论肖像的商业化利用权

发布时间：2018-02-04 17:55

本文关键词： 肖像人格标识肖像权商业化利用　出处：《湘潭大学》2017年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：近些年,肖像的商业化权带来了相当的经济效益,因此成为理论界、实务界的热门话题。肖像的商业化利用权确实可以扩大人民的财产收入来源,也增加了人民的财产性收入,所以从理论角度出发,承认肖像的商业化利用权,并为其建立理念、构筑制度显得尤为重要。目前我国理论界主要的分歧点在于肖像的商业化利用权的法律性质,主要分为两种观点,以吴汉东先生为代表的学者主张肖像的商业化利用权显现的财产利益与财产权内涵一致,是一种新型的财产权;而更多的学者支持肖像的商业化利用是人格权的一种自主控制与决定权能,其体现财产利益可为人格权所吸收,与肖像的人格利益相互影响、相互作用。人格权说从人格权的人格展现与实现的本质上说明肖像的商业化利用权是能被涵盖在人格权中,更加透彻的阐述肖像的商业利用权的实质.两种学说相较之下,人格权说更能说明肖像的商业化利用权法律性质的本质。在立法上,《民法通则》第一百条未明确肖像的商业化利用权的财产利益以及损害赔偿的适用,《侵权法》第二十条的理解与适用也存在不小的争议。由此导致实务中出现同案不同判的情形如刘翔案,也出现适用主体不明确、对肖像转让与许可的裁判缺乏依据、不承认肖像的商业化利用权可继承性、损害赔偿标准不一的情形。对此应从以下几个方面完善,主体方面,不应将权利主体局限于名人,应将权利的主体扩展到普通民众;转让与许可方面,明确肖像转让与许可合同中转让的是肖像权的权能,且未脱离肖像权人的控制,一旦侵害到肖像权人的精神利益,还可以此为由单方面解除使用合同。合同许可方式分为独占许可合同与非独占许可合同两种;继承方面,被继承人死后,为保护被继承人的人格利益以及被许可人既有利益,继承人可继承该种权利并作为管理者管理其肖像的商业化利用权;权利限制方面,肖像的商业化利用要受到公序良俗和言论自由的限制;救济方面,不应只存在赔偿实际损失一种赔偿标准,还应包括返还所得利益与法院酌定赔偿两种标准,而且在救济方式上,除依据《侵权法》第二条规定要求侵害人承担侵权责任外,还可以以不当得利或无因管理为由,要求侵害人返还获利所得。
[Abstract]:In recent years, the commercialization of portraits has brought considerable economic benefits, so it has become a hot topic in theory and practice. The commercial use of portraits can really expand the source of people's property income. It also increases the property income of the people, so from a theoretical point of view, recognition of the commercial use of portraits, and the establishment of ideas for it. It is very important to construct the system. At present, the main divergences in the theoretical circle of our country lie in the legal nature of the commercial utilization right of the portrait, which is mainly divided into two viewpoints. The scholars, represented by Mr. Wu Han-dong, advocate that the property interests of the commercial use of portraits are consistent with the connotation of the property rights, and it is a new type of property rights. More scholars support that the commercial use of portraits is a kind of independent control and decision-making power of personality rights, which reflects the property interests can be absorbed by the personality rights, and the personality interests of the portrait influence each other. The theory of personality rights shows that the commercial use of portraits can be covered in personality rights from the essence of personality display and realization of personality rights. Compared with the two theories, the personality right theory can explain the nature of the legal nature of the commercial use of the portrait more clearly. In legislation. Article 100th of the General principles of Civil Law does not clearly define the property interests of the commercial use of portraits and the application of compensation for damages. The interpretation and application of Article 20th of Tort Law is also controversial, which leads to different judgments of the same case in practice, such as Liu Xiang case, and the subject of application is not clear. The judgment on the transfer and licensing of portraits lacks the basis, does not recognize the commercial use of portraits can be inherited, damage compensation standards are different. This should be improved from the following aspects, the subject. The subject of rights should not be limited to celebrities, but should be extended to ordinary people. In the aspect of transfer and license, it is clear that the power of portrait right is transferred in the contract of portrait transfer and license, and it is not separated from the control of portrait right person, once infringing upon the spiritual interests of portrait right person. The contract license can be divided into exclusive license contract and non-exclusive license contract. In the aspect of inheritance, in order to protect the interests of the decedent and the licensee, the heirs can inherit the rights and manage the commercial use of their portraits as managers. In terms of rights restriction, the commercial use of portraits is restricted by public order, good customs and freedom of speech. In the aspect of relief, there should be not only one standard of compensation for the actual loss, but also two criteria for the return of the benefits of income and the discretionary compensation of the court, and in the way of relief. In addition to requiring the infringer to bear the tort liability in accordance with Article 2 of the Tort Law, the infringer may also be required to return the profit-making income on the grounds of improper enrichment or non-cause management.
【学位授予单位】：湘潭大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923

【参考文献】