我国人格权商品化法律规制模式选择与制度构建
|
摘要
民法学者对十九大报告中"保护人民人身权、财产权、人格权"这一段话格外关注,特别是重点突出保护人民人格权,具有极为重要的价值。而人格权商品化又是人格权法中又一值得研究的课题。在市场经济深入发展与媒体日益发达的社会背景下,人格权商品化现象层出不穷,人格权财产利益逐渐凸显。但我国在立法及司法方面仍未对人格权商品化现象进行系统规范。在立法与司法解释缺位的情况下,利用既有规范对新型权益提供保护还是创设一种新型权利成为一个亟待解决的问题。通过对美国二元模式与德国一元模式的比较分析与借鉴,在厘清人格权权利性质的基础上,坚持既有的权利体系及精神利益与财产利益的同一性。在构建人格权商品化具体制度过程中,应对人格权商品化行为进行合理限制,确立人格权商品化授权许可使用机制并寻求侵害人格权财产利益的救济途径。
Since the opening of the 19 th CPC National Congress,civil law scholars have been deeply concerned with the expression of "protect the citizens' personal physical rights,property rights and personality rights".It is of great value to emphasize the citizens' personality rights while the commercialization of personality rights draws great attention in research.With the deepening of market economy and the prosperity of media,commercialization of personality rights cases emerges frequently and property interest of personality rights becomes prevalent.However,there is still no systematic regulation to the commercialization of personality rights in legislation and jurisdiction.With the absence of legislative and judiciary explanation,whether to use the present regulations or to create a new right pattern becomes an emergent problem.Based on the combing of the features of personality rights,this article compares the US binary mode and German monistic mode,confirms the existing right system and acknowledges the identity of spiritual interests and property interests.The legislators should restrict the commercialization of personality rights,establish authorization grant system and explore the relief method of infringement of the rights of personality rights when constructing the detailed rules and regulation of commercialization of personality rights.
Since the opening of the 19 th CPC National Congress,civil law scholars have been deeply concerned with the expression of "protect the citizens' personal physical rights,property rights and personality rights".It is of great value to emphasize the citizens' personality rights while the commercialization of personality rights draws great attention in research.With the deepening of market economy and the prosperity of media,commercialization of personality rights cases emerges frequently and property interest of personality rights becomes prevalent.However,there is still no systematic regulation to the commercialization of personality rights in legislation and jurisdiction.With the absence of legislative and judiciary explanation,whether to use the present regulations or to create a new right pattern becomes an emergent problem.Based on the combing of the features of personality rights,this article compares the US binary mode and German monistic mode,confirms the existing right system and acknowledges the identity of spiritual interests and property interests.The legislators should restrict the commercialization of personality rights,establish authorization grant system and explore the relief method of infringement of the rights of personality rights when constructing the detailed rules and regulation of commercialization of personality rights.
引文
[1]王利明.人格权法研究[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2012:222.
[2]张红.以营利为目的与肖像权侵权责任认定---以案例为基础的实证研究[J].比较法研究,2012(3):63-76.
[3]王利明.论人格权商品化[J].法律科学,2013(4):54-61.
[4]刘召成.人格商品化利用权的教义学构造[J].清华法学,2014(3):118-136.
[5]李建华,阿依加马丽·苏皮.人格权财产利益制度的基本原则[J].湖南社会科学,2014(4):56-60.
[6]郑成思.知识产权保护实务全书[M].北京:中国言实出版社,1995:11.
[7]李明发,杜健.人格权财产利益法律保护研究[J].学术界,2014(7):53-62.
[8]瞿灵敏.商品化人格权的保护:损害赔偿与保护路径[J].苏州大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2015(4):89-100.
[9]张善古,段威.侵权责任法因果关系理论之修正---对因果关系“二元论的反驳”[J].北华大学学报(社会科学版),2017(4):111-116.
[2]张红.以营利为目的与肖像权侵权责任认定---以案例为基础的实证研究[J].比较法研究,2012(3):63-76.
[3]王利明.论人格权商品化[J].法律科学,2013(4):54-61.
[4]刘召成.人格商品化利用权的教义学构造[J].清华法学,2014(3):118-136.
[5]李建华,阿依加马丽·苏皮.人格权财产利益制度的基本原则[J].湖南社会科学,2014(4):56-60.
[6]郑成思.知识产权保护实务全书[M].北京:中国言实出版社,1995:11.
[7]李明发,杜健.人格权财产利益法律保护研究[J].学术界,2014(7):53-62.
[8]瞿灵敏.商品化人格权的保护:损害赔偿与保护路径[J].苏州大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2015(4):89-100.
[9]张善古,段威.侵权责任法因果关系理论之修正---对因果关系“二元论的反驳”[J].北华大学学报(社会科学版),2017(4):111-116.