人格权商品化法律问题探析

市场经济的繁荣发展,使得人格权突破传统民法理论的界限,具有更多、更直接的财产利益,人格权商品化现象如今已普遍走入人们的生活,是未来人格权发展的必然趋势.深入地分析人格权商品化的概念、性质、主体、对象等问题,能够对人格权商品化准确定位,保护权利主体的权利,利于我国的人格权法律制度的构建.     

死者生前人格上财产利益之保护

人格权内含精神与财产双重利益。对人格上财产利益的保护是人性自主的必然结果,且不论人之生死,人格上之财产利益皆应受保护。生者人格上财产利益保护应采用德国法上一元论的人格权保护模式,而死者人格上财产利益保护则应参照美国法上的公开权模式。利用死者生前之人格特征获利的权利乃一种无形财产权,归属于死者之继承人。继承人行使此项权利需按照死者明知或可推知的意思进行,权利行使期限宜为50年。     

试论人格利益和无形财产利益的权利构造——以法人人格权为研究对象

一、人格与人格权的逻辑联系:有"法律人格"之法人有无人格权传统人格权的概念、定义及制度设计,是以自然人为基点而展开的。在中国民法典编纂活动中以及当下人格权法酝酿之时,法人是否享有人格权,法人享有哪些人格利益,法人人格权采取何种立法模式,均是存有争议的问题。对于法人人格权问题的探讨,须从"法人格"着手,即是将作为主体资格的人格与作为精神利益的人格     

人格要素的财产价值与人格权关系之辨

人格要素的商业利用为人格权主体创造了财产价值,但它并不适宜被归列到独立于人格权之外的一项财产权中:首先,需要反思财产权与人格权的区分标准;它并非建立在权利是否具有财产价值及可转让性之上,而应当为权利客体的属性——能否永久地外在于主体。其次,人格要素的商业利用并未改变人格要素的内在于主体的属性。所谓的“外在性”只是技术发展带来的手段及工具意义上的。它决定了以人格要素为客体的权利只能属于人格权,人格要素所带来的财产价值乃人格权权能的体现。财产利益与精神利益不可分割地交织于人格权中。这种构造不仅与人格权的受尊重权的属性及专属性并不冲突,而且回复了人格权的原貌,能更好地实现人格的价值。     

论具有人格利益的财产

传统的财产与侵权法理论一般不承认财产中的人格利益。近年来,国内外立法和司法实践逐渐关注财产中的人格利益,并给予保护。具有人格利益的财产可分为具有人格象征意义的财产、寄托特定人情感的财产、源于特定人身体的财产和源于特定人智慧的知识产权四大类;前两类为外在物的内化,后两类为内在自我的外化。依据事实和法律的标准被确定为具有人格利益的财产,相对于可替代财产而言,在立法和司法实践中应该得到更为充分的保护。     

论具有人格利益的财产

The traditional theory of property and tort law generally denies personality interests in property. In recent years, legislative and judicial practices at home and abroad have turned to care for personality interests in property and to protect it. The property with personality interests can be classified into four categories, namely, (a) property with personality symbolism, (b) property with specific human emotion, (c) property originated from specific human body, and (d) intellectual property from specific human wisdom, the first two of which internalize external matters and the last two externalize the inherent self. Comparing with fungible property, the property with personality interests on the basic of facts and law shall be more protected in legislative and judicial practices. Zhou Qiong, Ph.D. of law, studies at Huazhong University of Science and Technology. She also serves as editor of the Private Law Review. Ms Zhou’s research interests focus on civil law in general and tort law in particular. She has released several articles on civil law and science & technology law, and she is also one of the co-authors of Science and Technology Law (Hep, 2006). Moreover, she got the title of Top Ten Academic Achievements from Huazhong University of Science and Technology (2007).     

人人都有获得基本财产的权利——由人格平等想到的

在现代文明法治社会,人人都具有人格,人格平等是基本的法律理念。然而在对人格权利进行保护和人格权利的实现过程中,要以一定的物质财产作为基础,离开财产谈人格,只能是抽象的人格,只能是抽象的人格平等。目前的法律对人格的规定仅仅是抽象的人格平等,若要实现真正的人格平等,使得人们的人格获得现实的保护,就应该赋予每个人基本的财产,这是实现人格平等的一个非常好的途径。既然我们的理念是人格平等,而且财产对于实现人格权利是必不可少,那么我们可以大胆的得出一个结论:人人都有获得基本财产的权利。     

集合意义上的人格财产的判定及分类

集合意义上的人格财产不同于个体意义上的人格财产，有其特定的判定标准和依据，其可依人格利益中感情的来源为基础做出划分：分为家族意义上的人格财产、地域意义上的人格财产、民族意义上的人格财产。     

商品化权:人格符号的利益扩张与衡平

人格的符号要素具有识别功能。商品化权的出现,旨在保护人格符号要素的商业价值。保护人格的符号价值和财产属性,必须突破传统人格权利的初始配置,解决人格利益变化后的权利再分配问题。人格符号的扩大保护,并不意味着权利的绝对化,对其进行合理限制具有十分重要的意义。对商品化权的保护超出了传统人格权法和知识产权法的范围,由反不正当竞争法来调整更为合理。     

论人格物与一般人格权的内在契合

人格物是一种新型物质形态,因其凸显人格利益而明显区别于普通之物,司法解释和实践已为人格物的确立及规则完善提供了良好的基础,并确立了透过物之形态实现人格利益的特殊保护机制。但人格物所蕴含的人格利益并不为法定化的具体人格权所包容,经检视与探寻,若能在未来中国民法典中确立一般人格权这一开放性的人格权制度,则人格物救济的请求权基础当从一般人格权条款中得到合理支持,以补充传统民法理论于此规范之不足。相应地,人格物理论与制度体系的建构将为一般人格权的发展提供新的素材并促进一般人格权制度的现代发展。     

当代知识产权制度的新发展及其对我国的启示

随着科学技术的发展、知识经济的兴起和经济全球化进程的加快,知识产权的重要性得到历史性提升。在科技高速发展的今天,知识产权保护制度呈现许多新特点。面对新形势,我们应该以全球的视野,站在国家利益的高度来认识知识产权,主动、积极地运用知识产权保护制度参与国际市场竞争。     

论中国私有财产权利的发展

私有财产权利保护制度是人类的一项文明成果,它有利于繁荣经济、推进民主法治进程。分析中国私有财产权利发展的具体进程,并对中国古代与现代私有财产权利从产生的经济基础、政治背景、特征内容、社会观念四个方面进行比较分析,有助于深化对私有财产权利的认识。     

Fundamental principles of the international protection system of intellectual property rights and the applications

Legal principle, which underlies the value of the legal system, is supposed to be the origin and basis of concrete legal rules. It has also resulted from abstracting and summarizing the value and spirit of these legal rules. In light of the universality and hierarchy of legal principle, the principles of the international protection system of intellectual property rights (IPR) can be divided into the following two types: one is the fundamental principles applied to the what, why and how a legal system shall be constructed, such as principles of sovereignty, equality and mutual benefit, joint development, and international cooperation, which also can be expressed as the principles of sovereignty, international coordination and cooperation, fairness and justice. The other type includes those existing in the legal system and capable of being applied directly, such as the principle of national treatment, principle of minimum standard, principle of independence (for industrial property right), principle of independent protection (for copyright), principle of compulsory implementing patent (for patent right) and doctrine of priority (for industrial property right), etc. In my opinion, the principles of the international protection system of IPR shall follow the latter model, indicating that they shall be provided and written in the international conventions on the grounds that they can be applied directly, and that they can be universally applied to the whole international protection system of IPR instead of exclusive application to one certain system. Hereupon, the author believes that principles concerning the international protection system of IPR should include the principles of national treatment, minimum protection standard and public interest.     

商品化权性质的理论之争及反思

国内外多数学者认为商品化权是一种新型的知识产权,但知识产权体系其实无法包容商品化权。商品化权具有无形财产权的品性,即使是人格因素商品化权也不例外。只有在无形财产权范畴中才能准确把握商品化权的性质。     

论作家姓名及其作品的商品化权——呼吁建立商品化权制度来制约伪书泛滥成灾

伪书不同于盗版书,从表面上看这些书都是合法的,一般读者购买时并不会产生怀疑,但其产生的后果无论是对读者还是作家以及社会都很严重。伪书泛滥是利欲使然。在我国现有的知识产权法范围内,尚无法对伪书进行追究。本文认为,侵权人借助作家姓名及其作品的知名度炮制伪书,其实质是侵犯了作家姓名及其作品的商品化权。因此,要遏止伪书泛滥成灾,更好地保护作家的权利,需要建立商品化权制度。     

The legislative choice on the right of priority

The right of priority, or preemption, is the security interest of priority claim enjoyed by the creditor to the ordinary or particular properties of the debtor provided directly by law. It can be distinguished clearly from similar rights and can be stipulated in the Law on Property Rights. The right of priority falls into the category of security interests. Though it differs from the guaranteed security interest or lien, the right of priority, taking the property as its object, the guarantee of the performance of particular creditor’s right as its aims, possesses the basic characteristics of the security interests. Thus, such a rule shall be stipulated in the Law of Property Right. The right of priority is instituted directly by the law in consideration of the social legislative policies. Such considerations are necessary to the realization of social fairness and justice and the protection of public interests and social welfare. From the perspective of legislative polices and techniques, it is more reasonable to institute the right of priority in the Law of Property Right than resort to other replacing rules in order to secure particular creditor’s right. Instituting the right of priority in legislation will not increase the risk of deals; on the contrary, it will help the parties concerned foresee risks. Therefore, it helps safeguard the safety of the deals.     

论一般人格理论的摒弃及替代

一般人格理论引入民法学,是在法律对人格权保护严重不周的情况下,出于填补法律漏洞之需的无奈之举,带有临时性和应急性。一般人格理论具有无法克服的缺陷,我国不存在适用一般人格理论的法律环境。一般人格无论是＂权＂还是＂益＂,人格权法均不应规定,法学理论也没有再保留一般人格概念的必要。在侵权责任法和人格权法进行专门立法背景下,真正在理论上具有意义的是从归类角度对人格利益展开典型性分析。     

人格在民法上的意义——对人格及其相关概念的梳理与反思

本文从法学意义上的“人格”的涵义出发,通过对宪法上的人格、人格权意义上的人格、以及作为民事主体资格的人格的分析,得出人格在民法上的涵义仅指民事主体资格,也就是现代民法上的权利能力。进而又进一步分析了权利能力在二元主体结构下产生的问题,并且由此引出了对大陆法系概念法学的一些反思和总结。     

隐私权制度中的权利冲突

现代社会,隐私权日益成为一项重要的人格权。基于隐私权概念的不确定性和法律的局限性,隐私权与其他权利的冲突不可避免。解决的方式有立法和司法两种。其中司法中的利益衡量方法发挥着重要作用。从类型化研究来看,隐私权与表达自由的冲突主要通过司法途径解决,而隐私权与知情权的冲突则主要通过立法途径解决。