peter Stemmer, Die Rechtfertigung moralischer Normen, Zeitschrift fuer philosophische Forschung,Band 58 (2004),S.499甘绍平.人权伦理学[M].北京：中国发展出版社,2009.70-88.
④[德]霍尔斯特·埃曼.德国民法中的一般人格权制度[A].梁慧星.民商法论丛[C]第23卷.金桥文化出版(香港)有限公司.2002.412.
⑤[德]霍尔斯特·埃曼.德国民法中的一般人格权制度[A].梁慧星.
民商法论丛[C]第23卷.[德]霍尔斯特·埃曼.德国民法中的一般人格权制度[A].梁慧星.民商法论丛[C]第23卷.金桥文化出版(香港)有限公司.2002.414.
①至于财产权对人格的间接保护作用,在本章上文“人格与人格权及财产权的关系”部分已作论述。
②[德]霍尔斯特·埃曼.德国民法中的一般人格权制度[A].梁慧星.民商法论丛[C]第23卷.金桥文化出版(香港)有限公司.2002.412-413
③[德]霍尔斯特.埃曼.德国民法中的一般人格权制度[A].梁慧星.民商法论丛[C]第23卷.金桥文化出版(香港)有限公司.2002.412.
④马俊驹.人格和人格权理论讲稿[M].法律出版社.2009.105
①李琛.质疑知识产权之“人格财产一体性”[J].中国社会科学.2004,(2).
②马俊驹.人格和人格权理论讲稿[M].法律出版社.2009.104
① Manfred Rehbinder, Urheberrecht, Munchen:C.H. Beck:C.H. Beck,2003, S.3.
① Peter Jaffey, Rights of Privacy, Confidentiality and Publicity and Related Rights,Paul L.C.Torremans (ed.),Copyright And Human Rights-Freedom of Expression Intellectual Property-Pricacy,Kluwer Law International 2004,Printed in the Netherlands,p.173-174
②法律政策学的重要性日益为国内学界所重视,笔者认为法律政策立场的确定对法律技术的影响甚大,不同的法律政策会带来不同的规范模式,尤其是面对新的利益诉求时,直接影响到是立法论还是司法解释论来最终化解纠纷。关于法律政策的文献,国内部分可参考：林凤海.论法律政策在法哲学体系中的地位[D].吉林大学硕士论文.2007；彭汉英.当代西方的法律政策思想[J].外国法译评.1997,(2)；胡平仁.法律政策学：平衡权与权力的科学[J].当代法学.2001,(3)
① P.J.Bohannan.Ethnography and Comparision in Legal Anthropology[A].In Laura Nader.Law in Culture and Society[C] Chicago:Chicago Aldine Publishing Company,1969:410.
① Peter Jaffey, Rights of Privacy, Confidentiality and Publicity and Related Rights,Paul L.C.Torremans (ed.),Copyright And Human Rights-Freedom of Expression Intellectual Property-Pricacy,Kluwer Law International 2004,Printed in the Netherlands,p.173-174
① Simon Smith, Image, Persona and the Law, London:Sweet & Maxwell Ltd.2001,p.32-75
② Per Mr. Justice Laddie in Elvis Presley Trade Marks[1997]RPC 543, p.548
③英美法系国家和地区对擅用人格标识的侵权法保护有不同的叫法,如英国和澳大利亚的仿冒侵权、加拿大的盗用人格、加拿大安大略省的人格利用侵权以及美国的公开权侵权等。其中的大多数救济方式属于普通法上的侵权制度,不过美国部分州已经将公开权立法化,如纽约州民法第51条和加利福尼亚州民法第99条和第3344条。
④英国并无所谓的“英国法”,只是在对人格标识商业化问题的具体规范上英格兰和威尔士的法律与苏格兰的法律非常相似,因此本文将其合并统一称为“英国法”。
① Ian S.Blackshaw and Robert C.R. Siekmann,Sport Image Rights In Europe.Hague:T.M.C.Asser press, The Hague, The Netherlands,2005, p10.
② Ian S.Blackshaw and Robert C.R. Siekmann.Sport Image Rights In Europe,Hague:T.M.C.Asser press, The Hague, The Netherlands,2005, p10.
③ See Re Holly Hobbie [1984] RPC 329
④ Ian S.Blackshaw and Robert C.R. Siekmann,Sport Image Rights In Europe,Hague:T.M.C.Asser press, The Hague, The Netherlands,2005,p 6-7.
⑤Elvis Presley Trade Marks, [1999] RPC 567.
⑥ E.g. Buchanan, The Need for a Right of Publicity, European Intellectual Property Review(EIPR).(1988)8,p.227;Frazer, Appropriation of Personality-A New Tort?,99 Law Q.Rev.281,at 282(1983).;Cf. Cornish, Intellectual Property:Patent,Copyright,Trade Marks and Allied Rights,420(2nd ed.1989).
⑦本文所译的“人格形象”原词为identity,国外学界多翻译为同一性,但究其文义,译为人的人格形象更好理解,毕竟人的人格形象和其人本身自然应当具有同一性,因而权利人有权决定其形象的使用状况,未经许可擅用其形象的行为,则构成对其人格形象的侵害。至于在商业活动中被使用的人格形象,那就是上文所研究的人格标识。下文中所有英文中的identity和德文Identitaet一律译为人格形象,不再赘述。
① Buchanan, A Comparative Analysis of Name and Likeness Rights in the United Stated and England,18 Golden Gate U.L.Rev.301,at 366(1988).
② Frazer, Appropriation of Personality-a New Tort?,99 Law Q.Rev.281,at 282(1983).
③ See [1931] AC 333. From:Julius C.S. Pinckaers, From Privacy toward a New Intellectual Property Right in Persona, (Kluwer Hague 1996), p5
④ McCulloch v Mav [1947] All ER 845.
⑤ Ian S.Blackshaw and Robert C.R. Siekmann,Sport Image Rights In Europe,Hague:T.M.C.Asser press, The Hague, The Netherlands,2005, p325
⑥ Douglas & Others v. Hello Limited,[2001] 2 WLR 992
① Ettingsbausen v.Australian Consolidation Press,(13 Octoberl993),NSWCA.
② Huw Beverley-Smith, Ansgar Ohly and Agnes Lucas-Schloetter, Privacy, Property and Personality:Civil Law Perspectives on Commercial Appropriation, Cambridge University Press,2005.p15-34
③ Henderson/Radio Corp. Pty. Ltd.[1960] SR (NSW) 576; [1969] RPC 218.
④ McCulloch v May [1947] All ER 845.
⑤ See §52(1) of the Trade Practices Act. Pacific Dunlop Ltd. V. Hogan,83 ALR 403(Gummow J.).
⑥ Lyngstad and Others/Anabas Products Ltd. and Another1977] FSR 62; Elvis Presley Trade Marks case [1999] RPC 567.
⑦ Hogan and Another/Koala Dundee Pty Limited and others,20 FCR 314,23 September 1988
① Louise Potvin, Robert Howell, Tom McMahon,Chapter 7 Canada, Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p90
② Louise Potvin, Robert Howell, Tom McMahon,Chapter 7 Canada, Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p91.
③ See Paramount Pictures Corp v. Howley[1991] 5 OR (3d)573,582(Ont GD)
④ Louise Potvin, Robert Howell, Tom McMahon,Chapter 7 Canada, Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p88.
⑤ See Howell, The Common Law Appropriation of personality Tort,4 Intel, Prop. J.265, at 268(1989)
⑥ Krouse v. Chrysler Canada Ltd.(1973),1 OR (2d)255,40 DLR(3d) 15(Ont CA)
⑦ Gould Estate v. Stoddard Publishing Co. [1996] 30 OR(3d) 520 (GD) revd on other grounds and Horton v. Tim Donut Ltd(1997) 75 CPR(3d) 451,459-460.
① Gould Estate v Stoddart Publishing, [1996] O.J. No.3288, September 26,1996. Gould Estate v Stoddart Publishing, (1998),39 O.R. (3d) 545; (1998),161 D.L.R. (4th) 321; (1998),80 C.P.R. (3d) 161; (1998),114 O.A.C.178, May 6th 1998
② Cal Civ Code, s3344
③ Waits v Frito-Lay, Inc,978 F2d 1093,1106-10(9th Cir 1992)
① F.S. Cohen,"Transcendental Nonsense and The Functional Approach"[1935] 35 Colum L Rev 809,815-817.
② Julius C.S. Pinckaers, From Privacy toward a New Intellectual Property Right in Persona, (Kluwer Hague 1996),p234-237,
① See. Jill McKeough,Andrew Stewart,Intellectual Property in Australia,P358. Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma v. Marks & Spencer Plc [1991]RPC 351,368, following the remarks of Lord Oliver in Reckitt & Colman Ltd v. Bordem Inc. [1990] 1 WLR 491,499.
② British Telecommunication Plc and Others v. One in a Millon Ltd and Others[1999]FSR 1,10 per Aldous LJ.
③ IRC v.Muller & Co.'s Margarine Ltd,[1901] AC 217
④ See Tolley v Fry, [1931] AC 333. From:Julius C.S. Pinckaers, From Privacy toward a New Intellectual Property Right in Persona, (Kluwer Hague 1996), p5
① Huw Beverley-Smith, The commercial appropriation of Personality, Cambridge University Press,2008, p 62.
② British Diabetic Association v. Diabetic Society Ltd[1995] 4 All ER 812,819.
③ Clark v. Associated Newspapers Ltd [1998] 1 All ER 959. Fobes v. Kemsley Newspapers Ltd [1951] 68 RPC 183; AllLanda v. Greenberg (1908) 24 TLR 441.
④ Huw Beverley-Smith, The commercial appropriation of Personality, Cambridge University Press,2008, p76
⑤ Lyngstad v. Anabas Products,[1997] FSR 62.
⑥ Huw Beverley-Smith, The commercial appropriation of Personality, Cambridge University Press,2008,p77.
⑦ Lyngstad and Others/Anabas Products Ltd. and Another [1977] FSR 62
① Elvis Presley Trade Marks case [1999] RPC 567.
② Bulmer (H.P.)Ltd and Showings Ltd v. Bollinger SA[1978] RPC 79,99.
③ McCulloch v May [1947] All ER 845.
④ Irvine v Talksport [2002] EMLR 32.
⑤ Irvine v Talksport [2002] EMLR 32.
① Star Industrial Co. Ltd v. Yap Kwee Kor [1976] FSR 256,259 per Lord Diplock.
② Huw Beverley-Smith, The commercial appropriation of Personality, Cambridge University Press,2008, p 103.
③ Stringfellow v. McCain Foods(GB)Ltd,[1984]RPC 501,544.
④ Stringfellow v. McCain Foods(GB) Ltd,[1984] RPC 501,544-545.
① Campbell v. Mirror Group Newspapers [2003] EMLR 2, p.39.
② Theakston v MGN Limited[2002] EMLR 22.
③ Douglas v Hello! [2005] EWCA CIV 595, [2005] All ER (D) 280(May)
④ Henderson/Radio Corp. Pty. Ltd.[1960] SR (NSW) 576; [1969] RPC 218
⑤ Henderson/Radio Corp. Pty. Ltd.[1960] SR (NSW) 576; [1969] RPC 234
⑥ Henderson/Radio Corp. Pty. Ltd.[1960] SR (NSW) 576; [1969] RPC 243
⑦ Pacific Dunlop Ltd./Hogan and Another,23 FCR 553,25 May 1989,87 ALR 14
① Paracidal Pty Ltd v. Herctum Pty Ltd (1983)4 IPR 201.
② Hutchence v. South Seas Bubble Co. Pty Ltd.[1986] 64 ALR 330.
③ Cf. Honey v.Australian Airlines Ltd.,14I.P.R.264(1989) ATPR 40-961
④ Louise Potvin, Robert Howell, Tom McMahon,Chapter 7 Canada, Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001, p36
⑤ McCulloch v. Lewis A May (Produce Distributors) Ltd.(1947) 65 RPC 58.
⑥ Henderson/Radio Corp. Pty. Ltd.[1960] SR (NSW) 576; [19691 RPC 218
⑦ McCulloch v May [1947] All ER 845.
⑧ See for a treatise on Australian law in this field:Murumba, Commercial Exploitation of Personality,1986.
⑨ See §52(1) of the Trade Practices Act. Pacific Dunlop Ltd. V. Hogan,83 ALR 403(Gummow J.).
⑩ Pacific Dunlop Ltd. v.Hogan and Another,23 FCR 553,25 May 1989,87 ALR 14.
① Olivia Newton-John v.Scholl-plough Ltd.,ATPR para 40-697(1986).
② Cf. Honey v. Australian Airlines Ltd.,14 I.P.R.264(1989) ATPR 40-961
③ Hogan and Another v. Koala Dundee Pty Limited and others,20 FCR 314,23 September 1988
④ Henderson v. Radio Corp. Pty. Ltd.[1960] SR (NSW) 576; [1969] RPC 218,236.
① Tot Toys Ltd v. Mitchell,[1993] 1 NZLR 325,362.
② the tort of misappropriation of personality字面翻译则为,盗用人格侵权,但是考究其规范的主要内容是关于人格标识上的财产利益的保护,因此在规范意义上,应当理解为盗用人格(标识)侵权,下文不再赘述。
③ Huw Beverley-Smith, Ansgar Ohly and Agnes Lucas-Schloetter, Privacy, Property and Personality:Civil Law Perspectives on Commercial Appropriation, Cambridge University Press,2005,p35-45
④ See Paramount Pictures Corp v. Howley[1991] 5 OR (3d)573,582(Ont GD)
⑤ Louise Potvin, Robert Howell, Tom McMahon,Chapter 7 Canada, Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p88.
① Krouse v. Chrysler Canada Ltd.(1973),1 OR (2d)255,40 DLR(3d) 15(Ont CA)
② Howell, The Common Law Appropriation of Personality Tort, (1986) 2, [Can] IPJ,p27-31.
③在英文文献中经常会出现"endorsement"一词,该词的本意是票据的背书行为,在本文语境中学者们翻译出来的词汇花样翻新,有的翻译为“认证”,有的翻译为“背书”,笔者探究文义和上下文语境,将其译为“许可使用”更好理解,也贴近文义,下文不再赘述。
④ Howell, The Common Law Appropriation of Personality Tort, (1986) 2, [Can] IPJ,p 149,170-172和
⑤ Athens v. Canadian Adventure Camps Ltd,(1977) 80 DLR (3d) 583,592..
① Huw Beverley-Smith, The commercial appropriation of Personality, Cambridge University Press,2008,p123-124.
② See Julius C.S. Pinckaers, From Privacy toward a New Intellectual Property Right in Persona, (Kluwer Hague 1996), p11
③ Athens v. Canadian Adventure Camps Ltd,(1977) 80 DLR (3d) 583,596.
④ Krouse v. Chrysler Canada Ltd.(1972),25 DLR(3d) 583,596.
① Gould Estate v. Stoddard Publishing Co. [1996] 30 OR(3d) 520 (GD) revd on other grounds and Horton v. Tim Donut Ltd(1997) 75 CPR(3d) 451,459-460.
② Estate v Stoddart Publishing, [1996] O.J. No.3288, September 26,1996.Gould Estate v Stoddart Publishing, (1998),39 O.R. (3d) 545; (1998),161 D.L.R. (4th) 321; (1998),80 C.P.R. (3d) 161; (1998),114 O.A.C.178, May 6th 1998
① Simon Smith, Image, Persona and the Law, London:Sweet & Maxwell Ltd.2001,p2
② K. Zweigert & H. Kotz, Introduction to Comparative Law,3rd edn (Oxford 1998),702.
③ Samuel Warren & Louis Brandeis, The Right to Privacy,4 Harv. L. Rev (1890),193,195-212
① Roberson v. Rochester Folding Box Co.,171 NY 538 (1902).
② Ibid,171 NY 538 (1902),542-543
③ Roberson v. Rochester Folding Box Co.,64 N.E.442 (1902).
④ Pavesich v. New England Life Insurance Co.,122 Ga.190,50 S.E.68 (Ga 1905).
⑤ Pavesich v. New England Life Insurance Co.,122 Ga.190,50 S.E.68 (Ga 1905).
①50 SE.68(1905),69-70.
②50 SE.68(1905),78-80.
③ William Prosser的见解,侵犯隐私权的情形主要包括打扰宁静(intrusion upon one's seclusion)、披露私人事情(the public disclosure of private facts)、虚假暴光(false light privacy)、基于商业目的盗用他人的名字和肖像(the misappropriation of one's name and likeness for commercial purposes)等See William Prosser, Privacy,48 CAL. L. REV (1960) p.383,389.《侵权法重述》第652条B对隐私空间的侵入；第652条C盗用他人的姓名或肖像,第652条D公开私生活,第652条E扭曲他人形象公之于众。
① Flecher/Rubin, Privacy, Publicity, and the Portrayal of Real People by the Media,88 YALE L. J.1577 (1978-1979), p.1582
② William L. Prosser, Privacy,48 Cal. L. Rev. (1960) 383, p.388-389.
③ See William L. Prosser, Privacy,48 Cal. L. Rev. (1960) 383,p.400-407.
① Edward J. Bloustein, Privacy as Human Dignity,39 N. Y. U. L. Rev. (1964) 962, p.968.
② See Edward J. Bloustein, Privacy as Human Dignity,39 N. Y. U. L. Rev. (1964) 962, p.965.
③ See William L. Prosser, Privacy,48 Cal. L. Rev. (1960) 383, p.401.
④ See William L. Prosser, Privacy,48 Cal. L. Rev. (1960) 383, p.406.
⑤ See William L. Prosser, Privacy,48 Cal. L. Rev. (1960) 383, p.405.
⑥ See William L. Prosser, Privacy,48 Cal. L. Rev. (1960) 383, p.405.
① Huw Beverley-Smith, The commercial appropriation of Personality, Cambridge University Press,2008, p.156.
② See William L. Prosser, Privacy,48 Cal. L. Rev. (1960) 383, p.407.
③ Marc A. Franklin,Robert L. Rabin, Michael D. Green, Tort Law and Alternatives cases and Materials(Eight Edition), Thomson west Foundation Press,2006,p.1208
④ Munden v. Harris,134 SW 1076(1911).
⑤ Munden v. Harris,134 SW 1076 (1911).,134 SW 1076 (1911), p.1078.
⑥ 134 SW 1076 (1911),1079.
① Edison v. Edison Polyform Mfg. Co.,73 N.J.Eq.136,67 A.392 (1907).
② Edison v. Edison Polyform Mfg. Co.,73 N.J.Eq.136,67 A.392-394 (1907).
③ Flake v. Greensboro News Co.,212 N.C.780,195 S.E.55 (1938).
④ Flake v. Greensboro News Co.,212 N.C.780,195 S.E.55 (1938).Id.,212 N.C.780,195 S.E.55, p.62-64.
⑤ Uproar Co. v. N.B.C.,8 F. Supp.358 (D. Mass.1934), p.361.
① Samuel Warren & Louis Brandeis, The Right to Privacy,4 Harv. L. Rev (1890),205.
② Julius C. S. Pinckaers, From Privacy Toward a New Intellectual Property Right in Persona, Kluwer Hague,1996.p. 24. Huw Beverley-Smith, Ansgar Ohly and Agn6s Lucas-Schloetter, Privacy, Property and Personality:Civil Law Perspectives on Commercial Appropriation, Cambridge University Press,2005. p.53.
① Melvin v. Reid,112 Cal. App.285,297 P.91, p.92 (1931);Leon R Yankwich, the Right of Privacy,27 Notre Dame Law,499(1952)
② O'Brien v. Pabst Sales Co.,124 F 2d 167 (5th Cir.1941).
③ 124 F 2d 167 (5th Cir.1941),170.
① M. B. Nimmer, The Right of Publicity,19 Law & Contemp. Probs (1954), p 203,205-206.
② 304 N. Y.354,107 N. E.2d 485 (1952).
③ 304 N. Y.354,107 N. E.2d 485 (1952).
④ Chavez v. Hollywood American Legin PostNo.43,16 U. S. L. Week 2362 (U. S. Feb.3,1948).
⑤ M. B. Nimmer, The Right of Publicity,19 Law & Contemp. Probs (1954),203,206.
⑥ O'Brien v. Pabst Sales Co.,124 F 2d 167 (5th Cir.1941).,p171.
① 40 Cal.2d 224,253 P.2d 441 (1953).
② M. B. Nimmer, The Right of Publicity,19 Law & Contemp. Probs (1954),203,207.
③ O'Brien v. Pabst Sales Co.,124 F 2d 167 (5th Cir.1941).,p169-170.
④[美]阿丽塔·L·艾伦,理查德·C·托克音顿.美国隐私法学说判例与立法[M].冯建妹等译.中国民主法制出版社.2004.289.
⑤ M. B. Nimmer, The Right of Publicity,19 Law & Contemp. Probs (1954),203,209. See also, Julius C. S. Pinckaers, From Privacy toward a New Intellectual Property Right in Persona, (Kluwer Hague 1996), P.24-25.
①[美]阿丽塔·L·艾伦,理查德·C·托克音顿.美国隐私法学说判例与立法[M].冯建妹等译.中国民主法制出版社.2004.289.
②Hanna Mfg.Co.v.Hillerich & Bradsby Co.,78 F. 2d 763(5th Cir.1936).
③78F.2d 763(5th Cir. 1936),766.
④78F. 2d 763(5th Cir. 1936),766.
① Miller v. Madison Square Garden,278 App.Div.438,106 N.Y.S.2d 553,556 (1st Dep't 1951), aff'd 304 N.Y.354, 107 N.E.2d 485 (1952)在Fisher v. Murray M. Rosenberg Inc.案Fisher v. Murray M. Rosenberg, Inc.,175 Misc. 370,23 N. Y. S.2d 677 (Sup. Ct.1940).
② Fisher v. Murray M. Rosenberg, Inc.,175 Misc.370,23 N. Y. S.2d 679 (Sup. Ct.1940).
③ Bronwn Denicola, Case on Copyright, Unfair Competition and Related Topics,5th. ed.,Foundation Press, p.685.
④ Haelan Laboratories Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum Inc.,202 F.2d 866 (2nd Cir.1953).
①202F. 2d 866(2nd Cir. 1953).
①202 F.2d 866(2nd Cir.1953),868.
②180 Fed.688(2d Cir.1910).
③8 F.Supp.358,361(D.Mass.1934).
④202 F. 2d 866(2nd Cir.1953),868.
⑤Huw Beverley.Smith,The commercial appropriation of Personality,Cambridge University Press,2008,p 176.
① Huw Beverley-Smith, The commercial appropriation of Personality, Cambridge University Press,2008, p175.
② Martin Luther King, Jr., Center for Social Change, Inc. v. American Heritage Products, Inc.,250 Ga.135,296 S.E.2d 697 (1982).p704
③ Halpern, The of Publicity:Commercial Exploitation of the Associative Value Personality,39 VAND. L. REV. 1199(1986), p.1217; Hyldon, Baseball Cards and the Birth of the Right of Publicity:The Curious Case of Haelan Laboratories v. Topps Chewing Gum,12 MARQ. SPORT L. REV.273 (2001), p.274.
④ J.R..Grodin, Rights of Publicity and Privacy:A Doctrinal Innovation(1954) 19 Law ContProbl, p203.
⑤ Stickler v. National Broadcasting Co.,167 F Supp at 70 (SD Cal 1958). hts. McCarthy, The Right of Publicity and Privacy, Vol.Ⅰ, West Group,1999, § 1.9,1-36,
① Hogan v. A. S. Barnes & Co. Inc,114 U.S. P. Q.314 (Pa. Comm. Pl.1957).
② Hogan v. A. S. Barnes & Co. Inc,114 U.S. P. Q.314 (Pa. Comm. Pl.1957),320-321.
③ Hogan v. A. S. Barnes & Co. Inc,114 U.S. P. Q.314 (Pa. Comm. Pl. 1957),320.
④ Hogan v. A. S. Barnes & Co. Inc,114 U.S. P. Q.314 (Pa. Comm. Pl.1957),320.
⑤ 316 F Supp.1277(1970).
⑥ 316 F Supp.1277 (1970),1282.
① J. Thomas. McCarthy, Rights of Publicity and Privacy, Deerfield, vii (Rev.1993)§1.10.
② Motschenbacher v. R.J. Reynolds Tovacco Co.,498 F 2d 821 (9th Cir.1974),p.826.
③ Gordon, Right of Property in Name, Likeness, Personality and History,55 Nw. U.L.Rev.553 (1960).
④ Gordon, Right of Property in Name, Likeness, Personality and History,55 Nw. U.L.Rev.553 (1960), p.556.
⑤ Gordon, Right of Property in Name, Likeness, Personality and History,55 Nw. U.L.Rev.553 (1960), p.557-558.
⑥ Gordon, Right of Property in Name, Likeness, Personality and History,55 Nw. U.L.Rev.553 (1960), p.611-612
⑦ Gordon, Right of Property in Name, Likeness, Personality and History,55 Nw. U.L.Rev.553 (1960), p612.
⑧ Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.,433 US 562 (1977).
①Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.,433 US 562 (1977),573-576.
① H. Kalven, Privacy in Tort Law:Were Warren and Brandeis Wrong? 31 Law & Contemp. Probs (1966) 326,331.
② 385 U.S.374,17 L.Ed.2d 456,87 S.Ct.534 (1967).
③ New York Times Co. v. Sullivan,376 U.S.254,84 S.Ct. 710,11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964).
④ 376 U.S.254,11 L.Ed.2d 686,84 S.Ct.710,95 A.L.R.2d 1412 (1964).
⑤ 433 US 562 (1977),572.
⑥ 433 US 562 (1977),573.
① Nimmer为文当时,为派拉蒙电影公司(Paramount Pictures Corp.)法务部门之首长,Harold R. Gordon, Right of Property in Name, Likeness, Personality and History,55 Nw. U. L. Rev (1960-1961),553,p 607.
② M. B. Nimmer, The Right of Publicity,19 Law & Contemp. Probs (1954),203-204.
③ M. B. Nimmer, The Right of Publicity,19 Law & Contemp. Probs (1954),203,216.
④ M. B. Nimmer, The Right of Publicity,19 Law & Contemp. Probs (1954),203,216-217.
⑤ M. B. Nimmer, The Right of Publicity,19 Law & Contemp. Probs (1954),203,217.
⑥ Ausness教授也认为公开权保护两种利益：在大多数的案件中,公开权保护的是“识别价值”,公开权的价值来源于将名人的姓名和肖像与某种商品联系在一起,以促销此类商品；此外,公开权还保护“表演价值”。公开权不仅保护个人在人格标志上的商业价值免遭未经许可的商业利用,还保护个人的现场表演免遭他人的复制。Ausness, The Right of Publicity:a'Haystack in a Hurricane',55 Temp. L. Q. (1982) 977,980-994.
⑦433US 562(1977).
① McCarthy, Melville B. Nimmer and the Right of Publicity:A Tribute,34 UCLA L. REV.1703 (1987),p1706.
② J. Thomas. McCarthy, Rights of Publicity and Privacy, Deerfield, vii (Rev.1993). From, Julius C. S. Pinckaers, From Privacy Toward a New Intellectual Property Right in Persona, (Kluwer Hague 1996), P.29.
③ J. Thomas McCarthy, Public Personas and Private Property:The Commercialization of Human Identity,79, Trademark Rep. (1989) 681,687.
① See Restatement (Second) of torts §652, comment a.
② Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition §46 (1995).《不正当竞争法重述(第三次)》第47条还承认了未经许可播放他人的表演或者持续性地模仿他人的表演风格也构成对该他人公开权的侵犯。
③就美国目前的规范现况而言,以普通法承认公开权者,共十一州阿拉巴马、亚利桑纳、康乃狄克、乔治亚、夏威夷、缅因、密西根、明尼苏达、密苏里、纽泽西、奥勒冈。；以成文法承认者,则有十九州。加州、佛罗里达、伊利诺、印第安那、肯塔基、麻塞诸塞、内布拉斯加、内华达、俄亥俄、奥克拉荷马、宾州、罗德岛、田纳西、德州、犹他、维吉尼亚、华盛顿、威斯康辛、纽约州。资料来源：National Conference of State Legislatures, http://www.ncsl.org/programs/lis/privacy/publicity04.htm.
④ Marc A. Franklin,Robert L. Rabin, Michael D. Green, Tort Law and Alternatives cases and Materials(Eight Edition), Thomson west Foundation Press,2006,p.1122
①由于《加利福尼亚州民权法案》第99条和第3344条条文很长,故不再正文中译出,请参见附录部分。
① EG. M. B. Nimmer, The Right of Publicity,19 Law & Contemp. Probs (1954),203,217; Harold R. Gordon, Right of Property in Name, Likeness, Personality and History,55 Nw. U. L. Rev (1960-1961),553,610-612; J. Thomas McCarthy, Public Personas and Private Property:The Commercialization of Human Identity,79, Trademark Rep. (1989) 681,686; James M. Treece, Commercial Exploitation of Names, Likenesses and Personal Histories,51 Tex. L. Rev. (1972-1973) 637,648.
② 498 F.2d 821 (9th Cir.1974).
③ 498 F.2d 821 (9th Cir.1974),824
④ 97 N. J. Super.327 (N. J. Super. L.1967).
⑤ 97 N. J. Super.327 (N. J. Super. L.1967),351.
⑥ Groucho Marx Productions, Inc. V. Day & Night Co.,523 F Supp 485, rev'd on other grounds,689 F.2d 317,216 USPQ 553 (2d Cir.1982).
⑦ Tenn. Stat § 47-25-1103(b).Martin Luther King Jr. Ctr. v. American Heritage Products,296 S.E.2d 697 (Ga 1982), p.706. J. Thomas McCarthy, Public Personas and Private Property:The Commercialization of Human Identity,79 在 Martin Luther King Jr. Ctr. v. American Heritage Production一案的判决中,乔治亚州最高法院明确否定所谓生前利用要件,其意旨为,死者在生前拒绝利用其名气获利,有其自身之考量,法律应加以保护。一个知名的牧师藉其名气获利,会伤害其传道。应保护其家属得控制、维护并延展其人格形象及死后名声。
⑧ Haelan Laboratories Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum Inc.,202 F.2d 866 (2nd Cir.1953). Halpern, The of Publicity: Commercial Exploitation of the Associative Value Personality,39 VAND. L. REV.1199 (1986), p.1217; Hyldon, Baseball Cards and the Birth of the Right of Publicity:The Curious Case of Haelan Laboratories v. Topps Chewing Gum,12 MARQ. SPORT L. REV.273 (2001), p.274.
① Estate of Presley v. Russen,513 F. Supp.1339 (D.N.J.1981)
② Lugosi v. Universal Pictures Co. Inc.,172 USPQ 541 (Cal Super 1972), rv 25 Cal 3d 813,160 Cal Rptr 323,603 P2d 425,205 USPQ 1090 (1979).
③ Guglielmi v. Spelling-Goldberg Prods.,73 Cal. App.3d 436,140 Cal.Rptr.775 (Cal.App.2 Dist.1977).
④ Groucho Marx Productions, Inc. v. Day & Night Co.,523 F. Supp.485 (S.D.N.Y.1981), rev'd on other grounds, 689 F.2d 317 (2d Cir.1982).
⑤ Martin Luther King, Jr., Center for Social Change, Inc. v. American Heritage Product, Inc.,296 S.E.2d 697 (Ga. 1982).
⑥ Hicks v. Casablanca Records,464 F. Supp.426 (S.D.N.Y.1978).
⑦ 616 F.2d 956 (6th Cir 1980).
⑧ Lugosi v. Universal Pictures.25 Cal.3d 813(1979),821-824.
⑨ Lugosi v. Universal Pictures Co. Inc.,400 F. Supp.836 (S. D. N. Y.1975),843-844.
⑩ Martin Luther King Jr. Ctr. v. American Heritage Production,250 Ga.135 (1982),145-146.
11 State ex. Rel. Elvis Presley It Mem'Found v. Cromwell,733 S.W.2d 89,98-99 (Tenn. App..1977).
①例如加利福尼亚州《民权法案》规定死者公开权的保护期限一直推延到其死后的第50年,田纳西则规定10年,维吉尼亚州是死后20年,而奥克拉荷马州及印第安那州的死后保护期为100年。See Wikipedia, Personality rights, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights. hts. McCarthy, The Right of Publicity and Privacy, Vol.Ⅰ, West Group,1999, § 6.3 Charts of Statutory Provisions.
② Julius C. S. Pinckaers, From Privacy Toward a New Intellectual Property Right in Persona, (Kluwer Hague 1996), P.63.; McCarthy.the Right of Publicity and Privacy,§3.6[F](Rev.1993.); Douglass V.Hustler Magazine,Inc.,769
F.2d1128,p 1140,11 Media L.Rep.2264(C.A.7 1985).
③ Welch v. Mr. Christmas, Inc.,57 N.Y.2d 143 (1982).see http:/www.courts.state.ny.us/comdiv/Law%20Report%20Files/VOL%209%20NO%202/Austin%20Schoeman.pdf.
① Hoerst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, JC:B:Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tubingen,1994, S. 215-216
② McCarthy, The Right of Publicity and Privacy, Vol.1, West Group,1999, § 3.4 [C],3-18. Hirsch v. Johnson & Son, Inc.,90 Wis 2d 379,280 NW2d 129 (Sup. Ct. Wis.1979), p.137; Negriv. Schering Corp.,333 F. Supp.101 (S.D.N.Y.1971), p.104
③ Pesina v. Midway Mfg. Co.,948 F Supp 40 (ND Ill 1996), p.42.
④ hts. McCarthy, The Right of Publicity and Privacy, Vol.Ⅰ, West Group,1999, § 3.4 [D],3-20.
⑤ Midler v. Ford Motor Co.,849 F.2d 460 (9th Cir.1988); Waits v. Frito-Lay Inc.,978 F.2d 1093 (C.A.9 1992)
⑥⑥ Carson v. Here's Johnny Portable Toilets Inc.,698 F.2d 831 (6th Cir.1983).
⑦ Motschenbacher v. R. J. Reynnolds Tobacco Co.,498 F.2d 821 (9th Cir.1974). Cf. Bronson v. Fawcett Publications,124 F. Supp.429 (E.D.Ill.1954). Motchenbacher v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.498 F.2d 821 (9thCir.1974).被告在威士顿香烟的电视广告中,使用了著名的赛车手LotharMotchenbacher所驾驶的车的照片。法院认为：虽然原告的脸部特征没有出现在广告中,但是,原告一直驾驶着一部和其他的赛车手不同的车,而且公众知道这辆车就是原告所使用的车；而被告在电视广告中凸显了这辆车,很明显,被告希望通过这样的凸显标识出原告；所以,被告的行为构成了对原告的公开权的侵犯。
⑧ White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,91 F.2d 1395 (9th Cir.1992). White v. Samsung Electronics AmericaInc案中第九巡回法院在谈到这种主张的理由时说道：“被告是怎样窃占原告的人格标志的,这并不重要,重要的是被告是否这么做了……如果认为只有当被告采用九种不同的方式窃占原告的人格标志时,才构成对原告公开权的侵犯,这样的一条规则只会挑战那些广告业的谋略家们采取第十种方式。”；Wendt v. Host International, Inc.,125 F.3d 806 (9th Cir.1997).
① M. B. Nimmer, The Right of Publicity,19 Law & Contemp. Probs (1954),203,216.;Ausness, The Right of Publicity:a'Haystack in a Hurricane',55 Temp. L. Q. (1982) 977,980-994.;J. Thomas McCarthy, Public Personas and Private Property:The Commercialization of Human Identity,79, Trademark Rep. (1989) 681,687.Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition ⑥46 (1995).;Marc A. Franklin,Robert L. Rabin, Michael D:Green, Tort Law and Alternatives cases and Materials(Eight Edition), Thomson west Foundation Press,2006,p.1121
② Goodenough, Retheorising Privacy and Publicity, Intellectual Property Quaterly,1997,1, p 37-70.
③ Presley's Estate V.Russen,513 F.Supp.1339,211 u.s.p.Q,415(D.C.N.J.1981)
④ J. Thomas. McCarthy, Rights of Publicity and Privacy, Deerfield, ⑥3.1[B] (Rev.1993). Cited,Julius C. S. Pinckaers, From Privacy Toward a New Intellectual Property Right in Persona, (Kluwer Hague 1996), P.62-63.
① See,California Civil Code section 99 and 3344.
② Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition §49 commernt d.
③ Zim v. Western Publishing Co.,573 F 2d (1978) (5th Cir CA),1327.
④ Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition §49 commernt d.
⑤ Zim v. Western Publishing Co.,573 F 2d (1978) (5th Cir CA),1327.
⑥ Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition §49 commernt d.
⑦ Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition §49 commernt d.
① EDWARD J. KIONKA, Torts, Wset Group,1992, p 25 et seq.李亚虹.美国侵权法[M].北京：法律出版社.1999,76-87.
② 936 F.2d 889 (6th Cir.1991).
③ 936 F.2d 889 (6th Cir.1991),896.
④ Julius C. S. Pinckaers, From Privacy Toward a New Intellectual Property Right in Persona, (Kluwer Hague 1996), P.64.
① Bronwn Denicola, Case on Copyright, Unfair Competition and Related Topics,5th. ed.,Foundation Press, p.685.
①在英文文献中经常会出现"endorsement"-一词,该词的本意是票据的背书行为,在本文语境中学者们翻译出来的词汇花样翻新,有的翻译为“认证”,有的翻译为“背书”,笔者探究文义和上下文语境,将其译为“许可使用”更好理解,也贴近文义,下文不再赘述。
② Howell, The Common Law Appropriation of Personality Tort, (1986) 2, [Can] IPJ,p149,170-172.
① Athens v. Canadian Adventure Camps Lts,(1977) 34 C.P.R.2d 126,p136.
① Marc A. Franklin,Robert L. Rabin, Michael D. Green, Tort Law and Alternatives cases and Materials(Eight Edition), Thomson west Foundation Press,2006,p.1209
① Cour d'Appel de Paris,1 June 1947, Annales de la Propriete Intellectuelle 1940-1948,p 395.
② Charles de Haas, Chapter 11 France, Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 144-145.
③ Philippe v France Editions Publications,Cour d'Appel de Paris,Semaine Juridique 1965, No.14223.
① Brigitte Bardot v. Beaverbrook Ltd., Tribunal Grand Instance Seine, Semaine Juridique 1966, No.14521.
② Rosa Biasini (Romy Schneider) v. Societe Union des Editions modernes and Daniel Angeli, Cour d'appel de Paris.Semaine Juridique 1980, No.19343.
③ Rosa Biasini (Romy Schneider) v. Societe Union des Editions modernes and Daniel Angeli, Cour d'appel de Paris,Semaine Juridique 1980, No.19343.
④ Francoise Bornet v. R.Doisneau,GP 1994,16.
⑤ Johnny Halliday v. Soc. Hachette Filipachi,Arret No.979 P, La S6maine Juridique Edition Generale 2001, p.937 No.10524.
⑥ T.G.I. Paris,1982,D.1983,147.
① [Claude]Pieplu v. Regie Francaise de Publicite T.G.I. Paris, December 3,1975,D.1977 221.
② Les Editions Sand & M. Pascuito v. M.Kantor, Mme Colucci; CA Paris, September 10,1996,R.D.P.I., NO.68.63.
① Bundesgerichtshof, Nena, (1987) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift RR 231.
② Bundesgerichtshof, Fuchsberger, (1992) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2084.
① BGH Caroline von Monaco, (1996) NJW,984-985.
② Bundesgerichtshof, Fuchsberger, (1992) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2084.
③ Bundesgerichtshof, Fuchsberger, (1992) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2084.
④ BGHZ Herrenreiter,,26,349.
⑤ Thomas R Kloetzel, Chapter 12, from Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 179.
① BGHZ 15,107,111; BGHZ 21,85,90ff; BGHZ 28,320,322ff; NJW=RR 1990,1318,1319ff; GRUR Int.1984, 246,248.另参见邵建东.德国反不正当竞争法研究[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2001.240.
② Michael Gerlinger part3 germany, Ian S.Blackshaw and Robert C.R. Siekmann,Sport Image Rights In Europe,Hague:T.M.C.Asser press, The Hague, The Netherlands,2005, p 121.
① Boeckh GRUR 2001, p.33
② LG Dusseldorf NJW-RR 1998,p.979.
③ Michael Gerlinger part3 germany, Ian S.Blackshaw and Robert C.R. Siekmann,Sport Image Rights In Europe,Hague:T.M.C.Asser press, The Hague, The Netherlands,2005,p 122. Civil Appeal No 20.904 (Campinas)—Lapis Johann Faber v. L Faber & Cia Ltda, in Revista dos Tribunais no 101, May 1936。 Federal Court of Appeals of the City of La Plata, Division I, judgement rendered on 30 March 1979, La Ley 14 November 1979.
④ Michael Gerlinger part3 germany, Ian S.Blackshaw and Robert C.R. Siekmann,Sport Image Rights In Europe.Hague:T.M.C.Asser press, The Hague, The Netherlands,2005, p 121.
① Marlene Dietrich Urteil.BGHZ 143,214; NJW 2000,2195;NJW 2001,2317.
② Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 264.
① Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 265.
② Martucelli, An Up-and-coming right-The Right of Publicity:Its Birth in Italy and its Consideration in the United States,4 Ent. L. Rev.109 p.115(1993).
③ Lucio Dalla v. Autovox,Pretura di Roma,April 18,1984, For,1,2030.
④ Monica Vitti v. Doimo SpA, Rizzoli Periodici SpA and Rusconi Editore SpA, Pretura di Roma, July 6,1987, in Dir. Aut p.774.
⑤ Marchesi v. Federazione Europea Cuochi d'Oro.
① Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 266-267.
② Martucelli, An Up-and-coming right-The Right of Publicity:Its Birth in Italy and its Consideration in the United States,4 Ent. L. Rev.109 p.115(1993).
③ Loeb, Naam en recht, Ptaktische beschrijving van bet naamrecht in Nederland,1990, p.122. from Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p.311
① [Dutch Football team] District Court the Hague,16 May 1986,IER 1986, No.56, P.120. from Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p.311
② Technisch Bureau v. Dover, NJ 1958,31.
③ Bert-Jan van den Akker and Dolf Segaar, part1 The Netherlands, Ian S.Blackshaw and Robert C.R. Siekmann.Sport Image Rights In Europe,Hague:T.M.C.Asser press, The Hague, The Netherlands,2005,p 17.
① Ja zuster/nee zuster",NJ 1970,220.
② Bert-Jan van den Akker and Dolf Segaar, part1 The Netherlands, Ian S.Blackshaw and Robert C.R. Siekmann,Sport
Image Rights In Europe,Hague:T.M.C.Asser press, The Hague, The Netherlands,2005,p13-14.
③ [Teddy Scholten] Pres. District Court Rotterdam, April 14,1959,648
④ Het schaep met de vijf poten, NJ 1979,73.
⑤ Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 317-318.
⑥ Bert-Jan van den Akker and Dolf Segaar, part1 The Netherlands, Ian S.Blackshaw and Robert C.R. Siekmann,Sport Image Rights In Europe,Hague:T.M.C.Asser press, The Hague, The Netherlands,2005, p21.
⑦ Mies Bouwman v. Fino Fabrieken, Dristrict Court Zwolle,11.24,1971, NJ 1972,285.
① Spoor/Verkade, Auteursrecht,1993, chpater; Oppenoorth, Fracets of Dutch Portrait law, Copyright Word, (1998)38,p.28.; Nimmer-Geller International Copyright Law and Practice.
②一般而言,世界上绝大多数国家将肖像权要么规定在民法典中,要么规定在诸如著作权法等特别法,属于私法上的权利,而西班牙将其上升到宪法的高度。
① Emilio Arag6n Alvarez v Proborin, S.L., STC 81/2001, Recurso de amparp.
② Dofia Elena Riera Blume v Interviu20010726 《 BOE》 num.178 156/2001.
① Simon Smith, Image, Persona and the Law, London:Sweet & Maxwell Ltd.2001, p.30.
② Simon Smith, Image, Persona and the Law, London:Sweet & Maxwell Ltd.2001, p.30.
③ RB v. Ediciones Zeta SA。 From, Simon Smith, Image, Persona and the Law, London:Sweet & Maxwell Ltd. 2001,p31.
④ LRC,8-VI-1957,BOE,No 151,10-VI-1957
⑤ STS 26-1-1990, RJ 1990/26.
① Isabel Hernando, Chapter 26, Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 404-405.
② Isabel Hernando, Chapter 26, Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 405
③ STS 10-X-1992.RJ 1992/8079.
④ Art.1902 Spanish Codigo Civil:"El que por accion u omision causa dano a otro, interviniendo culpa o negligencia, esta obligado a reparar el dano causado", Real Orden De 29 De Julio De 1889; Art.2043 Italian Codice Civile: "Qualunque fatto doloso o colposo, che cagiona ad altri un danno ingiusto, obbliga colui che ha commesso il fatto a risarcire il danno (Cod. Pen.185).", R.D.16 marzo 1942, n.262 Approvazione del testo del Codice Civile (Pubblicato nella edizione straordinaria della Gazzetta Ufficiale, n.79 del 4 aprile 1942).
⑤ Julius C.S. Pinckaers, From Privacy toward a New Intellectual Property Right in Persona, (Kluwer Hague 1996), p 12
①五十岚清.人格权法[M].铃木贤,葛敏译.北京：北京大学出版社.2009.116-140.
①东京地判昭和51.6.29,「判例畴报」 817号第23页。
③东京地判平成2.12.21,「判例时报」 1400号第10页。
④东京高判平成3.9.26,「判例时报」第1400号第3页。。
⑥东京高判平14.7.17,「判例时报」 1809号第39页。
①具体详见五十岚清.人格权法[M].铃木贤,葛敏译.北京：北京大学出版社.2009.149.
③「藤冈弘」事件,富山地裁昭和61.10.31,「判例时报」 1218号128页。
④ Japanese Supreme Court, Mark Lester v Tokyo Daiichi Film, Tokky (Patent and Enterprise) Sep.1976, p.47; Japanese Supreme Court of 11.6.1986, Minsh 40-4, p.872.
⑥ H Ruijsenaars, "Character Merchandising:A European view on Japanese case law", (1996) 7 (3) Entertainment Law Review, p.111.
①名古屋地判平12.1.19,「判例タィムズ」 1070号第223页,
②大阪高判平13.3.8,「判例时报」 1071号第294页
④东京地判平13.8.27,「判例时报」 1758号第3页。
⑤东京高判平14.9.12,「判例タィムズ」 1114号第187页。
⑦横滨地判平4.6.4「判例时报」 1434号第116页
① Charles de Haas, Chapter 11 France, Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 148.
②[法]雅克·盖斯旦,吉勒·.法国民法总论[M].陈鹏等译.北京：法律出版社,2004.164.
③ Tribunal de Grande Instance de la Seine,22 October 1963,p 1964.1.86.
④ Charles de Haas, Chapter 11 France, Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 148.
① Cour d'Appel de Paris,10 July 1957 Dalloz 1957.622.
② [Mr Pic]Cour d'Appel de Paris,7 February 1989 Dalloz 1990.124.
③ Charles de Haas, Chapter 11 France, Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 149.
④ Cour d'Appel de Paris,30 October 1985, Annales de la Propriete Industrielle 1986, p157.
⑤ Charles de Haas, Chapter 11 France, Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London,
Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 149.
⑥ Cassation Civile,19December 1967 and 26 May 1970, Annales de la Propriete Industrielle 1968,p 188 and 1970, p 98.
① Paul Mathely-Le Nouveau Droit des Signes Distinctfs, EdJNA 1994, p 192.
② Cassation Commercaile,26 April 1988, Annales de la Propriete Intellectuelle 1988,p 163.
③ Charles de Haas, Chapter 11 France, Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 151.
④ Tribunal de Grande Instance de Chalon-sur-Saone,29 July 1988 Bulletin Information Cour de Cassation 1989 1/2,No.135.
⑤ Charles de Haas, Chapter 11 France, Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 150.
① [Au Due de Praslin] Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, May 25,1984 Gazette de Palais 1996 No.215 & 216, p11.
② See Jurisclasseur Ed E 1997, supplement No 5, p 30.
③石井智弥：「人格权固有の利益の保护」,露木美幸、柴山美穗等「专修法研论集」第32号,2003(平成15)年发行,P25-33。
③ Gaillard," La double nature du droit a l'image et ses consequences en droit positif francais", D.1984, Chron.161.; Serna L'image des personnes physiques et des biens 1997. P.48.;Beignier L'honneur et le droit t.234, LGDL.1995, p.74s.
① [Valery Giscard] d'Estaing v. M.Ways, T.GI. Nancy, October 22,1976,JCP 1977, Ⅱ,18526.
② CA Paris,11 ech., July 2,1997.D.1977,596.
③ Philippe v France Editions Publications,Cour d'Appel de Paris.Semaine Juridique 1965, No.14223.
④ Brigitte Bardot v. Beaverbrook Ltd., Tribunal Grand Instance Seine, Semaine Juridique 1966, No.14521.
① Brigitte Bardot v. Beaverbrook Ltd., Tribunal Grand Instance Seine, Semaine Juridique 1966, No.14521.
② Rosa Biasini (Romy Schneider) v. Societe Union des Editions modernes and Daniel Angeli, Cour d'appel de Paris,Semaine Juridique 1980, No.19343.
③ Rosa Biasini (Romy Schneider) v. Societe Union des Editions modernes and Daniel Angeli, Cour d'appel de Paris.Semaine Juridique 1980, No.19343.
④ Chambre Civile 1,8 janvier 1980, Jacqueline H.,78-14218,Revue trimestrielle de droit civil,1983,.
⑤ Chambre Civile 1,8 janvier 1980, Jacqueline H.,78-14218,Revue trimestrielle de droit civil,1983, n.1, p.116.
① Farah Diba,Chambre Civile 1,86-15524,13 avril 1988,Bulletin 1988 Ⅰ N° 98.
② Farah Diba,Chambre Civile 1,86-15524,13 avril 1988,Bulletin 1988 Ⅰ N° 98 p.67.
①[法]雅克·盖斯旦,吉勒·古博.法国民法总论[M].陈鹏等译.北京：法律出版社,2004.172.
②[Petula Clark]JCP 1966,Ⅱ.14711.
① [Petula Clark] JCP 1966,Ⅱ.14711.
② JCP 1966,Ⅱ.14890.
③ Cf Denis Tallon,Repertoire. Civil Dalloz, October 1996, ss7 and 11.
④ B Sa. C., Cour D'Appel Bordeaux, La Semaine Juridique 1999, No.1641
① B Sa. C., Cour D'Appel Bordeaux, La Semaine Juridique 1999, No.1641
② 200,000 Francs for Caroline de Monaco, Tribunal de Grande Instance de Nanterre 8 April 1998, Legipresse 1998 No 155 Ⅰ,122.
③ Astier v. Julien,Cour de Cassation, La Semaine Juridique 2001, No.1255
① See Lindon, Les droits de la personnalite,1983,114-120.
② Logeais, The French Right to One's Image:A Legal Lure? 5 Ent.L.Rev.163 (1994).,p.166.
③ Charles de Haas, Chapter 11 France, Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 145.
①Charles de Haas, Chapter 11 France, Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 152.
②[Catherine]Deneuve v. Siemens, T.G.I. lere Ch.1987.
① Brun v. Expobat,Trib. Gr. Inst. Aix-en-Province, November 24,1988, Jurisclasseur 1989, Ⅱ21 329.
② Charles de Haas, Chapter 11 France, Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 153.
③ Logeais, The French Right to One's Image:A Legal Lure? 5 Ent.L.Rev.163 (1994).,p.164
④ Stoufflet,"Le droit de la personne sur son image", JCP.157.Ⅰ.1374.
①Stoufflet,"Le droit de la personne sur son image", JCP.157.1.1374.
②Gaillard," La double nature du droit a l'image et ses consequences en droit positif francais", D.1984, Chron.161.
③Gaillard," La double nature du droit a l'image et ses consequences en droit positif francais", D.1984, Chron.161.
④Acquarone," l'ambiguite du droit a l'image", D.1985, Chron.129.
⑤Serna L'image des personnes physiques et des biens 1997. P.48.
①Beignier L'honneur et le droit t.234, LGDL,1995, p.74s.
②Goubeaux DROIT CIVIL les personnes,1989 n.316.
① D.1993.IR.118.
② D.1993.IR.118.
③ Trib. Gr. Inst. Lyon, December 17,1980, D.1981,202.
④ Miss X v. Atlas, Chambre Civile 1,27 mars 1990,88-18396,Bulletin 1990 1 N° 72 p.52.
⑤ janvier, Chambre civile 1,13,95-13694, Bulletin 19981 N° 14.
⑥ janvier, Chambre civile 1,13,95-13694, Bulletin 19981 N° 14 p.9.
⑦ Laporte P., Fedou and Coupin JJ.,Sas Calendriners Jean Lavigne v Ste Universal Music, cour d'appel, Versailes,September 22,2005. [2006]E.M.L.R.22,Issue 5, September-October,2006 P.679-.
① Laporte P., Fedou and Coupin JJ.,Sas Calendriners Jean Lavigne v Ste Universal Music, cour d'appel, Versailes,September 22,2005.[2006]E.M.L.R.22,Issue 5, September-October,2006, P.679.
② Laporte P., Fedou and Coupin JJ.,Sas Calendriners Jean Lavigne v Ste Universal Music, cour d'appel, Versailes,September 22,2005. [2006]E.M.L.R.22,Issue 5, September-October,2006, P.680-681.
① 200,000 Francs for Caroline de Monaco, Tribunal de Grande Instance de Nanterre 8 April 1998, Legipresse 1998 No 155 Ⅰ.122.
② Charles de Haas, Chapter 11 France, Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 155.
① Michel Leeb v. Xodo, Chambre Civile 1,12 juin 1990,89-11485,Bulletin 19901 N° 164.
② Michel Leeb v. Xodo, Chambre Civile 1,12 juin 1990,89-11485,Bulletin 19901 N° 164 p.116.
① Tribunal de Grande Instance Paris,18 December 1985, Dalloz 1986 IR 446.
② Cour d'appel de Versailes,27 January 2000 D 2000 IR 56.
③ Tribunal de Grande Instance de la Seine,26 June 1966, Jurisclasseur 1966Ⅱ,14875
④ [Gerard]Depardieu v. Suchard T.G.I. Paris, October 17,1984,D.1985,Somm.324.
⑤ Charles de Haas, Chapter 11 France, Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 153.
⑥ Cour d'Appel de Paris,19 September 1994, Revue Trimestrielle de Droit Civil 1995,326.
⑦ Cour d'Appel de Paris,11 February 1987, Dalloz, Som 385.
⑧ Cf Tribunal de Grande Instance Paris, summary proceeding,6 June 1974, J 95.; Cour d'Appel de Paris,14 June 1985, Dalloz 1986 IR 50.
① Cour d'Appel de Paris,26 February 1991, D 1991 2.538.
② Cour d'Appel de Paris,26 February 1991, D 19912.538.; Cassation lere Civile 13 January 1998, Jurisclasseur 1998 Ed G,10.082 and Legipresse 1998 No 52 p 77.
③ Cour d'Appeal de Paris,24 March 1985, Jurisclasseur 1965 Ⅱ 14.305.
④ Isabelle X v Entrevue & Conception de presse, Civile 1,17 september 2003,00-16849.
⑤ Isabelle X v Entrevue & Conception de presse, Civile 1,17 september 2003,00-16849.
⑥ Isabelle X v Entrevue & Conception de presse, Civile 1,17 september 2003,00-16849.
① janvier, Chambre civile 1,13,95-13694, Bulletin 1998 Ⅰ N° 14.
② janvier, Chambre civile 1,13,95-13694, Bulletin 1998 Ⅰ N° 14 p.9.
③ Johnny Halliday v. Soc. Hachette Filipachi,Arret No.979 P, La Semaine Juridique Edition Generale 2001, p.937 No.10524.
① Johnny Halliday v. Soc. Hachette Filipachi,Arret No.979 P, La Semaine Juridique Edition Generale 2001, p.937 No.10524.
① ZWEIGERT&KOTZ, Einfuhrung in die Rechtsvergleichung auf dem Gebiete des Privatrechts", Vol.Ⅱ.Tubingen (1984),464.
①在对德国人格标识商业利益保护进行具体考察前,必须稍加交代的是,德国肖像权和姓名权的内涵远比法国、日本、我国大陆及台湾地区的姓名权和肖像权的内涵狭窄。德国两个法定人格权制定于百年前,其旨在维护主体自身的人格形象不受歪曲和贬损以及维护主体自我形象的正确展示等,尚无法预料晚近以来人格标识的商业利用现象。因此,德国私法上的肖像权和姓名权的内容并不涵摄姓名或肖像上所生的财产利益。经由学说判例的推动,人格标识上的财产利益转由起替补作用的一般人格权制度予以具体规范。德国的一般人格权是具体人格权的补充,不同于我国大陆及台湾地区、日本、韩国将一般人格权视为具体人格权的上位概念。为便于比较法的考察,本文在写作体例上不将德国姓名、肖像上的利益分别以姓名权、肖像权和一般人格权为名单独阐述,而是结合到一起,只以姓名权和肖像权为名展开阐述,在各自相应部分插入一般人格权的保护方式。
②Hefermehl,Festschr fur A Hueck, S.519,520,Aus,Soergel-Heinrich § 12 Rn 2.
③Soergel-Heinrich § 12 Rn 2.
①陈忠诚.姓名权论[J].新法学.第2卷(1).
②[德]卡尔·拉伦茨.德国民法通论[M](上).王晓哗等译.法律出版社.2003.167.
③BGH 43,345.§12,S.43-44.转引自[德]卡尔·拉伦茨.德国民法通论[M](上).王晓哗等译.法律出版社.2003.167.
④王泽鉴.民法总则[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社.2005.134.
① Staudinger-Habermann § 12 Rn 15
② Staudinger-Habermann § 12 Rn 15; Thorsten Funkel, Schutz der Personlichkeit durch Ersatz immaterieller Schaden in Geld, Munchen,2001, S.10; Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.82.
③ Vgl. Hubmann, Das Personlichkeitsrecht,2. Aufl, S.276. Aus, Soergel-Heinrich § 12 Rn 2.
④ Staudinger-Habermann § 12 Rn 16.
⑤ Hoerst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, JC:B:Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tubingen,1994, S.82 f.
⑥有关德国法学界对“无权”解释的百余年之争的阐述,可详见Klippel, Der zivilrechtliche Schutz des Namens,1985,S.375-382.。不过大多数国家民法上的姓名权并无“无权使用同一姓名”的概念,而是泛指有关姓名的一切权利。法国和日本没有明确规定姓名权制度,但是在司法实践中法院均认为做扩大解释。我国台湾地区和大陆民法虽明定“姓名权”,但也无此规定。
⑥ Klippel, Der zivilrechtliche Schutz des Namens,1985, S.379.
① Vgl. Hoerst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, JC:B:Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tubingen,1994.S.84.
②德国曾有学者所主张的姓名隐匿权Vol. Dunnwald, UFITA 49 (1967),129,140f.; Koebel, JZ 1966,389ff.; Neumann-Duesberg, JZ 1970,564,566f.; dies., JZ 1971,305,311; ahnlich schon Bussmann, Name, Fima, Marke, Berlin,1937, S.227f.比一主张遭到联邦最高法院和大多数学者的批评。Forkel, FS fur Hubmann,93,103; Kruger, GRUR 1980,628,633. Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S. 97, Fn.131. Hubmann, Das Personlichkeitsrecht,2. Aufl.,1967, S.280; BGHZ 30,7ff-Caterina Valente. Bruno Seemann, Prominenz als Eigentum:Pararelle Rechtsentwicklung einer Vermarktung der Persoenlichkeit im amerikanischen, deutschen und schweizerischen Persoenlichkeitsschutz,1. Aufl., Baden-Baden,1996, S.137, Fn. 119.
③ Vol. Koehler, BGB Allegemeiner Teil,27. Aufl.2003, S.310.
④[德]迪特尔·梅迪库斯.德国民法总论[M]邵建东等译.法律出版社2001.797
⑤[德]迪特尔·梅迪库斯.德国民法总论[M]邵建东等译.法律出版社2001.799.
①[德]卡尔·拉伦茨.德国民法通论[M](上).王晓晔等译.法律出版社.2003.168.
② Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.86.
③ MunchKomm/Schwerdtner(2001) § 12 Rn 3,183ff; Staudinger-Coing-Habermann § 12 Rn 133; Staudinger-Habermann§ 12 Rn 15,288ff; Soergel-Heinrich §12 Rn 174; RGRK/Krilger-Nieland (1979) § 12 Rn 87.
① Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.86 f.
② Klippel, Diethelm, Der zivilrechtliche Schutz der Namens. Eine historische und dogmatische Untersuchung, Paderborn/Munchen/Wien/Ziirich,1985, S.403.
③ Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.87-88.
④ Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.87-88.
⑤ BGH GRUR 1959,430-Caterina Valente
⑥ BGH GRUR 1981,846-Rennsportgemeinschaft.
①MunchKomm/Schwerdtner(2001) § 12 Rn 191,.
②Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Verm6gensrechte, Tubingen,1995,S.90.
③BGHZ 119,237,245-Universitatswappen.[德]卡尔·拉伦茨著：《德国民法通论》(上册),王晓晔、邵建东、程建英、徐国建、谢怀栻,谢怀拭校,法律出版社.2003.168.“联邦最高法院认为：只有在人们将所推销的产品或劳务以某种方式看作是属于姓名权人时,方可谈的上对姓名权的损害。如果不是这种情况,就可能仅是一般人格权的损害。”
④Schertz, Christian, Merchandising:Rechsgrundlagen und Rechtspraxis, Munchen 1997, S.149.
①MunchKomm,Schwerdtner(2001)§12 Rn 39.
① Wenzel,Das Recht der Wort-und Bildberichterstattung,1994, Absatz 9.7, from Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 179.
① BGH 1954,1 ZR 73/82; WRP 1984,681; MDR 1984,997; GRUR 1984,907.
② BGH GRUR 1959,430-Caterina Valente
③ BGH GRUR 1981,846-Rennsportgemeinschaft.
④ BGH GRUR 1981,846,847-Rennsportgemeinschaft.
⑤ BGH GRUR 1981,846,847-Rennsportgemeinschaft.
① MunchKomm/Schwerdtner(2001) § 12 Rn 300.
② Vgl. Bruno Seemann, Prominenz als Eigentum:Pararelle Rechtsentwicklung einer Vermarktung der Persoenlichkeit im amerikanischen, deutschen und schweizerischen Persoenlichkeitsschutz,1. Aufl., Baden-Baden, 1996, S.136; MunchKomm/Schwerdtner(2001) § 12 Rn 301.
③ Vgl. Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.100.
④ BGH Urteilvom 26.06.1981, GRUR 1981, S.846-847ff.
① BGHZ 60,206= NJW 1973,622-Miss Petite.
② RG vom 28.12.1899, RGZ 45,170.
③KUG的全称为Gesetz betreffend das Urheberrecht an Werken der bildenden Kuenste und der Photographie KUG也即《关于保护艺术作品和摄影作品著作权的法律》,本文为简略起见,直接译为《艺术品和摄影作品著作权法》。
③ Drucksachen des Reichstags Nr.30, S.29; GRUR 1906,11,25.
①根据KUG第22条第1款的规定：“肖像特征只能在当事人同意的前提下方可以公开流通。”"Bildnisse duerfen nur mit Einwilligung des Abgebildeten verbreitet oder oeffentlich zur Schau gestellt werden."
② BGH NJW 1957,1315.
③ Vgl. Bruno Seemann, Prominenz als Eigentum:Pararelle Rechtsentwicklung einer Vermarktung der Persoenlichkeit im amerikanischen, deutschen und schweizerischen Persoenlichkeitsschutz,1. Aufl., Baden-Baden, 1996, S.140.
① Vgl. Wandtke-Bullinger, Urheberrecht muenchen:2002,Abs.22 KUG,Anzahl 5. Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.26.
② BGH GRUR 1962MP.211-Hochzeitsbild; NIW 1971,p700-Paraiser Liebestropfen.
③ Vgl. Bruno Seemann, Prominenz als Eigentum:Pararelle Rechtsentwicklung einer Vermarktung der Persoenlichkeit im amerikanischen, deutschen und schweizerischen Persoenlichkeitsschutz,1. Aufl., Baden-Baden, 1996, S.141.
④ BGH GRUR 1979,732,733-FuBballtor.
⑤ Thomas R Kloetzel, Chapter 12, from Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London,
Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001, p 166.
⑥ OLG Diisseldorf GRUR 1970,618-Schleppjagd.
⑦ BGH GRUR 1979,732,733-FuBballtor.
⑧ LG vom Landgericht Muenchen I,7O 16812/02.
① Thomas R Kloetzel, Chapter 12, from Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001, p 166.
② Wandtke-Bullinger, Urheberrecht muenchen:2002,Abs..22 KUQAnzahl 12
③ Thomas R Kloetzel, Chapter 12, from Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,166.
④ Schricker, Urheberrecht (MueCHEN:1999) Abs.22 KUQ,Anzahl 14
⑤ NJW-RR,1990, S..999/1000.
①[德]迪特尔·梅迪库斯.德国民法总论[M]邵建东译.法律出版社.2001.802
②BGH GRUR 1979,S.426-FuBballspieler.
②[德]霍尔斯特·埃曼.德国民法中的一般人格权制度——论从非道德行为到侵权行为的转变[A].邵建东等译.载梁慧星.民商法论丛(第23卷)[C].香港：金桥文化出版社(香港)有限公司,2002.461.
① Michael Gerlinger part3 germany, Ian S.Blackshaw and Robert C.R. Siekmann,Sport Image Rights In Europe,Hague:T.M.C.Asser press, The Hague, The Netherlands,2005, p 113.
② Schricker, Urheberrecht (MueCHEN:1999) Abs.23 KUG,,Anzahl 6
③ Wandtke-Bullinger, Urheberrecht muenchen:2002,Abs..23 KUG,Anzahl 6.
④ BGH NJW2001,p.1922/1923
①BGH NJW2001,p.1922/1923
②BGH NJW2001,p.1924
③Wandtke-Bullinger, Urheberrecht muenchen:2002,Abs..23 KUQAnzahl 23.
④Schricker/Gotting, UrhG, § 60/§ 23 KUG, Rdn.19.
①参见[德]霍尔斯特·埃曼.德国民法中的一般人格权制度——论从非道德行为到侵权行为的转变[A].邵建东等.梁慧星.民商法论丛(第23卷)[C].香港：金桥文化出版社(香港)有限公司,2002.461.
② BGH GRUR 1979S.427-Fuβballspieler.
③ BGHZ GRUR 2000.S..450
④ BGH NJW 1996, S.984-985-Caroline von Monaco.
⑤ OLG Hamburg,Archiv fuer Presserecht (AfP) 1972, S.150.
⑥ OLG Frankfurt, NJW 2000, S.595-Katharina Witt.
① Vgl. Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.27-28; dazu Bruno Seemann, Prominenz als Eigentum:Pararelle Rechtsentwicklung einer Vermarktung der Persoenlichkeit im amerikanischen, deutschen und schweizerischen Persoenlichkeitsschutz,1. Aufl., Baden-Baden,1996, S.142.
② Siehe etwa BGH vom 8.5.1956, GRUR 1956,427,428-Paul Dahlk; BGH vom 14.21958,408,409-Herrenreier; BGH vom 10.11.1961, GRUR 1962,211,213-Hochzeitsbild; BGH vom 14.10.1986, GRUR 1987, 128-Nena. aus, Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.29, Fn.88.
③例如,Schricker/Gerstenberg, UrhG(1987), Anh.§ 60/§ 22 KUG, Rdn.2; Staudinger/Schafer, § 823, Rdn.212; von Gamm, UrhG(1968), Einf., Rdn.103; Karl Egbert Wenzel, Das Recht der Wort-und Bildungberichterstattung,3. Aufl., Koln 1986, Rdn.7.32, S.298.Aus, Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.29, Fn.89. Carsten Heisig, Personlichkeitsschutz in Deutschland und Frankreich, Hamburg 1999, S.22; Bruno Seemann, Prominenz als Eigentum:Pararelle Rechtsentwicklung einer Vermarktung der Persoenlichkeit im amerikanischen, deutschen und schweizerischen Persoenlichkeitsschutz,1. Aufl., Baden-Baden, 1996. S.142.
④ Vgl. Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.29.
① Vgl. Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.29.
② Vgl. Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.29-30.
③ Hans-Martin Pawlowski, Allgemeiner Teil des BGB,5.Aufl., Heidelberg,1998, Rn.343, S.150.Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.37. Nobert Dasch, Die Einwilligung zum Eingriff in das Recht am eignen Bild, Munchen 1990, S.22;Jurgen Helle, Besondere Personlichkeitsrechte im Privatrecht, Tubingen 1991, S.52; ders., AfP 1985,93,99.
④ Vgl. Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.38.
⑤[德]卡尔·拉伦茨.德国民法通论(上册)[M].王晓晔等译.北京：法律出版社,2003.282. Bernd Ruthers, Allgemeiner Teil des BGB,12. Aufl., Munchen 2002, S.51.
① Julius C.S. Pinckaers, From Privacy toward a New Intellectual Property Right in Persona, (Kluwer Hague 1996), p 8
② RG vom 28.10.1910, RGZ 74,313-Graf Zeppelin. Aus. Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tiibingen,1995, S.46.
③ Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.43.
④ RG vom 26.6.1929, RGZ 125,80.
① RG vom 26.6.1929, RGZ 125,82f.
② BGHZ 20,345-Pual Dahlke; BGH NJW 1956,1554-Pual Dahlke.本案被告共有三方,为简化援引与本文直接相关的内容,故对案件作了缩减。
① BGHZ 20,345,353=NJW 1956,1554,1555-Paul Dahlke.
② BGHZ 20,345,353=NJW 1956,1554,1555-Paul Dahlke.; Marcel Bartnik, Der Bildnisschutz im deutschen und franzosischen Zivilrecht, Tubingen,2004, S.247.
③ BGHZ 20,345,353-Paul Dahlke; BGH NJW 1956,1554,1555-Paul Dahlke.
① Wenzel.Das Recht der Wort-und Bildberichterstattung,1994, Absatz 9.7, from Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001, p 179.
② BGHZ 26,349-Herrenreite; NJW 1958,827-Herrenreiter.
③ BGHZ 26,349,353-Herrenreite; NJW 1958,827,829-Herrenreiter.
①Vgl.BGHZ 128,1,14f.口Erfundenes Exklusivinterview;BGH NJW 1996,984,985.
① Vgl. Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tiibingen,1995, S.52.
②齐晓琨.“索拉娅案”评注——德国民法中对损害一般人格权的非物质损害的金钱赔偿[J].现代法学.2007,(1).
② BGH NJW 1996,985-Caroline.
① Prinz/Peters, Medienrecht— Die zivilrechtlichen Ansprueche[M].C. H. Beck sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Muenchen 1999:S.51]齐晓琨.“索拉娅案,,评注——德国民法中对损害一般人格权的非物质损害的金钱赔偿[J].现代法学.2007,(1).
② BGHZ 35,363,368 f; BGHZ 132,13,27; BGH NJW 1996,985,986; BGHZ 143,214,218; BVerfG NJW 2004, 591,592.
③ BGHZ 143,214,218; BVerfG NJW 2004,591,592; BGHZ 132,13,29.
④ BGHZ 50,133,137= NJW 1968,1773-Mephisto.
⑤ BGH vom 14.10.1986, GRUR 1987,128.
① Hans Forkel, Lizenzen an Personlichkeitsrechten durch gebundenen Rechtsiibertragung, GRUR 1988,492.
② Vgl. Hans Forkel, Lizenzen an Personlichkeitsrechten durch gebundenen Rechtsiibertragung, GRUR 1988,492.
③ MunchKomm/Rixecker (2001) § 12 Anh. Rn 42.Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.64,65.
④ Vgl. Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tiibingen,1995, S.61.
⑤ BGHZ 143,214=NJW 2000,2195=NJW 2001,2317-Marlene□Dietrich.
⑥ Vgl. Hans Forkel, Lizenzen an Personlichkeitsrechten durch gebundenen Rechtsubertragung, GRUR 1988,491ff. MunchKomm/Rixecker (2001) § 12 Anh. Rn 44.
⑦ Vgl. Hans Forkel, Lizenzen an Personlichkeitsrechten durch gebundenen Rechtsubertragung, GRUR 1988,491, 495.
① Vgl. Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.65.
② BGHZ 143,214,223 unter Hinweis auf Helle Rabels (1996) 448,459ff.
③在1956年的"Paul Dahlke"案判决中,联邦最高法院将肖像权称为“具有财产价值的排他性权利”；在1968年的"Mephisto"案判决中,其又指出人格权“具有财产价值的成分”；在1987年第"Nena"案和1992的年"Fuchsberger"等案件中联邦最高法院不断重申肖像权具有财产利益的一面。但是联邦最高法院此前从未就人格权二元利益合并在一起正式确认,更未就两者之间的存在怎样的关系发表意见。
④ OLG Hamburg, NJW 1990,1995-Heinz Erhardt.本件系一假处分事件,声请人系已故知名演员Heinz Erhardt之子,被声请人以一声音模仿者模仿其父亲之口音,在广播节目中朗读广告台词,声请人声请禁止之。
⑤ BGHZ 143,214=NJW 2000,2195=NJW 2001,2317--Marlene□Dietrich.
⑥ OLG Hamburg, NJW 1990,1995-Heinz Erhardt.本件系一假处分事件,声请人系已故知名演员Heinz Erhardt之子,被声请人以一声音模仿者模仿其父亲之口音,在广播节目中朗读广告台词,声请人声请禁止之。
①BGHZ 50,133,137=NJW 1968,1773-Mephisto.
②OLG Hamburg,NJW 1990,1995-Heinz Erhardt.本件系一假处分事件,声请人系已故知名演员Heinz Erhardt之子,被声请人以一声音模仿者模仿其父亲之口音,在广播节目中朗读广告台词,声请人声请禁止之。
③BGHZ 143,214=NJW 2000,2195=NJW 2001,2317-Marlene口Dietrich.
④BGHZ 26,349,353=NJW 1958,827,829-Herrenreiter.本案的判决书很长,本文对判决作了缩减,并在结构上做了调整。
⑤BGH,NJW 1992,S.2084-Fuchsberger.
①[德]马克思米利安·福克斯.侵权行为法[M].齐晓琨译.北京：法律出版社2006.第56页。
① BGHZ 143,214;NJW 2000,2001;NJW 2002,2317-Marlene Dietrich.
② BGH vom 20.3.1968, NJW 1968,1773,1774-Mephiso. Aus Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.8, Fn.20.
① Botticher, AcP 158 (1959/1960),385,403f.; Beuter, Claudia, Die Kommerzialisierung des Personlichkeitsrecht, Diss. Konstanz 2000, S.73.; Hoerst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, JC:B:Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tubingen,1994, S.53.
①杨立新.人身权法论[M].北京：人民法院出版社,2002,第555页。
②程合红.商事人格权论——人格权的经济利益内涵及其实现与保护[M].北京：中国人民出版社,2002.第28页；冯象.鲁迅肖像权问题[J].读书.2001,(3).
③王胜明.中华人民共和国侵权责任法解读[M].中国法制出版社,2010.89-92.
①Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.,433 US 562 (1977).
①王晓晔.竞争法学[M].北京：中国社科文献出版社,2007.第82-86页。程合红.商事人格权论——人格权的经济利益内涵及其实现与保护[M].中国人民大学出版社.2002.254-256.
① Georger Koumantos, Reflections on the Concept of Intellectual Property, Intellectual Property and Information Law, published by KluwerLaw International, Hague,1998.
②郑成思教授谈到了,我国部分学者反对在诸如知识产权法等没有在其法律内部增加不正当竞争的原因。“我国一直把知识产权与反不正当竞争相联系让很多人难以接受。我国学术界很多人反对在知识产权法中增加反不正当竞争条款,其理由是：(1)知识产权单行法已经保护了知识产权,还有什么必要再以“反不正当竞争法给予保护”?(2)反不正当竞争法所犯规的范围很广,远远不止知识产权保护,怎么能把反不正当竞争统统纳入到知识产权保护范围呢?(3)知识产权法重在保护私权,反不正当竞争法重在界定国家在市场 管理上的工行为,不应把公、私两种法相混淆。对此,中国的知识产权单行法确实已经相当完备,但这与反不正当竞争法的附加保护,并不矛盾。而且,如果没有了后者,则完善的知识产权单行法,离完善的知识产权保护,还会有相当长的路。当初《反不正当竞争法》立法时,有立法者说,这可以放在第5条中去管,但是第5条只规范“经营者”,而搭人家作品名称便车者,多数不属于经营者,不受第5条管。又如,搭别人“商品样式”的便车,虽然属于经营者,却又偏偏是上述第5条没有列进去的。”
①郑成思.知识产权论[M].北京：法律出版社.2007.186-188.
①北京市第一中级人民法院(2006)一中民终字第10912号民事判决书。
②傅沙沙.羽坛名将董炯向7被告追债[N].京华时报.2007年7月31日,第012版.
③费文彬“无痕丰胸”广告侵犯肖像权,柳州一医院向演员王雅劫赔偿8万元[N].人民法院报.
①田浩.摄影师侵犯女模特肖像权,吉林美术出版社承担连带赔偿责任[N].人民法院报.2006-02-18.
②胡沛.不含“新闻”的照片不是“新闻照片”,一陕北老汉赢得肖像权诉讼.[Z].综合新闻——政法新闻2003-06-2307：17：57.
①杨宗霈.韩雪照片登上医院广告,索赔百万最终只得2万[N].时代信报.2008年01月17日.
①陈坚.“刀郎”之争出结果西域刀郎被判侵权[Z].http://bjgy.chinacourt.org/public.2006-01-17.
②王杨.照片上了内衣广告,前奥运射击冠军打赢维权官司[N].人民法院报.2009-04-21.
①向红林.没有脸仍被判侵犯肖像权.三峡都市报[N].2007-4-2,A7.
②李晓明.侵权”椰岛鹿龟酒”广告连播两年半去世演员家属获赔6万元[N].新闻晨报,2007-10-10.
③孙思娅.电视台擅用已故外科专家照片做广告被判赔1 5万[N].京华时报.2009-03-17.
①以下的案件简介,系参见胡喜盈,丁淼.“鲁迅的姓名肖像权之争”[J].律师世界.2001,(6)
①BGH NJW 1996,985-Caroline.
②陈美凤米酒代言案,原审台北地方法院93年诉字第1820号民事判决,判决被告应赔偿原告非财产上损害新台币60万元,并不得使用原告姓名及肖像于其生产制造或代理销售的料理米酒及广告物上。被告不服提起上诉,二审维持原判,驳回被告上诉。详见台湾高等法院94年度上易字第616号判决。
① Arinton v. New York Time,55 N.Y.2d 433,434 N.E.2d 1319,499 N.Y.S.2d 941(1982).
② Erman/Ehmann, Kommentar zum Buergerlichen Gesetzbuch.10. Aufl.2001,465.
①BGHZ 143,214=NJW 2000,2195=NJW 2001,2317--Marlene□Dietrich.
①“版权”通常是英美法系国家的用法,而大陆法系国家则用为“著作权”,因此在本文的论述中会交替使用这两个概念。
① Manfred Rehbinder, Urheberrecht, Munchen:C.H.,2003, S.3.
② Schricker/Dietz, Urheberrecht 2. A.,1999,§ 11 Rdnr.1,2.
① Manfred Rehbinder, Urheberrecht, Miinchen:C.H. Beck:C.H. Beck,2003,S.26
② Dieselhorst, Was bright das Urheberpersonlichkeitsrecht? Urheberpersonlichkeitsschutz im Vergleich: Deutschland-USA,1994,17, Fn 54.
③ v. Gierke, Deutsche Privatrecht, S.103.766.
④ v. Gierke, Deutsche Privatrecht, S.766-767.
⑤ Dieselhorst, Dieselhorst, Was bright das Urheberpersonlichkeitsrecht? Urheberpersonlichkeitsschutz im Vergleich: Deutschland-USA,1994,17,19-20.
① Manfred Rehbinder, Urheberrecht, Munchen:C.H. Beck:C.H. Beck,2003,S.27
② Manfred Rehbinder, Urheberrecht, Munchen:C.H. Beck:C.H. Beck,2003, S.27-28
③ Manfred Rehbinder, Urheberrecht, Munchen:C.H. Beck:C.H. Beck,2003, S.75-77
③ Manfred Rehbinder, Urheberrecht, Munchen:C.H. Beck:C.H. Beck,2003,S.28
① Manfred Rehbinder, Urheberrecht, Munchen:C.H. Beck:C.H. Beck,2003,S.18
② Manfred Rehbinder, Urheberrecht, Munchen:C.H. Beck:C.H. Beck,2003,S.77
③ Schricker, Hundert Jahre Urberrechtsentwicklung, in Beier/Kraft/Schricker/Waldle(Hrgb.), Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht in Deutschland,1991,1116.
④ Manfred Rehbinder, Urheberrecht, Munchen:C.H. Beck:C.H. Beck,2003,S.296
① Merkin/Black, Copyright and Designs Law,1993,16.1.
② Peifer, Moral Rights in den USA, ZUM 7/1993,325-352(327).
③ M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright,1994,8D-10; Nimmer/Marcus/Myers/Nimmer, Cases and Materials on Copyright and Other Aspects of Entert ainment Litigation,1991,4th. ed,603.
④ 198 F.2d 585 (2d Cir.1952).
⑤ 538 F.2d 14. (2d Cir 1976).
① 538 F.2d at 24.
②刘孔中：《著作人格权之比较研究》,《台大法学论丛》(2002),第31卷4期,第26页。
② Paul Goldstein. Copyright, Patent, Trademark and Related State doctrines [M]. The Foundation Press, Inc.1981: 855
① Yosolde Gendreau. Digital Technology and Copyright:Can Moral Right Survive the isappearance of the Hard Copy[J/OL]. http://Canada. Justice. gc. ca/commerce/index-en. html.
③小林寻次,现行著作权法の立法理由解释,页12-18,文部省,1958。
⑤萧雄淋.同一性保持权侵害之若干问题——评台湾高等法院八十四年上字第三一四号判决[J].资讯法务透析.1996,(12)：18-25；冯震宇.著作权法解读[M].1981.38-39,45,59；罗明通.著作权法论[M].1986.179-182.
①郑成思.知识产权论[M].北京：法律出版社,2007.347-348；杨延超.作品精神权利论[M].北京：法律出版社,2007.49.
②郑成思.知识产权论[M].北京：法律出版社,2007.347-348.
③Rebinder,Urheberrecht,S.12.
① Schricker, Hundert Jahre Urheberrechtsentwicklung,1118.
② Manfred Rehbinder, Urheberrecht, Munchen:C.H. Beck:C.H. Beck,2003,S.27-28.
① BGH GRUR 1981,846,847-Rennsportgemeinschaft.
② MunchKomm/Schwerdtner(2001) § 12 Rn 300.
③ Vgl. Bruno Seemann, Prominenz als Eigentum:Pararelle Rechtsentwicklung einer Vermarktung der Persoenlichkeit im amerikanischen, deutschen und schweizerischen Persoenlichkeitsschutz,1. Aufl., Baden-Baden, 1996, S.136; MunchKomm/Schwerdtner(2001) § 12 Rn 301.
④ Vgl. Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.100.
⑤ BGHZ 143,214=NJW 2000,2195=NJW 2001,2317-Marlene□Dietrich.
⑥ BGHZ 20,345-Pual Dahlke; BGH NJW 1956,1554-Pual Dahlke.
① BGHZ 20,345,353-Paul Dahlke; BGH NJW 1956,1554,1555-Paul Dahlke.
②当然德国学术界早期的通说是人格权的非财产性,不具财产内容,如有学者认为“人格权是以人之尊严的尊重为其主要内容。人格权的目的并不在某些外在于个人的法益的归属,而在保护精神利益。据此人格权非属支配权(Herrschaftsrecht),通常其并未使权利人对一定法益可以享有并利用,而仅为排除他人侵害的排他权(Ausschlussrecht) "。 Mestmacker, JZ 1958,521,525; Raiser, JZ 1961,465,471.现今这种传统见解很少有人继续主张,因此正文中对此不作介绍。
③ v. Gierke, Deutsches Privatrecht, S.706-707.
① Peukert, ZUM 2000,710,719 ff.
② Vgl. Hans Forkel, Allgemeines Personlichkeitsrecht und wirtschaftliches personlichkeitsecht, in:Festschrift fur Karl H. Neumauer, Baden-Baden 1985, S.229-237.
③ Vgl. Hans Forkel, Lizenzen an Personlichkeitsrechten durch gebundenen Rechtsubertragung, GRUR 1988,491ff.
④ Vgl. Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.137.
⑤ Vgl. Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.137-138.
⑥ Vgl. Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.138-139; ders., Die Vererblichkeit der vermogenswerten Bestandteile des Pers6nlichkeitsrechts-ein Meilenstein in der Rechtsprechung des BGH, NJW 2001,585,586.
① Manfred Rehbinder, Urheberrecht, Munchen:C.H. Beck:C.H. Beck,2003, S.28
② Vgl. Hans Forkel, Lizenzen an Personlichkeitsrechten durch gebundenen Rechtsubertragung, GRUR 1988,491ff.
③ Magold, Hanns Arno, Personenmerchandising:der Schutz der Persona im Recht der USA und Deutschlands, Diss. Frankfurt am Main/Berlin/Bern 1994, S.523-537 ff.
① Hubamann, Das Personlichkeitsrecht, S.132 f. Aus Magold, Hanns Amo, Personenmerchandising:der Schutz der Persona im Recht der USA und Deutschlands, Diss. Frankfurt am Main/Berlin/Bern 1994, S.523ff.
② Hubamann, Das Personlichkeitsrecht, S.132 f. Aus Jung, Alexander, Die Vererblichkeit des allgemeinen Personlichkeitsrechts. Diss. Remscheid 2005. S.126 f.
③ Vgl. Klippel, Der zivilrechtliche Schutz des Namens,1985, S.503f.,531 ff., Aus, Hans Forkel, Lizenzen an Personlichkeitsrechten durch gebundenen Rechtsubertragung, GRUR 1988,491, Fn.85.
④[德]迪特尔·施瓦布.民法导论[M].法律出版社.2006.223.
① Vgl. Lutz Heitmann, Der Schutz der materiellen Interesse an der eigenen Personlichkeitsspahre durch subjekti-private Rechte, Hamburg,1963, S.78ff. Aus,Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.136.
② Vgl. Lutz Heitmann, Der Schutz der materiellen Interesse an der eigenen Personlichkeitsspahre durch subjekti-private Rechte, Hamburg,1963, S.76ff.,81-108.
③ Vgl. Wolfgang Fikentscher, Wirtschaftsrecht, Bd. Ⅱ, Miinchen 1983, S.112,132f.
④ Vgl. Wolfgang Fikentscher, Wirtschaftsrecht, Bd. Ⅱ, Munchen 1983, S.112,132f.
⑤ Beuthien/Schmolz, Personlichkeitsschutz durch Personlichkeitsguterrechte,1999, S.19ff.
⑥ Beuthien/Schmolz, Personlichkeitsschutz durch Personlichkeitsguterrechte,1999, S.19ff.
⑦ Ullmann AfP 1999,209,210.
① Ullmann WRP 2000,1049,1052-1053.
②[德]赫尔穆特·科尔.人格尊严和商业利益间的一般人格权[A].米健.中德法学学术论文集[C].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2006.279.
③本人在此将法国财产性姓名权和财产性肖像权称之为“商事人格权”和我国学者程合红所主张的“商事人格权”略微有所不同,程氏认为商事人格权中也有人格利益,两者相互联系。程合红.商事人格权论——人格权的经济利益内涵及其实现与保护[M].中国人民大学出版社.2002.
② See, Francois Dessemontent, Chapter 28, from Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001, p 433.
① Deneuve v. Siemens. T.G.I. lere Ch.1987-Catherine.
② Laporte P., Fedou and Coupin JJ.,Sas Calendriners Jean Lavigne v Ste Universal Music, cour d'appel, Versailes,September 22,2005.[2006]E.M.L.R.22,Issue 5, September-October,2006 P.680-681.
③ Gaillard," La double nature du droit a l'image et ses consequences en droit positif francais", D.1984, Chron.161. Acquarone," l'ambiguiite du droit a l'image", D.1985, Chron.129. Serna L'image des personnes physiques et des biens 1997. P.48. Beignier L'honneur et le droit t.234, LGDL,1995, p.74s. Goubeaux DROIT CIVIL les personnes, 1989 n.316.Charles de Haas, Chapter 11 France, Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 145.
④ Brun v. Expobat,Trib. Gr. Inst. Aix-en-Province, November 24,1988, Jurisclasseur 1989, Ⅱ21 329.
⑤ Charles de Haas, Chapter 11 France, Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 153.
⑥ Goubeaux DROIT CIVIL les personnes,1989 n.316.
① Logeais, The French Right to One's Image:A Legal Lure? 5 Ent.L.Rev.163 (1994).,p.164
② Charles de Haas, Chapter 11 France, Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 152.
④东京地判昭和51.6.29「判例时报」 817号第23页。
⑤具体详见五十岚清.人格权法[M].铃木贤,葛敏译.北京：北京大学出版社.2009.149.
② Right of identity是美国公开权(right of publicity的另一种表达法。
① British Telecommunication Plc and Others v. One in a Millon Ltd and Others[1999]FSR 1,10 per Aldous LJ.
② McCulloch v May [1947] All ER 845
① Krouse v. Chrysler Canada Ltd.(1973),1 OR (2d)255,40 DLR(3d) 15(Ont CA)
② Gould Estate v. Stoddard Publishing Co. [1996] 30 OR(3d) 520 (GD) revd on other grounds and Horton v. Tim Donut Ltd(1997) 75 CPR(3d) 451,459-460.
③ Haelan Laboratories Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum Inc.,202 F.2d 866 (2nd Cir.1953).
④ Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.,433 US 562 (1977).
⑤ Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.,433 US 562 (1977),573-576.
⑥ Marc A. Franklin,Robert L. Rabin, Michael D. Green, Tort Law and Alternatives cases and Materials(Eight Edition), Thomson west Foundation Press,2006,p.1209事实上,在美国法考察部分的参考文献中大量文献的标题便是"intellectual"(“知识产权”)。
① Stephano v. News Group Press,64 N.Y 2d 174,474 N.E.2d 580,485 N.Y.S.2d 220 (1984).
①[德]考夫曼.法律哲学[M].刘幸义译.北京：法律出版社,2005.116-117.
②[德]拉伦茨.法学方法论[M].陈爱娥译.北京：商务印书馆,2005.300；考夫曼.法律哲学[M].刘幸义译.北京：法律出版社,2005.132.
①在台湾高等法院94年度上易字第616号判决中,被告为生产并销售料理米酒之厂商,发现艺人陈美凤因受邀主持数个美食节目,陆续出版多本料理书籍,并拍摄广告代言食品、餐具、家电等,在消费大众心目中奠定美食代言人之地位遂在未经其同意之情况下,在酒瓶外包装及广告物使用陈美凤之姓名及照片。原告陈美凤提起诉讼,请求财产上及非财产上损害赔偿。法院认定被告未经同意即将原告姓名及照片用于产品外包装及广告物之行为,成立对原告姓名权及肖像权之侵害。在法律效果方面,就财产上损害而言,法院不采原告以过去授权金额计算之主张,并以被告行为并未阻滞原告另接受他人广告合约,而否定原告受有「所失利益J之财产上损害。惟法院仍肯认原告受有非财产上损害,并就慰抚金之酌定,认为应衡量「原告具有一定之公众形象,依社会通念,原告推荐之商品,必有助于商品之销路」及原告之身分、地位及被告误认已获授权之因素。台湾高等法院94年度上易字第616号判决——陈美凤案。
②佟柔.民法原理[M].北京：法律出版社,1983.34-478.江平主.民法学[M].北京：中国政法大学学版社，2000.280；李锡鹤.民法哲学论稿[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2000.176；屈茂辉,黄劲.论人格权法的基本 原理[J].云南大学学报(法学版).2003,(2).另见最高人民法院《民法通则》培训班编(1986年)《民法通则讲座》。219-220.
①梁慧星.民法总论(第二版)[M].北京：法律出版社,2001.70,113；王利明.人格权法研究[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005.45；尹田.自然人具体人格权的法律探讨[J].河南省政法管理干部学院学报,2004,(3)：20；李琛.质疑知识产权之“人格财产一体性”[J]..中国社会科学.2004,(2).69.郑永宽.人格权的价值与体系研究[M].知识产权出版社.2008.63-64.
②杨立新.中国人格权法立法报告[M].北京：知识产权出版社,2005.143.
③王利明.人格权法研究[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005.283；尹田.自然人具体人格权的法律探讨[J].河南省政法管理干部学院学报,2004,(3)：20.
④王泽鉴.人格权保护的课题与展望(三)——人格权的具体化及保护范围(2)——姓名权[J].台湾本土法学,2006,(9)：44,55；王泽鉴.人格权保护的课题与展望(三)——人格权的具体化及保护范围(3)——肖像权[J].台湾本土法学,2006,(10)：67,75,78,86.
①程合红.商事人格权论——人格权的经济利益内涵及其实现与保护[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2002.51.
②程合红.商事人格权论——人格权的经济利益内涵及其实现与保护[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2002.5].
③郑成思.商品化权刍议[J].中华商标.1996,(2);杨素娟,杜颖.商品化权议[J].河北法学.1998,(1);刘春霖.商品化权[J].西北大学学报(哲社版).1999,(4);孙美兰.“奥特曼”纠纷案引发的思考[J].法学.1999,(7);杜颖.论商品化权[A].民商法论丛(第13卷)[C].法律出版社,2000.；朱川.商品化权研究[J].复旦民商法学评.2001,(1)；梅慎实.试论影视作品中“虚构角色”商品化之知识产权保护[J].版权参考资料.1989,(6);郭玉军.论角色商品化权之法律性质[J].知识产权.2000(6);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[J].电子知识产权.2005,(9)；蓝蓝.人格与财产二元权利体系面临的困境与突破——以“人格商品化”为视角展[J].法律科学.2006,(3);张丹丹,张帆.商品化权性质的理论之争及反思[J].当代法学,2007,(5);谢晓尧.商品化权：人格符号的利益扩张与衡平[J].法商研究,2005,(3).
① Heijo E.Ruijsenaars Legal Aspects of Merchandising:The ATPPI Resolution,[1996]6,EIPR。
② See Ruijsenaars'The WIPO Report on Character Merchandising'25 International Review of Industrial property and Copyright Law(1994)532,p 536.
③郑成思.商品化权刍议[J].中华商标.1996,(2);杨素娟,杜颖.商品化权议[J].河北法学.1998,(1);刘春霖.商品化权[J].西北大学学报(哲社版).1999,(4);孙美兰.“奥特曼”纠纷案引发的思考[J].法学.1999,(7)；杜颖.论商品化权[A].民商法论丛(第13卷)[C].法律出版社,2000.；朱川.商品化权研究[J].复旦民商法学评.2001,(1)；梅慎实.试论影视作品中“虚构角色”商品化之知识产权保护[J].版权参考资料.1989,(6);郭玉军.论角色商品化权之法律性质[J].知识产权.2000(6);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[J].电子知识产权.2005,(9)；蓝蓝.人格与财产二元权利体系面l临的困境与突破——以“人格商品化”为视角展[J].法律科学.2006,(3);张丹丹,张帆.商品化权性质的理论之争及反思[J].当代法学,2007,(5);谢晓尧.商品化权：人格符号的利益扩张与衡平[J].法商研究,2005,(3).。
④谢晓尧.商品化权：人格符号的利益扩张与衡平[J].法商研究,2005,(3)：84-86.
①黄立的表述是：“不过有人在甲死后,将其肖像制成金币或者出版邮票,此时甲之肖像权则系有财产价值之标的。如仍不得让与或继承,恐非妥当。此时宜仿照著作权法上,将著作权区分为著作人格权与著作财产权的做法,对于精神人格权的侵害,因自然人之死亡或法人人格之丧失而消灭,其受侵害之损害赔偿请求权,非经转换为金钱债权,不得让与或继承。但对于财产人格权的侵害,其请求权应认为当然得让与或继承。”参见,黄立.民法债编总论[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2002.264.
②袁雪石.姓名权本质变革论[J].法律科学,2005,(2).
③何爱文.美国法之个人公开权于‘我国’法上受保护之可能性[J].全国律师.1992,(12);熊伟.形象权法律制度研究[D].武汉大学博士学位论文.2002;郑成思.商品化权刍议[J].中华商标.1996,(2);薛虹.名人的商标权——公开形象权[J].中华商标.1996,(3);董炳和.论形象权[J].法律科学.1998,(4);赖国钦.形象宣传权之研究[D].私立中国文化大学法律研究所硕士论文.1999;李明德.美国形象权法研究[J].环球法律评论.2003,冬季号;吴汉东.形象的商品化与商品化的形象权[J].法学.2004,(10);蓝蓝.人格与财产二元权利体系面临的困境与突破——以“人格商品化”为视角展[J].法律科学.2006,(3);李智仁.人格权经济利益之保障,个人公开权之探讨[J].法令月刊.55(11).不过在日本和我国有部分学者直接将公开权译为商品化权。见上文商品化权部分的脚注,五十岚清.人格权法口[M].铃木贤,葛敏译.北京：北京大学出版社.2009.141以下.
④李明德.美国形象权法研究[J].环球法律评论.2003,冬季号.
①赖国钦.形象宣传权之研究[D].私立中国文化大学法律研究所硕士论文.1999.186.
②张丹丹,张帆.商品化权性质的理论之争及反思[J].当代法学,2007,(5).
③ See Marco De Boni. Martyn Prigmore, A Hegelian Basis For Privacy As An Economic Right, http://wwwusers.cs.york.ac.uk/～mdeboni/papers/Hegelian_Basis_For_E-privacy.pdf.
① Brehmer\Voegeli, Das allgemeine Personlichkeitsrecht,1978 JA 374,377.
② BGHZ 143,214=NJW 2000,2195=NJW 2001,2317-Marlene□Dietrich.
③ SCHACK.,2000 JZ 1060.
④ Hilty, Unubertragbarkeit urheberrechtlicher Befugnisse:Schutz des Urhebers oder dogmatisches Ammenmarchen?, in:Festschrift Rehbinder,Munich/Berne 2002, S.275ff..
⑤ SCHACK,2000 JZ 1062.Klaver, "Vermogensrechtliche Aspekte des zivilrechtlichen allgemeinen Personlichkeitsrechts,2002 ZUM 205. PEUKERT, "Personlichkeitsbezogene Immaterialguterrechte?,"2000 ZUM 710,
⑥ Hilty, Unubertragbarkeit urheberrechtlicher Befugnisse:Schutz des Urhebers oder dogmatisches Ammenmarchen?, in:"Festschrift Rehbinder",Munich/Berne 2002, S.282ff.
⑦ Hilty, "Unubertragbarkeit urheberrechtlicher Befugnisse:Schutz des Urhebers oder dogmatisches Ammenmarchen?," in:"Festschrift Rehbinder",Munich/Berne 2002, S.282-284ff.
① Llewellyn and Hoebel, The Cheyenne Way(1941),p274. From Rosco Pound. S17
② Llewellyn and Hoebel, The Cheyenne Way(1941),p274. From Rosco Pound. S17
③陈忠五.论契约责任与侵权责任的保护客体：“权利”与“利益”区别正当性的再反省[J].台大法学论丛.2007,36(3)：127.
①简资修.违法保护他人法律之过失推定：经济功效与司法仙丹[J].政大法学评论.2003,(75)：90-92；陈忠五.论契约责任与侵权责任的保护客体：“权利”与“利益”区别正当性的再反省[J].台大法学论丛.2007,36(3)：128.
①王泽鉴.侵权行为[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2009.7-8.
②简资修.违法保护他人法律之过失推定：经济功效与司法仙丹[J].政大法学评论.2003,(75)：90-92.陈忠五.论契约责任与侵权责任的保护客体：“权利”与“利益”区别正当性的再反省[J].台大法学论丛.2007,36(3)：128.
①谢晓尧.商品化权：人格符号的利益扩张与衡平[J].法商研究,2005,(3).
① P.J.Bohannan.Ethnography and Comparision in Legal Anthropology[A].In Laura Nader.Law in Culture and Society[C] Chicago:Chicago Aldine Publishing Company,1969:410.
① Tamar Gidron,The Publicity Right in Israel An Example of Mixed Origins, Values, Rules, Interests and Branches of Law.Electronic Journal of Comparative Law,vol.12.1(May2008),p 1-19.JoelKarni Schmid, McDonald's cries foul:Trademark rights versus Right of Publicity in Israel, Trademark World,168,1 June 2004,p 18.
② Krouse v. Chrysler Canada Ltd.(1973),1 OR (2d)255,40 DLR(3d) 15(Ont CA)
③ BGHZ143.214=NJW 2000.2195=NJW 2001.2317-Marlene□Dietrich.
④ Lugosi v. Universal Pictures Co. Inc.,400 F. Supp.836 (S. D. N. Y.1975),843-844.
⑤ WAGNER, BGH,2000 GRUR 717,720. From Daniel Biene,CELEBRITY CULTURE,INDIVIDUALITY AND RIGHT OF PUBLICITY AS A EUROPEAN LEGAL ISSUE, International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law,2005,36(5),P,505-506
① Biene, Starkult, Individuum und Personlichkeitsgiiterrecht 24,(Baden-Baden/Berne 2004).p.167.
② Daniel Biene.CELEBRITY CULTURE,INDIVIDUALITY AND RIGHT OF PUBLICITY AS A EUROPEAN LEGAL ISSUE, International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law,2005,36(5),P,505-506
③ MULLER,2003 GRUR 31;KLAVER,2002 ZUM 205;GOTTING,2001 NJW 585;SCHACK,2000 JZ 1060;PEUKERT,2000 ZUM 710;LADEUR,2000 ZUM 879;ULLMANN,2000 WRP 1049;WAGNER,2000 GRUR 717;JACOBS,2000 WRP 896;HILTY,in:"Festschrift Reh-binder"275 et seq.Daniel Biene,CELEBRITY CULTURE,INDIVIDUALITY AND RIGHT OF PUBLICITY AS A EUROPEAN LEGAL ISSUE, International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law,2005,36(5),P,505-506
①名古屋地判平12.1.19,「判例タィムズ」 1070号第223页。大阪高判平13.3.8,「判例时报」 1071号第294页。
① Lawrence v. Ylla,184 Misc.807,55 N.Y.S.2d 343 (Sup. Ct.1945).Gautier v. Pro-Football,278 App. Div.431,106 N.Y.S.2d 553 (1st Dep't 1951), aff'd,304 N.Y.354,107 N.E.2d 485 (1952); maysville Transit Co. v. Ort,296 Ky.524,177 S.W.2d 369 (1943); Vassar College v. Loose-Wiles Biscuit Co.,197 Fed.982 (W.D. Mo1912).
② EG M. B. Nimmer, The Right of Publicity,19 Law & Contemp. Probs (1954),203,217; Harold R. Gordon, Right of Property in Name, Likeness, Personality and History,55 Nw. U. L. Rev (1960-1961),553,610-612; J. Thomas McCarthy, Public Personas and Private Property:The Commercialization of Human Identity,79, Trademark Rep. (1989) 681,686; James M. Treece, Commercial Exploitation of Names, Likenesses and Personal Histories,51 Tex. L. Rev. (1972-1973) 637,648.
④498F.2d 821(9thCir.1974).
①498 F. 2d 821(9th Cir.1974),824
②97 N.J.Super. 327(N.J.Super. L.1967).
③97 N.J.Super. 327(N.J.Super. L.1967),351.
④Harold R.Gordon,Right of Property in Name,Likeness,Personality and History,55 Nw.U.L.Rev(1960-1961), 553.611.
① Tenn. Stat § 47-25-1103(b).Martin Luther King Jr. Ctr. v. American Heritage Products,296 S.E.2d 697 (Ga 1982), at 706.J. Thomas McCarthy, Public Personas and Private Property:The Commercialization of Human Identity,79在Martin Luther King Jr. Ctr. v. American Heritage Production一案的判决中,乔治亚州最高法院明确否定所谓生前利用要件,其意旨为,死者在生前拒绝利用其名气获利,有其自身之考量,法律应加以保护。一个知名的牧师藉其名气获利,会伤害其传道。应保护其家属得控制、维护并延展其人格形象及死后名声。另见Groucho Marx Productions, Inc. V. Day & Night Co.,523 F Supp 485, rev'd on other grounds,689 F.2d 317, 216 USPQ 553 (2d Cir.1982).
② Midler v. Ford Motor Co.,849 F.2d 460 (9th Cir.1988); Waits v. Frito-Lay Inc.,978 F.2d 1093 (C.A.9 1992);;Motschenbacher v. R. J. Reynnolds Tobacco Co.,498 F.2d 821 (9th Cir.1974).;Cf. Bronson v. Fawcett Publications,124 F. Supp.429 (E.D.Ill.1954).;White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,91 F.2d 1395 (9th Cir.1992).White v. Samsung Electronics America Inc; Motchenbacher v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.498 F.2d 821 (9th Cir.1974).
③程合红.商事人格权论——人格权的经济利益内涵及其实现与保护[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社.2002.220-221.
① Carson v. Here's Johnny Portable Toilets Inc.,698 F.2d 831 (6th Cir.1983).
② Restatement (third) of Unfair Competition, American law institute,1995,§
③ Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.,433 US 562 (1977).
④ Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition §47 (1995).
① Haelan Laboratories Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum Inc.,202 F.2d 866 (2nd Cir.1953). Halpern, The of Publicity: Commercial Exploitation of the Associative Value Personality,39 VAND. L. REV.1199 (1986), at 1217; Hyldon, Baseball Cards and the Birth of the Right of Publicity:The Curious Case of Haelan Laboratories v. Topps Chewing Gum,12 MARQ. SPORT L. REV.273 (2001), p.274.
② Laporte P., Fedou and Coupin JJ.,Sas Calendriners Jean Lavigne v Ste Universal Music, cour d'appel, Versailes,September 22,2005.[2006]E.M.L.R.22,Issue 5, September-October,2006 P.679-.
③苏平.无锡宣判国内最大肖像权案,张柏芝一审获赔百万[N].人民日报.2006-04-12,第02版：赵正辉,潘志江.无锡中院一审宣判一起侵权案,影星张柏芝胜诉获赔百万元[N].人民法院报.2006-04-11.
④江彬.孙悦肖像权案和解[N].楚天都市报.2009-1-22,B25版。
⑤ Lugosi v. Universal Pictures Co. Inc.,400 F. Supp.836 (S. D. N. Y.1975),843-844.
① Martin Luther King Jr. Ctr. v. American Heritage Production,250 Ga.135 (1982),145-146.
② BGHZ 143,214=NJW 2000,2195=NJW 2001,2317-Marlene□Dietrich.
③例如加利福尼亚州《民权法案》规定死者公开权的保护期限一直推延到其死后的第50年,田纳西则规定10年,维吉尼亚州是死后20年,而奥克拉荷马州及印第安那州的死后保护期为100年。See Wikipedia, Personality rights, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights. McCarthy, The Right of Publicity and Privacy, Vol.Ⅰ, West Group,1999, § 6.3 Charts of Statutory Provisions.
④刘润华.中国首例亡人肖像使用权纠纷案[J].法庭内外.2000,(2).
⑤李晓明.侵权”椰岛鹿龟酒”广告连播两年半去世演员家属获赔6万元[N].新闻晨报,2007-10-10.
⑥孙思娅.电视台擅用已故外科专家照片做广告被判赔15万[N].京华时报.2009-03-17.
⑦以下的案件简介,系参见胡喜盈,丁淼.“鲁迅的姓名肖像权之争”[J].律师世界.2001,(6).
⑧ Tribunal de Grande Instance Paris,18 December 1985, Dalloz 1986 IR 446.
① Thomas R Kloetzel, Chapter 12, from Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,166.
② Schricker, Urheberrecht (MueCHEN:1999) Abs.22 KUG,,Anzahl 14
③ NJW-RR,1990, pp.999/1000.
④胡沛.不含“新闻”的照片不是“新闻照片”,一陕北老汉赢得肖像权诉讼.[Z].综合新闻——政法新闻2003-06-2307：17：57.
①[美]约翰·D·泽莱兹尼.传播法——自由、限制于现代媒介[M].张金玺、赵刚译.北京：清华大学出版社,2007166.
① Erman/Ehmann, Kommentar zum Buergerlichen Gesetzbuch.10. Aufl.2001,465.
② Erman/Ehmann, Kommentar zum Buergerlichen Gesetzbuch,10. Aufl.2001,494.
① Wandtke-Bullinger, Urheberrecht muenchen:2002,§23 KUG, Nr.24.
② Michael Gerlinger part3 germany, Ian S.Blackshaw and Robert C.R. Siekmann T.M.C.Asser press, The Hague, The Netherlands,2005, p 123-124.
③ Michael Gerlinger part3 germany, Ian S.Blackshaw and Robert C.R. Siekmann T.M.C.Asser press, The Hague, The Netherlands,2005, p 124.
① Michael Gerlinger part3 germany,Ian S.Blackshaw and Robert C.R. Siekmann T.M.C.Asser press, The Hague, The Netherlands,2005, p 124.
① See Huw Beverley-Smith, Ansgar Ohly and Agnes Lucas-Schloetter, Privacy, Property and Personality:Civil Law
Perspectives on Commercial Appropriation, (Cambridge 2005), P.190.德国联邦最高法院在"Paul Dahlke"阳"Herrenreiter"案判决中确立的立场,得到许多后续判决的支持。详请参见,本文第四章德国法考察部分关于这些案件的相关阐述。
② See Huw Beverley-Smith, Ansgar Ohly and Agnes Lucas-Schloetter, Privacy, Property and Personality:Civil Law Perspectives on Commercial Appropriation, (Cambridge 2005), P.143.
① Presley's Estate V.Russen,513 F.Supp.1339,211 u.s.p.Q,415(D.C.N.J.1981)
② J. Thomas. McCarthy, Rights of Publicity and Privacy, Deerfield, §3.1[B] (Rev.1993). From, Julius C. S. Pinckaers, From Privacy Toward a New Intellectual Property Right in Persona, (Kluwer Hague 1996), P.62-63.
③ See,California Civil Code section 99 and 3344.
④ Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition §49 commernt d.
① Zim v. Western Publishing Co.,573 F 2d (1978) (5th Cir CA),1327.
② Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition §49 commernt d.
③ Zim v. Western Publishing Co.,573 F 2d (1978) (5th Cir CA),1327.
④ Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition §49 commernt d.
⑤ Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition §49 commernt d.
① BGHZ 20.345-Paul Dahlke.
② BGHZ 143,214-Marlene Dietrich; BGH NJW 2000,2201-Der blaue Engel.
③ BGHZ 44,372,378-MeBmer-Tee; BGHZ 57,116,118-Wandsteckdose; BGHZ 119,20,23-Tchibo/Rolex Ⅱ. BGHZ 119,20,23-Tchibo/Rolex Ⅱ.
〖梁慧星.中国民法典草案建议稿附理由债权总则编[M].北京：法律出版社,2006.12；王泽鉴.债法原理(二)不当得利[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2002.24-31；王利明.民法新论(下)[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,1988.426.
②BGHZ GRUR1979,S.734-FuBballspieler.
③BGHZ 20,345,353-Paul Dahlke; BGH NJW 1956,1554,1555-Paul Dahlke.
④杨宗霈.韩雪照片登上医院广告,索赔百万最终只得2万[N].时代信报.2008年01月17日.
① Vgl. Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Verm6gensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.52. BGHZ 30,75,78-Caterina Valente; BGHZ 35,363-Ginseng.
② Vgl. Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.53;[德]M·雷炳德.著作权法[M].张恩民译.北京：法律出版社,2005.586.
③ Pietzko, AfP 1988,209,220. Aus. Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, J.C.B.Mohr(Paul Siebeck) Tubingen,1995, S.55, Fn.212.赞同这个观点的有, Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995, S.55; Marcel Bartnik, Der Bildnisschutz im deutschen und franzosischen Zivilrecht, Tubingen,2004, S.249; Huw Beverley-Smith, Ansgar Ohly and Agnes Lucas-Schloetter, Privacy, Property and Personality:Civil Law Perspectives on Commercial Appropriation, (Cambridge 2005), P.141.
① Beuthien/Schmolz, Personlichkeitsschutz durch Personlichkeitsguterrechte, Munchen,1999, S.19fff.
② Simon Smith, Image, Persona and the Law, London:Sweet & Maxwell Ltd.2001, P 6.
③ Beuthien/Schmolz, Personlichkeitsschutz durch Personlichkeitsgiiterrechte, Munchen,1999, S.23ff.
④王泽鉴.债法原理(二)不当得利[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2002.267；王泽鉴.人格权保护的课题与展望[J].人大法律评论,2009.98.
①[日]藤原正则.不当得利法[M].日本信山社.2002.268,转引自五十岚清.人格权法[M].铃木贤,葛敏译.北京：北京大学出版社.2009.151.
① See, e.g., Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway (2000)30 EHRR 878,908.
② Zana v. Turkey(l999) 27 EHRR 667,689.
③ Muller v. Switzerland (1991)13 EHRR 212,228.
④阿布照哉等：《宪法——基本人权篇》(下册)中国政法大学出版社2006年版,第128页以下。[德]康德拉·黑塞.联邦德国宪法纲要[M].北京：商务印书馆,2007.306.
⑤BverfGE 7,198(208); 25,256(265).
⑥ R.Smend, Das Recht der freien Meinungsaeusserung, VVDStRL 4(1928) S.50.
①《德国基本法》第5条；美国联邦最高法院在沙利文一案发展出的真实恶意(real malice)的判断标准。
② R.Smend, Das Recht der freien Meinungsaeusserung, WDStRL 4(1928) S.56ff.[德]康德拉·黑塞塞.联邦德国宪法纲要[M].北京：商务印书馆,2007.314.
③ Davis v. High Society Magazine, Inc.,90 Appellate Division, second 374,457 N. Y. S.2d 308 (1982).
④ Paulsen v. Personality Posters, Inc.,59 Misc.2d 444,299 N. Y. S.2d 501 (1968).
① Goodenough, Retheorising Privacy and Publicity, Intellectual Property Quaterly,1997,1, p 37-70.
② Hillary Rodham Clinton received $8 million from Simon & Schuster for her memoir "Living History," see "Drehpunkt-die Schweizer Literaturzeitschrift," Vol.109 of March 2001; O.J. Simpson multiplied his assets by the factor nine through his book "I want to tell you," see SEEMANN, "Prominenz als Eigentum" 53 (Baden-Baden 1996).
① Olaf Weber, Human Dignity and the Commercial Appropriation of Personality:Towards a Cosmopolitan Consensus in Publicity Rights?, SCRIPT-ed, Volume 1, Issue 1, March 2004, p.185
② Richard Clayton & Hugh Tomlinson, The Law of Human Rights, Volume2, Oxford University Press,2000, p 1067.
①参见,[德]霍尔斯特·埃曼著：“德国民法中的一般人格权制度——论从非道德行为到侵权行为的转变”,邵建东、常青、虞蓉、邹海蓉译,载于梁慧星主编《民商法论丛》,总第23卷,第461页。
②我国和欧美诸国有所不同的是,部分新闻媒体在政府主导下运作,但是大多数媒体是纯粹的营利性企业,特别是出版业和互联网。
①王泽鉴先生认为,我国最高人民法院和英美法系的普通法院一样,在法律上并没有授予它一种违宪审查权,但是它应该做符合宪法的解释,这样并不超越它的权限,如果选的例子适当,做一个解释,法律的解释跟宪法的规范连在一起,并不是在否定宪法的效力,而是在发挥宪法保障功能,规范的功能,这样会改变整个宪法基本权利和司法的关系。参见,王泽鉴：“人格权、基本权利与言论自由”,http://www.xici.net/b46489/d43059183.htm.也就是说,不论一国采用何种释宪制度,即使这个国家或者这个地方法院没有违宪审查权,但是它也可以做符合宪法的法律解释,这是每一个法院所应该有的责任。因此,除了国家积极履行保障公民人格权的义务,创设保障人之尊严和人格自由发展的制度和实施条件外,在现行司法资源下我们完全有能力开启最高人民法院的释宪之门。
②佟柔.民法原理[M].北京：法律出版社,1989.486.
① Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broasting Co.,433 US 562 (1977),575.
② Sides v. F-R Publish Press,113F.2D 806 (2d. Cir), cert. Denied,311 U.S.711 (1940).
③ Sides v. F-R Publish Press,113F.2D 806 (2d. Cir), cert. Denied,311 U.S.711 (1940).
①BGH NJW2001,p.1922/1923
②BGH NJW2001,p.1922/1923
③Manfred Rehbinder, Urheberrecht, Munchen:C.H. Beck:C.H. Beck,2003,S.432.
④Preston v Martin Bregman Productions, Inc,765 F Supp 116 (SDNY 1991).
①[美]阿丽塔·L·艾伦,理查德·C·托克音顿.美国隐私法学说判例与立法[M].冯建妹等译.北京：中国民主法制出版社.2004.339.
①胡沛.不含“新闻,”的照片不是“新闻照片”,一陕北老汉赢得肖像权诉讼.[Z].综合新闻——政法新闻2003-06-2307：17：57.
① Arinton v. New York Time,55 N.Y.2d 433,434 N.E.2d 1319,499 N.Y.S.2d 941 (1982).
③本案的被告是一家杂志社,其刊登了一篇讨论受孕的文章,认为使用咖啡因可以增加受孕的可能性,并在文章中使用了一对夫妻和他们的6个孩子的照片。法院裁定,在以受孕为主题的文章和这幅大家庭的照片之间,存在着一种“真正的联系”,因而未经许可的使用符合“具有新闻价值的例外”,没有侵犯原告的公开权。Finger v. Omni Publications Ltd.,77 N. Y.2d 138,564 N. Y. S.2d 1014 (1990).
② Stephano v. News Group Publications,64 N. Y.2d 174,485 N. Y. S.2d 220 (1984).
⑤李明德.美国形象权法研究[J].环球法律评论.2003,冬季号：486.
① Joe Montana v. San fose Mercury News, Inc.,40 Cal Rrtr 2d 639 (Cal Ct App 1995).
② Messenger v Gruner,Fabr Printing Publishing,208 F3d 122(2d Cir 2000).
③ Manfred Rehbinder, Urheberrecht, Munchen:C.H. Beck:C.H. Beck,2003,S.432.
④ BGHZ,24,208ff. BGH GRUR,1985 S.398—Naktfoto.
⑤ BGH ZUM,1996,405.
⑥ BverFG, GRUR,2000, S.158-Caroline
① BGH NJW,1965,2149.
②BGH ZUM,2000,589-Der Blaue Engel.
① M Madow, "Private Ownership in Public Image:Popular Culture and Publicity Rights", (1993) 81 California Law Review 125, p135
② S Fraser, "The Conflict between the First Amendment and Copyright Law and its Impact on the Internet", (1998) 16 Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Journal 1.
③ UK:sec.76 CDPA 1988; Germany: §24 UrhG 1965.
④ UK:sec.20 CDPA 1988; Germany:§51 UrhG 1965.
⑤ UK:sec.30 CDPA 1988; Germany: §50 UrhG 1965.
⑥ Rogers v Grimaldi,875 F2d 994(2d Cir 1989)
⑦ DeClemente v Columbia Pictures Indus,860 F Supp 30(ENDY 1994)
⑧ Husterler Magazine v. Falwell,485 U.S.46; 108 S. Ct.876; 99 L. Ed.2d 41 (1988).
⑨ D Bedingfield,"Privacy or publicity? The enduring confusion surrounding the American tort of privacy", (1992) 55 Modern Law Review 108,p 166.
① BVerfG NJW 1995.1702 Grimm S.142.
② BVerfGE 75.369.
③ Erman/Ehmann, Kommentar zum Buergerlichen Gesetzbuch,10. Aufl.2001,370-375.
④ BverfG ZUM,2000,589-Der blaue Engel.
⑤ BGHZ 50,133.BverfGZ 30,173.
⑥ Manfred Rehbinder, Urheberrecht, Munchen:C.H. Beck:C.H. Beck,2003,S.435.
① J V Muhonen, "Right of Publicity", (1997) 8 (3) Entertainment Law Review 103, p 104.
② M Madow, "Private Ownership in Public Image:Popular Culture and Publicity Rights", (1993) 81 California Law Review 125, p.225 et seq.
③ Compare an equivalent provision in copyright, UK:sec.63 CDPA 1988.
④ R Badin, "USA & Germany:publicity protection-recent developments", (2000) 11(4) Entertainment Law Review, N43.
⑤ BGHZ 143,214=NJW 2000,2195=NJW 2001,2317-Marlene Dietrich
⑥ Jacubowski v. Germany (1995) 19 EHRR 64,77.
⑦BverfGE 21,271(278ff.)[德]康德拉·黑塞.联邦德国宪法纲要[M].北京：商务印书馆,2007.310.
⑥阿布照哉.宪法——基本人权篇(下册)[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2006.158.
① Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc.,425 u.s.748-756 (1976).
② Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc.,425 u.s.763-765. (1976).
③ Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp.,463 U.S.60,66 (1983).
④ Bates v. State Bar of Arizona,433 U.S.350 (1977).
⑤ Bates v. State Bar of Arizona,433 U.S.350,404(1977).
① Central Hudson Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Service Commission of New York,447 U.S.557, P.566. "In commercial speech cases, then, a four-part analysis has developed. At the outset, we must determine whether the expression is protected by the First Amendment. For commercial speech to come within that provision, it at least must concern lawful activity and not be misleading. Next, we ask whether the asserted governmental interest is substantial. If both inquiries yield positive answers, we must determine whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted, and whether it is not more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest. "
② Board of Trustees v. Fox,492 U.S.469,480(1989).
③ See, Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico,478 U.S.328,341; In re R. M. J.,455 U.S.191,203.
④ Board of Trustees v. Fox,492 U.S.469,480(1989), p.475-481.
① Central Hudson Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Service Commission of New York,447 U.S.557, P.563, Footnote 5.
② Kasky v. Nike, Inc.,27 Cal 4th 939,960 (2002).
③ Anderson v. Fisher Broadcasting Co.,712 P.2d 803(Or.1986).
④ Anderson v. Fisher Broadcasting Co.,712 P.2d 803(Or.1986).
⑤在Cher v. Forum International, Ltd.一案中,Cher接受了《美国》杂志的访谈,条件是：如果她不喜欢访谈结 果,她可以阻止杂志出版该访谈。访谈结束后,Cher决定不出版这次访谈。但是记者仍将这份访谈卖给了名叫Forum的Cher并不认可的杂志。除了发表访谈外,该杂志还在订阅卡上使用了Cher的名字,并且卡片声称,Cher告诉了Forum-一些她不会告诉《美国》杂志的事情,它写到：“因此,今天加入Cher和几十万具有冒险精神的读者吧”。法院判决,这是对公众人物肖像的高度误导性和商业性的使用。Cher v. Forum International, Ltd.,692 F.2d 634 (9th Cir.1982).
① BGH, NJW 1987. RR 231-Nena.
② Lyngstad et al. v Anabas Products et al. (ABBA) [1977] FSR 62.
③ F Ponthieu, "France:Sport-Right to protection of your own image", (2001) 12 (6) Entertainment Law Review N59.
④ Compare Laddie J's view with Arsenal FC v Reed, The ECJ, case C-206/01,(2003).
⑤ Elvis Presley Trade Marks case [1999] RPC 567
① Murray v. New York Magazine,267 N.E.2d 256(N.Y.1971).
② Spellman v. Simon & Schuster,3 Media L. Rep.2406 (N.Y. Civ Ct.1978).
③ Solano v. Playgirl, Inc.,292 F.3d 1078(9th Cir.2002)
④ Solano v. Playgirl, Inc.,292 F.3d 1078(9th Cir.2002)
⑤ Ali v. Playgirl, Inc.,447 F. Supp.723,727 (S.D.N.Y.1978)
① OLG Hamburg, Archiv fuer Presserecht (AfP),1988.
② OLG Hamburg, Archiv fuer Presserecht(AfP),1988, S.62
③ Bundesgerichtshof, Willy Brandt,8.9.1994, (1996) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift,593.
④ Bundesgerichtshof, Football calendar,6.2.1979, (1979) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2293
⑤ Bundesgerichtshof, Willy Brandt,8.9.1994, (1996) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift,593.
① Beverley v Choices Women's Medical Center, Inc,78 NY 2d 745(NY Ct App 1991)
② Oliver Kahn v Electronic Arts case, (2003) Zeitschrift fur Urheber-und Medienrecht 658.
③ Olaf Weber, Human Dignity and the Commercial Appropriation of Personality:Towards a Cosmopolitan Consensus in Publicity Rights?, SCRIPT-ed, Volume 1, Issue 1, March 2004, p 199。
① BGH ZUM,1996,240-Abschiedmedaille Willy Brandt.
② BGH GRUR 1968--Ligaspieler.
③ BGH GRUR 1968--Ligaspieler,S.652.
④ BGH GRUR 1979,--Fuβballspieler.
①BGH GRUR 1979,S.425-Fuβballspieler.
②[美]约翰·D·泽莱兹尼.传播法——自由、限制于现代媒介[M].张金玺、赵刚译.北京：清华大学出版社,2007.309.
②Cardtoons, L, C.V. Major League Baseball Players Association,95 F.3d 959,972-973(10th Cir.1996).
① Haper & Row Publishers v.Nation Enterprises,471 U.S.539,545.567(1985).
②Cardtoons,LC v Major League Baseball Players Assoc,95 F3d 959(10th Cir 1996)
③Campbell v.Acuff-Rose Music,Inc.,144 S.Ct.1164(1994).
④Campbell v.Acuff-Rose Music,Inc.,144 S.Ct.1164(1994).
① Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001,p 482.
② Maxine Lans Retsky, Celebrities'rights of Publicity Are Limited to First Sale, Marketing News, Chicago,1998, Vol.32(9),p 14-15.
③ Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001, p 482.
④ Maxine Lans Retsky, Celebrities'rights of Publicity Are Limited to First Sale, Marketing News, Chicago,1998, Vol.32(9),p 15-17.
①北京市第一中级人民法院(2006)一中民终字第10912号民事判决书。
②王鑫.形象代言有期限超期使用应赔偿,汤镇宗在成都打赢肖像权官司.2008-07-22.
③张理.照片本系免费拍摄用做广告引来纠纷,洛阳一影楼被判赔偿[N].人民法院报.2008-09-03.
④金川.厨师照片登上宣传画构成侵权被判赔万元[N].人民法院报.2009-02-20.
①曹书瑜.桐乡11天促成一涉外肖像权纠纷和解[N].人民法院报.2007-02-05.
②傅沙沙.羽坛名将董炯向7被告追债[N].京华时报.2007年7月31日,第012版.
③殷超.擅用员工照片做成广告,汽车公司侵权被判赔偿[N].人民法院报.2007-05-21.
①费文彬“无痕丰胸”广告侵犯肖像权,柳州一医院向演员王雅劫赔偿8万元[N].人民法院报.
②苏平“无锡宣判国内最大肖像权案,张柏芝一审获赔百万”[N].人民日报.2006-04-12,第02版；赵正辉,潘志江.无锡中院一审宣判一起侵权案,影星张柏芝胜诉获赔百万元[N].人民法院报.2006-04-11.
③田浩.摄影师侵犯女模特肖像权,吉林美术出版社承担连带赔偿责任[N].人民法院报.2006-02-18.
④范静.广告公司自作主张擅自使用他人肖像,北京海淀宣判一肖像侵权案[N].人民法院报.2005-07-04.
①文刚.海口:“花仙子”私用女客浴巾照,一审被判赔2万[N].海南日报.2007-09-17
②胡沛.不含“新闻”的照片不是“新闻照片”,一陕北老汉赢得肖像权诉讼.[Z].综合新闻——政法新闻2003-06-2307：17：57.
①常亮.模特状告出版社侵犯肖像权胜诉[Z].案件时空.2003-09-13.
②王正平.“东方神鹿”侵权案王军霞胜诉,昆明卷烟厂赔偿80万元.[Z].重要新闻->大政要闻.2001-05-16.
③贾冬梅,郑颖.《亮剑》女主演童蕾诉现代艺术杂志社及上海万豪医院[N].人民法院报.2006-07-04.
④祝茜.用日本新娘婚纱照宣传,摄影公司被判赔偿六千[Z]. http://bjgy.chinacourt.org.2005-10-12
⑤杨潇.说说广告这点事之一：商家宣传广告不能侵犯公民肖像权[Z].http://bjgy.chinacourt.org/public 2008-10-06.
①祝茜.广告擅用他人肖像,丽姿减肥被判赔偿[Z]. http://bjgy.chinacourt.org/public/.2006-11-24 13:20:26
②擅自出售警花照片,安然兴华被判侵权祝茜,发布时间：2006-11-2210:42:37http://bjgy.chinacourt.org/public/detail.php?id=38231&k_w=肖像权
③王艳.张娜拉状告《甜蜜公主张娜拉》案调解结案[Z]. http://bjgy.chinacourt.org/public/.2006-05-29.
①石岩.世界旅游小姐肖像权官司一审胜诉[Z].http://bjgy.chinacourt.org/public/2006-09-22.
②祝茜.杨氏侵犯肖像权,色彩专家于西蔓胜诉[Z].http://bjgy.chinacourt.org/public/.2006-09-20.
①杨宗霈.韩雪照片登上医院广告,索赔百万最终只得2万[N].时代信报.2008年01月17日.
②下列案件如果没注明出处,皆来自人民法院网,http://www.chinacourt.org.
③江彬：《孙悦肖像权案和解》,楚天都市报,2009.1.22,B25版。
①尤文军.一报社擅自使用他人照片被判支付精神抚慰金[N].人民法院报,2008年8月13日.
①刘光峰.姓名岂可盗用,侵权理应担责[Z].重要新闻->大政要闻2003-04-02.
②祝茜.MBA联考状元赢姓名权官司获赔八千[Z]. http://bjgy.chinacourt.org/public.2006-11-20
①陈坚.“刀郎”之争出结果西域刀郎被判侵权[Z]. http://bjgy.chinacourt.org/public.2006-01-17.
②王杨.照片上了内衣广告,前奥运射击冠军打赢维权官司[N].人民法院报.2009-04-21.
①胡瑜.孙道临等与青春宝肖像权案宣判,青春宝、焦点公司赔偿145万元[N].人民法院报.2005-07-28.
②郭京霞.沈阳一家音乐公司使用腾格尔的姓名和照片侵权,腾格尔终审胜诉获赔两万[N].人民法院报.2004年7月14日.
③北京市海淀区人们法院(2005)海民初字第12312号民事判决书,以及北京市第一中级人民法院(2006)一中民终字第3240号民事判决书。
①刘润华.中国首例亡人肖像使用权纠纷案[J].法庭内外.2000,(2).
②李晓明.侵权”椰岛鹿龟酒”广告连播两年半去世演员家属获赔6万元[N].新闻晨报,2007-10-10·
③孙思娅.电视台擅用已故外科专家照片做广告被判赔15万[N].京华时报.2009-03-17.
①以下的案件简介,系参见胡喜盈,丁淼.“鲁迅的姓名肖像权之争’[J].律师世界.2001,(6).
②叶彦.只使用他人舞姿刊发广告也侵犯肖像权,江西省兴国县人民法院。
[1]祝建军.人格要素标识商业化利用的法律规制[M].北京：法律出版社,2009.
[2]梁慧星.民法总论(第二版)[M].北京：法律出版社,2001.
[3]王泽鉴.民法总则[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2005.
[4]王利明.人格权法研究[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[5]杨立新.中国人格权法立法报告[M],北京：知识产权出版社,2005.
[6]程合红.商事人格权论——人格权的经济利益内涵及其实现与保护[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2002.
[7]黄立.民法债编总论[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[8]佟柔.民法原理[M].北京：法律出版社,1983.
[9]江平.民法学[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2000.
[10]王利明.中国民法典学者建议稿·人格权法编[M].北京：法律出版社,2002.
[11]赵宾,李林启,张艳.人格权商品化法律问题研究[M].北京：知识产权出版社,2009.
[12][德]恩斯特·卡西尔.符号、神话、文化[M].李小兵译.上海：东方出版社,1998.
[13]牛宏宝.西方现代美学[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2002.
[14][德]恩斯特·卡西尔.人论[M].甘阳译.上海：上海译文出版社,1985.
[15]张俊浩.民法学原理[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2000
[16][德]罗尔夫·克尼佩尔.法律与历史——论“德国民法典”的形成与变迁[M].朱岩译.北京：法律出版社2003.
[17][英]巴里·尼古拉斯.罗马法概论[M].黄风译.北京：法律出版社,2002.
[18][法]阿·布瓦斯泰尔.法国民法典与法哲学[M].钟继军译.徐国栋.罗马法与 现代民法(第2卷)[M].北京：中国法制出版,2001.
[19][英]洛克.政府论(下)[M].叶启芳,瞿菊农译.北京：商务印书馆;1964.
[20][德]康德.法的形而上学原理[M].沈叔平译.北京：商务印书馆,1991.
[21][日]星野英一.私法中的人——以民法财产法为中心[M].王闯译.北京：中国法治出版社,2004.
[22]梅仲协.民法要义[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2000.
[23][日]五十岚清.人格权法.[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2009.
[24]郑玉波.民法总则[M].台北：三民书局,1998.
[25][美]R·考特,T·尤伦.法和经济学[M].张军译.上海：三联出版社,1991.
[26][德]拉德布鲁赫.法哲学[M].北京：法律出版社,2005.
[27][英]巴里·尼古拉斯.罗马法概论.黄风译.
[28][美]阿丽塔·L·艾伦等.美国隐私法学说判例与立法[M].北京：中国民主法制出版社,
[29][法]雅克·盖斯旦,吉勒·古博.法国民法总论[M].陈鹏等.北京：法律出版社,2004.
[30]李锡鹤.民法哲学论稿[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2000.
[31][德]霍尔斯特·埃曼.德国民法中的一般人格权制度——论从非道德行为到侵权行为的转变[A].邵建东等译.载梁慧星.民商法论丛(第23卷)[C].香港：金桥文化出版社(香港)有限公司,2002.
[32]甘绍平.人权伦理学[M].北京：中国发展出版社,2009.
[33]邵建东.德国反不正当竞争法研究[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2001.
陈忠诚.姓名权论[A].载新法学第2卷第1期[C].
[34][德]马克思米利安·福克斯.侵权行为法[M].齐晓琨译.北京：法律出版社,2006.
[35][德]康德拉·黑塞.联邦德国宪法纲要[M].北京：商务印书馆,2007.
[36]杨立新.人身权法论[M].北京：人民法院出版社,2002.
[37]王晓晔.竞争法学[M].北京：中国社科文献出版社,2007.
[38]郑成思.知识产权论[M].北京：法律出版社,2007.
[39]杨延超.作品精神权利论[M].法律出版社,2007.
[40][德]拉伦茨.法学方法论[M].陈爱娥译.北京：商务印书馆,2005.
[41][德]考夫曼.法律哲学[M].刘幸义译.北京：法律出版社.
[42][德]卡尔·拉伦茨.德国民法通论(上册)[M].王晓晔,邵建东等译.北京：法律出版社2003.
[43]黄立.民法债编总论[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[44]王泽鉴.侵权行为[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2009.
[45][美]约翰·D·泽莱兹尼.传播法——自由、限制于现代媒介[M].张金玺、赵刚译.北京：清华大学出版社,2007.
[46][日]阿布照哉等.宪法——基本人权篇(下册)[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2006.
[1]张丹丹,张帆.商品化权性质的理论之争及反思[J].当代法学,2007,(5).
[2]谢晓尧.商品化权：人格符号的利益扩张与衡平[J].法商研究,2005,(3).
[3]王泽鉴.人格权保护的课题与展望[J].人大法律评论,2009.
[4]严城.物权的正当性解说[J].黑龙江省政法管理干部学院学报,2008,(5).
[5]王泽鉴.人格权保护的课题与展望(三)——人格权的具体化及保护范围(2)——姓名权[J].台湾本土法学,2006,(9).
[6]尹田.自然人具体人格权的法律探讨[J].河南省政法管理干部学院学报,2004,(3).
[7]郑成思.商品化权刍议[J].中华商标.1996,(2)
[8]杨素娟,杜颖.商品化权议[J].河北法学.1998,(1)
[9]刘春霖.商品化权[J].西北大学学报(哲社版).1999,(4)
[10]孙美兰.“奥特曼”纠纷案引发的思考[J].法学.1999,(7)
[11]杜颖.论商品化权[A].民商法论丛(第13卷)[C].法律出版社,2000.
[12]梅慎实.试论影视作品中“虚构角色”商品化之知识产权保护[A].版权参考 资料[C].1989,(6).
[13]郭玉军.论角色商品化权之法律性质[J].知识产权.2000(6).
[14]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[J].电子知识产权.2005,(9).
[15]袁雪石.姓名权本质变革论[J].法律科学,2005,(2).
[16]何爱文.美国法之个人公开权于‘我国’法上受保护之可能性[J].全国律师.1992,(12).
[17]熊伟.形象权法律制度研究[D].武汉大学博士学位论文.2002.
[18]薛虹.名人的商标权——公开形象权[J].中华商标.1996,(3).
[19]董炳和.论形象权[J].法律科学.1998,(4).
[20]赖国钦.形象宣传权之研究[D].私立中国文化大学法律研究所硕士论文.1999.
[21]陈文吟.探讨美国Moore v. Regents of the University of California对生化科技之影响[A].智慧财产权与国际私法一曾陈明汝教授六秩诞辰祝寿论文集[C]
[22]李明德.美国形象权法研究[J].环球法律评论.2003,冬季号.
[23]吴汉东.形象的商品化与商品化的形象权[J].法学.2004,(10).
[24]蓝蓝.人格与财产二元权利体系面临的困境与突破——以“人格商品化”为视角展[J].法律科学.2006,(3).
[25]李智仁.人格权经济利益之保障,个人公开权之探讨[J].法令月刊.55(11).
[26]王素珍.人体组织之保障与管制—财产权与人格权结合的另类思考[D].台湾辅仁大学法律研究所硕士论文.2003.
[27]黄映智.人体组织提供者就该组织衍生利益所得主张之私法上权利[D].国立台北大学法研所硕士论文.2006.
[28]刘承庆、刘承愚.人体组织应用于生物科技之管制法令与财产权[J].月旦法学杂志.2003,(93).
[29]刘承庆.生物科技智慧财产权归属之研究—以人体组织所衍生之权利为中心
[D].国立成功大学法律研究所硕士论文.2004.
[30]汪洪,祝建军.人格符号的财产利益保护之法理思考[J].法律适用.2007,(3).
[31]杨立新,林旭霞.论人格标识商品化权及其民法保护[J].福建师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版).2006,(1).
[32]冯象.鲁迅肖像权问题[J].读书.2001,(3).
[33]屈茂辉,黄劲.论人格权法的基本原理[J].云南大学学报(法学版).2003,(2).
[34]马俊驹.人与人格分离技术的形成、发展与变迁[J].现代法学.2006,(4).
[35]马俊驹,张翔.人格权的理论基础及其立法体例[J].法学研究.2004,(6).
[36]马俊驹.论作为私法上权利的人格权[J].法学.2005,(12).
[37]李琛.质疑知识产权之“人格财产一体性”[J]..中国社会科学.2004,(2).
[38]林凤海.论法律政策在法哲学体系中的地位[D].吉林大学硕士论文.2007
[39]彭汉英.当代西方的法律政策思想[J].外国法译评.1997,(2)
[40]胡平仁.法律政策学：平衡权与权力的科学[J].当代法学.2001,(3).
[41]齐晓琨.“索拉娅案”评注——德国民法中对损害一般人格权的非物质损害的金钱赔偿[J].现代法学.2007,(1).
[42]朱川.商品化权研究[A].复旦民商法学评论(第1期)[C].北京：法律出版社,2001
[43]刘孔中.著作人格权之比较研究[J].台大法学论丛.2002,31(4).
[44]萧雄淋.同一性保持权侵害之若干问题——评台湾高等法院八十四年上字第三一四号判决[J].资讯法务透析.1996,(12).
[45]简资修.违法保护他人法律之过失推定：经济功效与司法仙丹[J].政大法学评论.2003,(75).
[46]陈忠五.论契约责任与侵权责任的保护客体： “权利”与“利益”区别正当性的再反省[J].台大法学论丛.2007,36(3).
[47][美]威廉·费歇尔.知识产权的理论[M].黄海峰译.刘春田.中国知识产权评
论第1卷[C],北京：商务印书馆,2002.[48][德]霍尔斯特·埃曼.德国法中一般人格权的概念和内涵[J].南京大学法律评论(特刊).2000.
[49]杜颖.论商品化权[A].民商法论丛(第13卷)[C].北京：法律出版社,2000.
[50][德]赫尔穆特·科尔.人格尊严和商业利益间的一般人格权[A].米健.中德法学学术论文集[C].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2006.[51]颜厥安.财产、人格,还是资讯?论人类基因的法律地位[A].台大法学论丛[C].2002,31(1)
[1]Huw Beverley-Smith, The commercial appropriation of Personality, Cambridge University Press,2008.
[2]Huw Beverley-Smith, Ansgar Ohly and Agnes Lucas-Schloetter, Privacy, Property and Personality:Civil Law Perspectives on Commercial Appropriation, Cambridge University Press,2005.
[3]Ian S.Blackshaw and Robert C.R. Siekmann T.M.C.Asser press, The Hague, The Netherlands,2005.
[4]McCarthy, J. Thomas, The Rights of Publicity and Privacy, New York,1998.
[5]M. B. Nimmer, Paul Marcus, David A. Myers, David Nimmer, Cases and Materials on Copyright,4th,N. M. M.& N.1985.
[6]Michael Henry, International Privacy, Publicity and Personality law, London, Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd,2001.
[7]Julius C. S. Pinckaers, From Privacy Toward a New Intellectual Property Right in Persona, Kluwer Hague,1996.
[8]Simon Smith, IMAGE,PERSONAAND THE LAW, London:Sweet & Marwell,2000.
[1]Andrew B. Sims, Right of Publicity:Survivability Reconsidered,49 Fordham L. Rev. (1981)453.
[2]Amy D. Hogue & Michael B. Garfinkel, The Right of Publicity:Does it Survive Death and Abandonment,30 Tort & Ins. L. J. (1994-1995),663.
[3]Armstrong, George M., The Reification of Celebrity:Person as Property,51 LA. L.REV.443 (1990).
[4]Ausness, Richard, TheRihtofPublct A"Haytc iaHuri ne,55 TEMP. L. Q.977 (1982).
[5]Bloustein, Edward J., Privacy as an Aspect of Human Dignity:An Answer to Dean Prosser,39 N. Y. U. L. REV.962,965 (1964).
[6]Cohen, Felix S., Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach,35 COLUM. L.REV.809(1935).
[7]D'Amato, Comment on Professor Posner's Lecture on Privacy,12 Ga. L. Rev. (1978), 497.
[8]Donenfeld, Property or Other Rights in the Names, Likenesses or Personalities of Deceased Persons,16 Bull. Copyright Soc'y. (1968),17.
[9]Douglas G Baird, Note, Human Cannonballs and the First Amendment:Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.,30 Stan. L. Rev. (1978),1185.
[10]Eileen R. Reilly, Note, The Right of Publicity for Political Figure:Martin Luther King, Jr., Center for Social Change, Inc. v. American Heritage Products, Inc.,46 U. Pitt. L. Rev. (1985),1161.
[11]Edward J. Bloustein, Privacy as Human Dignity,39 N. Y. U. L. Rev. (1964),962.
[12]Flecher, Peter L.&Rubin, Edward L., Privacy, Publicity, and the Portrayal of Real People by the Media,88 YALE L. J.1577 (1979).
[13]G. Dickler, The Right of Privacy,70. U. S. L. Rev. (1936),435.
[14]Ginsburg, Jane C., Creation and Commercial Value:Copyright Protection of Works of Information,90 COLUM. L. REV.1865 (1990).
[15]Goodenough, Retheorising Privacy and Publicity, Intellectual Property Quaterly, 1997.
[16]Gordon, Harold R., Right of Property in Name, Likeness, Personality and History,55 NW.U. L.REV.553(1960).
[17]Gordon, Wendy J., On Owning Information:Intellectual Property and the Restitutionary Impulse,78 VIRG. L. REV.147 (1992).
[18]Green, The Right of Privacy,27 ILL.L. Rev. (1932),237.
[19]Gross, Hyman, The Concept of Privacy,42 N. Y. U. L. REV.34 (1967).
[20]Haemmerli, Alice, Whose Who? The Case for Kantian Right of Publicity,49 DUKE L. J.383 (1999).
[21]H. Kalven, Privacy in Tort Law:Were Warren and Brandeis Wrong? 31 Law & Contemp. Probs (1966),326.
[22]Halpern, Sheldon, The of Publicity:Commercial Exploitation of the Associative Value Personality,39 VAND. L. REV.1199 (1986).
[23]Harold R. Gordon, Right of Property in Name, Likeness, Personality and History,55 Nw. U. L. Rev (1960-1961),553.
[24]Halpern, Sheldon, The Right of Publicity:Maturation of an Independent Right Protecting the Associative Value of Personality,46 HASTINGS L. J.853 (1995).
[25]Hetherington, Direct Commercial Exploitation of Identity:A New Age for the Right of Publicity,17 COLUM. VLA J. L.& ARTS 1 (1992).
[26]Hoffman, The Right of Publicity:An Analytical Update,14 Int. Prop. L. Rev. (1982), 3.
[27]Hoffman, The Right of Publicity-Heir's Right, Advertisers' Windfall, or Courts' Nightmare?
[28]Hughes, Justin, The Philosophy of Intellectual Property,77 GEO. L. J.287 (1988).
[29]Joseph. R. Gordin, The Right of Publicity:A Doctrinal Innovation,62 Yale L. J(1952-1953),1123.
[30]Justin Hughes, The Philosophy of Intellectual Property,77 Georgetown L. J. (1988-1989),287.
[31]Kwall, Roberta Rosenthal, Is Independence Day Dawning for the Right of Publicity? 17 U. C. DAVIS L. REV.191 (1983).
[32]Kwall, Roberta Rosenthal, The Right of Publicity vs. the First Amendment:A Property and Liability Rule Analysis,70 IND. L. J.47 (1994).
[33]Madow, Michael(1993), Private Ownership of Publicity Image:Popular Culture and Publicity Right,81 CAL. L. REV.149.
[34]M. B. Jacoby & D. L. Zimmerman, Foreclosing on Fame:Exploring the Uncharted Boundaries of the Right of Publicity,77 N.Y. L. Rev. (2002),1322.
[35]Malkan, Jeffrey, Stolen Photographs:Personality, Publicity and Privacy,75 TEX. L. REV.779 (1997).
[36]McCarthy, J. Thomas, Melville B. Nimmer and the Right of Publicity. A Tribute,34 UCLA L. REV.1703(1987).
[37]Mac J. Apfelbaum, Copy Right and Right of Publicity:One Pea in Two Pods,71 Geo L.J. (1982-1983),1567.
[38]Nimmer, Melville B., The Right of Publicity,19 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS.203 (1954).
[39]Nizer, Louis, The Right of Privacy,39 MICH. L. REV.526 (1941).
[40]Pilpel, Harriet F., The Right of Publicity,27 BULL COPYRIGHT SOC 249 (1980).
[41]Post, Robert C., Rereading Warren and Brandeis:Privacy, Property, and Appropriation,41 CASE W. RES. L. REV.647 (1991).
[42]Prosser, Willian L., Privacy,48 CAL. L. REV.383 (1960).
[43]Reilly, Eileen R., Note, The Right of Publicity for Political Figures:Martin Luther King, Jr., Center for Social Change, Inc. v. American Heritage Products,46 U. PITT. L REV.1161(1985).
[44]Richard E. Fikes, The Right of Publicity:A Descendible and Inheritable Property Right,14 Cumb. L. Rev. (1984),347.
[45]Salomon, J Eugene, The Right of Publicity Run Riot:The Case for a Federal Statute, 60 S. CAL. L. REV.1179 (1987).
[46]Sheldon W. Halpern, The Right of Publicity:Commercial Exploitation of the Associative Value of Personality,39 Vand. L. Rev. (1986),1199.
[47]Treece, James M., Commercial Exploitation of Names, Likenesses, and Personal Histories,51 TEX. L. REV.637 (1973).
[48]Warren, Samuel D.&Brandeis, Louis D., The Right to Privacy,4 HARV. L. REV. 193(1890).
[49]Westfall, David&Landau, David, Publicity Rights as Property Rights,23 CARDOZO ARTS & ENT. L. J.71 (2005).
[50]Weber, Olaf, Human Dignity and the Commercial Appropriation of Personality: Toward a Cosmopolitan Consensus in Publicity Rights?, Script-ed, Volume 1, Issue 1,March 2004.
[51]W. J. Gordon, A Property Right in Self-Experience:Equality and Individualism in the Natural Law of Intellectual Property,102 Yale. L. J. (1992-1993),1533.
[52]William M. Landes & Richard A. Posner, An Economic Analysis of Copyright Law, 18 J. Legal Stud. (1989),325.
[53]Versailes, September 22,2005.[2006]E.M.L.R.22,Issue 5, September-October,2006.
[54]Logeais, The French Right to One's Image:A Legal Lure? 5 Ent.L.Rev.163 (1994).
[1]Bernd Ruthers, Allgemeiner Teil des BGB,12. Aufl., Miinchen 2002.
[2]Bruno Seemann, Prominenz als Eigentum:Pararelle Rechtsentwicklung einer Vermarktung der Persoenlichkeit im amerikanischen, deutschen und schweizerischen Persoenlichkeitsschutz,1. Aufl., Baden-Baden,1996.
[3]Beuter, Claudia, Die Kommerzialisierung des Personlichkeitsrecht, Diss. Konstanz 2000.
[4]Beuhien, Volker/Schmolz, Anton Sebastian, Personlichkeitsschutz durch Personlichkeitsguterrechte:Erlosherausgabe statt nur billige Entschadigung in Geld, Munchen 1999.
[5]Claus, Sabine, Postmortaler Personlichkeitsschutz im Zeichen allgemeiner ommerzialisierung, Baden-Baden 2004.
[6]Dasch, Norbert, Die Einwilligung zum Eingriff in das Recht am eigenen Bild,Munchen 1990, (zugl. Disss. Munchen 1989).
[7]Fischer, Annette, Die Entwicklung des postmortalen Personlichkeitsschutzes. Von Bismarck bis Marlene Dietrich, Munchen 2004.
[8]Funkel, Thorston, Schutz der Personlichkeit durch Ersatz immaterieller Schaden in Geld, Munchen 2001.
[9]Gauβ, Holger, Der Mensch als Marke:Lizenzierung von Name, Bild, Stimme und Image in deutschen und US-amerikanischen Recht, Diss. Baden-Baden 2005.
[10]v. Gierke,Otto, Deutsches Privatrecht, Duncker & Humblot, Miinchen/Leipzip 1936.
[11]Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrechte als Vermogensrechte, Tubingen,1995.
[12]Gregoritza, Anna, Die Kommerizialisierung von Personlichkeitsrechten Verstorbener.Ein Untersuchung der Rechtsforbildung durch den Bundesgerichtshof in den Marlene-Dietrich-Urteilen vom 1. Dezember 1999, Diss. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 2002.
[13]Helle, Jurgen, Besondere Personlichkeitsrechte im Privatrecht. Das Recht am eigenen Bild, das Recht am gesprochenen Wort und der Schutz des geschriebenen Wortes, Tubingen 1991.
[14]Honsell/Vogel/Geiser, Basler Kommentar zum Schweizerischen Privatrecht, Zivilgesetzbuch I,2. Aufl., Basel 2002.
[15]Hubmann, Heinrich, Urheber-und Verlagsrecht,2. Aufl., Munchen und Berlin 1966.
[16]Jung, Alexander, Die Vererblichkeit des allgemeinen Personlichkeitsrechts, Diss. Remscheid 2005.
[17]Klaver, Magdalene, Bereicherungsrechtliche Anspriiche bei einer Verletzung des allgemeinen Personlichkeitsrechts, Hamburg 1999 (zugl. Diss. GieBen 1999).
[18]Klippel, Diethelm, Der zivilrechtliche Schutz der Namens. Eine historische und dogmatische Untersuchung, Paderborn/Miinchen/Wien/Zurich,1985.
[19]Kotz, Hein, Deliktrecht,7 Aufl., Berlin 1996.
[20]Lange, Hermann/Schiemann, Gottfried, Schadensersatz,3. Aufl., Tubingen 2003.
[21]Larenz, Karl, Allgemeiner Teil des deutschen Burgerlichen Rechts,5. Auflage, Miinchen1980.
[22]Marcel Bartnik, Der Bildnisschutz im deutschen und franzosischen Zivilrecht, Tubingen,2004.
[23]Magold, Hanns Arno, Personenmerchandising:der Schutz der Persona im Recht der USA und Deutschlands, Diss. Frankfurt am Main/Berlin/Bern 1994.
[24]Miinchener Kommentar zum Burgerlichen Gesetzbuch,2. Aufl., Munchen (zit.:MiinchenerKomm/Verf.).
[25]Peifer, Karl-Nilolaus, Individualitat im Zivilrecht:Der Schutz personlicher, gegenstandlicher und wettbewerblicher Individualitat im Personlichkeitsrecht, Immaterialgiiterrecht und Recht der Unternehmen, Tiibingen 2001.
[26]Rebinder, Manfred, Urheberrecht,10 Aufl., Munchen 1998.
[27]Schack, Haimo, Rezension zu:Horst-Peter Gotting, Personlichkeitsrecht als Vermogensrechte, in:AcP 195 (1995).
[28]Schertz, Christian, Merchandising:Rechsgrundlagen und Rechtspraxis, Munchen 1997.
[29]Schricker, Gerhard, Urheberrecht, Kommentar, Munchen 2006 (zit.:Schricker/Verf.).
[30]Seemann, Prominenz als Eigentum, Baden-Baden 1996.
[1]Assmann, Heinz-Dieter, Schadensersatz in mehrfacher Hohe des Schadens:zur Erweiterung des Sanktionensystems fur die Verletzung gewerblicher Schutzrechte und Urheberrechte, in:BB 1985.
[2]Bender, Albrecht W., Das postmortale Personlichkeitsrecht:Dogmatik und Schutzbereich, in:VersR 2001.
[3]Botticher, Eduard, Zur Ausrichtung der Sanktion nach dem Schutzzweck der verletzten Privatrechtsnorm, in:AcP 158 (1959/1960).
[4]Biichler, Andrea, Die Kommerzialisierung Verstorbener. Ein Pladoyer fur die Vererblichkeit vermogenswerter Personlichkeitsaspekte, in:AJP 2003.
[5]Dies, Die Kommerzialisierung von Personlichkeitsgutern. Zur Dialektik von Ich und Mein, in:AcP 206 (2006).
[6]Canaris, Claus-Wilhelm, Gewinnabschopfung bei Verletzung des allgemeinen Personlichkeitsrechts, in:Festschrift fur Erwin Deutsch zum 70. Geburtstag, Koln 1999, S.85 ff.
[7]Freitag, Andreas, Die Nachahmung bekannter Personlichkeiten in der Werbung, in: GRUR 1994.
[8]Horst-Peter Gotting, Die Vererblichkeit der vermogenswerten Bestandteile des Personlichkeitsrechts-ein Meilenstein in der Rechtsprechung des BGH, NJW 2001, 585.
[9]Heil, Ulf/Roos, Mechael, Zur dreifachen Schadensberechnung bei ubernahme sonderrechtlich nicht geschutzter Leistung, in:GRUR 1994.
[10]Hubmann, Heinrich, Der Bereicherungsanspruch im Personlichkeitsrecht, in:UFITA 39(1963).
[11]Hans Forkel, Lizenzen an Personlichkeitsrechten durch gebundenen Rechtsiibertragung, GRUR 1988.
[12]Helmut Coing, Zur Geschichte des Betriffs,,Subjektives Recht", in Helmut Coing, Gesammelte Aufsatze zu Rechtsgeschichte,Rechtsphilosophie und Zivilrecht, 1974-1975, Bd 1, Frankfurt a.m.1982.
[13]Coing, Helmut, Zur Entwicklung des zivilrechtlichen Personlichkeitsschutzes, in:JZ 1958.
[14]Klaver, Vermogensrechtliche Aspekte des zivilrechtlichen allgemeinen Personlichkeitsrechts, ZUM 3/2002,205.
[15]Kleine, Anm. zu BGH vom 20.2.1968-Ligaspieler, in:GRUR 1968, S.654.-Koos, Stefan, Der Name als Immaterialgut, in:GRUR 2004.
[16]Kriiger, Christof, Personlichkeitsschutz und Werbung-Zugleich eine Besprechung der beiden BGH-Entscheidungen "White-Christmas" und "'FuBballtor", in:GRUR 1980.
[17]Mestmacker, Ernst-Joachim, Eingriffserwerb und Rechtsverletzung in der ungerechtfertigten Bereicherung, in:JZ 1958.
[18]Peukert, Alexander, Personlichkeitsbezogene Immaterialgiiterrechte, in:ZUM 2000, S.710ff.
[19]Sack, Rolf, Die eigenmachtige Werbung mit fremden Namen als Delikt, in:WRP 1984, S.
[20]Staudinger, J. v., Marlene Dietrich und der (postmortale) Schutz vermogensweter Personlichkeitsrechte, in:Jura 2001.
[21]Ullmann, Eike, Personlichkeitsrechte in Lizenz?, in:AfP 1999.
[22]Ders, Eike, Caroline v., Marlene D., Eheleute M.-fast geschlossener Kreis, in:WRP 2000.
[23]Wagner, Gerhard, Anm. zu BGH, Urt. v.1.12.1999-ZR 49/97 und BGH, Urt. V. 1.12.1999-ZR 226/97, in:GRUR 2000.
[24]Ders, Sanktion bei Verletzung des postmortalen Personlichkeitsrechts, in:GRUR 2004.
[25]Raiser, Ludwig, Der Stand der Lehre vom subjektiven Recht im Deutschen Zivilrecht, in:JZ 1961.
[1]Beignier L'honneur et le droit t.234, LGDL,1995.
[2]Cassation Commercaile,26 April 1988, Annales de la Propriete Intellectuelle 1988.
[3]Paul Mathely-Le Nouveau Droit des Signes Distinctfs, EdJNA 1994.
[4]Gerard Cornu. Vocabulaire jurisdique, P.U.F.2000.
[5]Stoufflet. Le droit de la personne sur son image, JCP.1957.
[1]田村善之「著作榷法概论」[第2版]有斐阁,2003年。
[2]齐藤博「著作榷法」,有斐阁,2000年。
[8]五十岚清(2003)。《人格榷法概说》,有斐阁2003。
[9]半田正夫「著作权法概说(第10版)」,一粒社,第八版,1997。
[10]大家重夫：「肖像权」(新版),株式会社太田出版2007年版。
[3]斋藤博「氏名·肖像の商业的利用に关する为榷利」特研15号,1993。
[5]竹田稔「知的财产榷侵害要论环正兢桨编)」,凳明协会,1997年。
[6]纹谷惕男「知的财产榷の国隙的保护」,泽木敬郎等一编「国际私法の争点(新
版)J,有斐阁,1996年。
[12]石井智弥：「人格权固有の利益の保护」,露木美幸、柴山美穗等「专修法研论集」第32号,2003(平成15)年。