人格权体系中的个人信息保护研究
|
摘要
大数据时代个人信息侵害现象层出不穷,有鉴于此《民法总则》明确将个人信息保护纳入其中。从体系上来看,立法者有意将个人信息保护归入人格权体系下,然而人格权立法既无法将其界定为一项具体人格权,亦无需继受一般人格权概念对其进行涵摄,个人信息应纳入"其他人格利益"保护范围。个人信息的财产性利用也应于人格权语境中展开,不宜另行规定个人信息利用权。既有民法体系对个人信息保护仍存在缺陷,民法典中人格权独立成编实有必要。
In the age of big data,personal information encroachment is endless. In view of this,the general provisions of civil law explicitly include personal information protection. From the perspective of the system, the legislator intends to put the personal information protection under the personal right system. However,the personal right legislation can not define it as a specific personal right,neither do we need to take it into account by the concept of general personal right. Personal information should be covered by "other personality interests". The property utilization of personal information should be carried out in the context of personal right rather than a specific right of utilization. There are still defects in the protection of personal information by civil law system,and it is necessary to make up the right of personality in civil code.
In the age of big data,personal information encroachment is endless. In view of this,the general provisions of civil law explicitly include personal information protection. From the perspective of the system, the legislator intends to put the personal information protection under the personal right system. However,the personal right legislation can not define it as a specific personal right,neither do we need to take it into account by the concept of general personal right. Personal information should be covered by "other personality interests". The property utilization of personal information should be carried out in the context of personal right rather than a specific right of utilization. There are still defects in the protection of personal information by civil law system,and it is necessary to make up the right of personality in civil code.
引文
[1]王泽鉴.民法总则[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2009.
[2]Posner RA.The Economics of Justice[M].Harvard University press,1981.
[3]Murphy RS.Property Rights in Personal Information:An Economic Defense of Privacy[J].Georgetown Law Journal,1996,84(7):2381-2418.
[4]王利明.论个人信息权的法律保护---以个人信息权与隐私权的界分为中心[J].现代法学,2013(4):62-72.
[5]杨芳.个人信息自决权理论及其检讨[J].比较法研究,2015(6):22-33.
[6]齐爱民.论个人信息的法律属性与构成要素[J].理论与探索,2009(10):26-29.
[7]王泽鉴.人格权法[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2013.
[8]谢远洋.信息论视角下个人信息的价值[J].清华法学,2015(3):94-110.
[9]朱晓峰.作为一般人格权的人格尊严权[J].清华法学,2014(1):49-70.
[10]王锴.论宪法上的一般人格权及其对民法的影响[J].中国法学,2017(3):102-121.
[11]马俊驹,王恒.未来我国民法典不宜采用“一般人格权”概念[J].河北法学,2012(8):16-27.
[12]Peles G.The Right of Publicity Gone Wild[J].UCLA Entertainment Law Review,2004,11(2):301-330.
[13]Nimmer MB.The Right of Publicity[J].Law and Contemporary Problems,1954,19(2):203-223.
[14]Gibson FA,Healey RM.The Right of Publicity Comes of Age[J].AIPLA Quarterly Journal,1995,23(3):361-400.
[15][日]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.
[16]Whitman JQ.The Two Western Cultures of Privacy:Dignity versus Liberty[J].Yale Law Journal,2004,133(6):1151-1222.
[17]温世扬.析“人格权商品化”与“人格商品化权”[J].法学论坛,2013(5):107-111.
[18]Leaffer M.The Right of Publicity:A Comparative Perspective[J].Albany Law Review,2007,70(4):1357-1374.
[19]姚辉.关于人格权商业化利用的若干问题[J].法学论坛,2011(6):10-16.
[20]陈自强.契约违反与履行请求[M].台北:元照出版公司,2015.
[21]王泽鉴.债法原理(第二版)[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2013.
[22]王泽鉴.不当得利[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2009.
[23]张新宝.从隐私到个人信息:利益再衡量的理论与制度安排[J].中国法学,2015(3):38-59.
(1)See EC 95/46/Directive of Personal Data Protection,art 2(a).
(2)BVerfG 65,1.
(3)Whalen v.Roe,429 U.S.589(1977).
(4)参见隆德县六盘水旅游产业有限责任公司与丁某某隐私权纠纷案((2017)宁04民终165号);李某诉黄某某隐私权纠纷再审案((2016)粤民再464号)等。资料来源于北大法宝数据库http://iras.lib.whu.edu.cn:8080/rwt/PKULAW/http/P75YPLURNN4XZZLYF3SXP/,访问时间为2017年12月4日。
(5)202 F.2d 866(2d Cir.1953).
(6)433 U.S.562,563-64(1977).
(7)Midler v.Ford Motor Co.,849 F.2d 460(9th Cir.1988);Waits v.Frito Lay,Inc.,978 F.2d 1093(9th Cir.1992).
(8)McFarland v.Miller,14 F.3d 912(C.A.1993).否定判决,参见Lugosi v.Universal Pictures,603 P.2d 425(Cal.1979).
(9)White v.Samsung Electronics America,Inc.,971 F.2d 1395(9th Cir.1992).
(10)BGHZ 20,345.
(11)BGH GRUR 1987,128.
(12)BGH NJW 2000,2195.
(13)See Comedy III v.Saderup,25 Cal.4th 387(2001).
(14)Winter v.DC Comics,30 Cal.4th 881(2003),该案中被告以原告为原型创作半人半妖的漫画人物,原告以侵害公开权为由提起诉讼未获支持,虽未提及隐私权侵害,但该漫画人物能否视为对原告形象的丑化,仍值得考虑。
(15)BVerfG vom 9.1.1991,774,775.
[2]Posner RA.The Economics of Justice[M].Harvard University press,1981.
[3]Murphy RS.Property Rights in Personal Information:An Economic Defense of Privacy[J].Georgetown Law Journal,1996,84(7):2381-2418.
[4]王利明.论个人信息权的法律保护---以个人信息权与隐私权的界分为中心[J].现代法学,2013(4):62-72.
[5]杨芳.个人信息自决权理论及其检讨[J].比较法研究,2015(6):22-33.
[6]齐爱民.论个人信息的法律属性与构成要素[J].理论与探索,2009(10):26-29.
[7]王泽鉴.人格权法[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2013.
[8]谢远洋.信息论视角下个人信息的价值[J].清华法学,2015(3):94-110.
[9]朱晓峰.作为一般人格权的人格尊严权[J].清华法学,2014(1):49-70.
[10]王锴.论宪法上的一般人格权及其对民法的影响[J].中国法学,2017(3):102-121.
[11]马俊驹,王恒.未来我国民法典不宜采用“一般人格权”概念[J].河北法学,2012(8):16-27.
[12]Peles G.The Right of Publicity Gone Wild[J].UCLA Entertainment Law Review,2004,11(2):301-330.
[13]Nimmer MB.The Right of Publicity[J].Law and Contemporary Problems,1954,19(2):203-223.
[14]Gibson FA,Healey RM.The Right of Publicity Comes of Age[J].AIPLA Quarterly Journal,1995,23(3):361-400.
[15][日]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.
[16]Whitman JQ.The Two Western Cultures of Privacy:Dignity versus Liberty[J].Yale Law Journal,2004,133(6):1151-1222.
[17]温世扬.析“人格权商品化”与“人格商品化权”[J].法学论坛,2013(5):107-111.
[18]Leaffer M.The Right of Publicity:A Comparative Perspective[J].Albany Law Review,2007,70(4):1357-1374.
[19]姚辉.关于人格权商业化利用的若干问题[J].法学论坛,2011(6):10-16.
[20]陈自强.契约违反与履行请求[M].台北:元照出版公司,2015.
[21]王泽鉴.债法原理(第二版)[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2013.
[22]王泽鉴.不当得利[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2009.
[23]张新宝.从隐私到个人信息:利益再衡量的理论与制度安排[J].中国法学,2015(3):38-59.
(1)See EC 95/46/Directive of Personal Data Protection,art 2(a).
(2)BVerfG 65,1.
(3)Whalen v.Roe,429 U.S.589(1977).
(4)参见隆德县六盘水旅游产业有限责任公司与丁某某隐私权纠纷案((2017)宁04民终165号);李某诉黄某某隐私权纠纷再审案((2016)粤民再464号)等。资料来源于北大法宝数据库http://iras.lib.whu.edu.cn:8080/rwt/PKULAW/http/P75YPLURNN4XZZLYF3SXP/,访问时间为2017年12月4日。
(5)202 F.2d 866(2d Cir.1953).
(6)433 U.S.562,563-64(1977).
(7)Midler v.Ford Motor Co.,849 F.2d 460(9th Cir.1988);Waits v.Frito Lay,Inc.,978 F.2d 1093(9th Cir.1992).
(8)McFarland v.Miller,14 F.3d 912(C.A.1993).否定判决,参见Lugosi v.Universal Pictures,603 P.2d 425(Cal.1979).
(9)White v.Samsung Electronics America,Inc.,971 F.2d 1395(9th Cir.1992).
(10)BGHZ 20,345.
(11)BGH GRUR 1987,128.
(12)BGH NJW 2000,2195.
(13)See Comedy III v.Saderup,25 Cal.4th 387(2001).
(14)Winter v.DC Comics,30 Cal.4th 881(2003),该案中被告以原告为原型创作半人半妖的漫画人物,原告以侵害公开权为由提起诉讼未获支持,虽未提及隐私权侵害,但该漫画人物能否视为对原告形象的丑化,仍值得考虑。
(15)BVerfG vom 9.1.1991,774,775.