Preliminary Research on Property Rights Derived from Personality
-
摘要: "人格权商品化"及类似观点,使人格权具有了双重属性,颠覆了人们对人格权的既有认识,动摇了人们对人格权原有的逻辑判断和价值判断。人格派生财产权的观点认为,在人格权的基础上,权利人还享有人格派生财产权。它与人格权是有内在联系的两种民事权利,人格权是人格派生财产权的基础法律关系。人格派生财产权是以信息化人格要素和能够信息化的人格要素为客体的。人格派生财产权人可以就自己的人格要素为他人设立用益债权。用益债权是财产权,可以在市场上流通。人格派生财产权可以继承。肖像权、姓名权、隐私权及声音权等是具体人格权,是消极的禁止权,对肖像、姓名、隐私、声音等人格要素在经济上的积极利用,不是人格权固有的、本身的内容,而是财产权的内容。对肖像用益的一个前提,是把肖像转化为映像,映像是一种信息。姓名、声音、隐私等本身是一种信息,可以作为财产进行用益。Abstract: "Commercialization of Personality Rights" and similar argument,make Personality Rights have dual attributes, subvert the old cognition of Personality Rights and shake logical judgment and value judgments of Personality Rights that we shared before. The argument of "Property Rights Derived from Personality"thinks that on the basis of Personality Rights the Rights holders also have Property Rights Derived from Personality. Property Rights Derived from Personality and Personality Rights are two intrinsically linked civil rights. Personality Rights are the basic legal relationship of Property Rights Derived from Personality. The object of Property Rights Derived from Personality is personality factors that have been informatizated and can be informatizated. The owner of Property Rights Derived from Personality can use his own personality factors to establish Usufructuary Debt with others. Usufructuary Debt as Property Rights can circulate in the market. Property Rights Derived from Personality can be inherited. Portrait Rights, Name Rights, Privacy Rights, Sounds Rights and so on are concrete Personality Rights and negative rights to prohibit. The economically active use of portrait,name, privacy, sound and other personality factors is not the inherent and itself content of Personality Rights, is the content of Property Rights. On premise of the use of portrait is that portrait needs to be transformed into image. Image is one kind of information. Name,sound, privacy are also one kind of information,and can be used as property to usufruct.
-
-
[1] 郑永宽.人格权的价值与体系研究[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2008. [2] 王泽鉴:民法总则[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2001:134. [3] 赵宾,李林启,张艳.人格权商品化问题研究[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2009. [4] 陈丽娟.人格权商品化的正当性辨析[J].重庆科技学院学报:哲学社会科学版,2010(10):55. [5] 杨清芳.论人格标识商品化权及其民法保护[J].法制与社会,2010(7):84. [6] 程合红.商事人格权刍议[J].中国法学,2000(5): 86. [7] 郑玉波.民法总则[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003:139. [8] 隋彭生.绝对法律关系初论[J].法学家,2011(1): 65. [9] 隋彭生.民事用益法律关系——一种新的理论概括[J].清华大学学报:哲学社会科学版,2010(1). [10] 龙卫球.民法基础与超越[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2010:198. [11] 梁彗星.中国民法典草案建议稿[M].北京:法律出版社,2003:19. [12] 马俊驹.从人格利益到人格要素——人格权法律关系客体之界定[J].河北法学,2006(10): 49. [13] 李德顺.价值论[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007:43. [14] 张俊浩.民法学原理[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1991. [15] 杨立新.人身权法论[M].北京:人民法院出版社,2002:90. [16] 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. [17] 徐国栋.民法典与民法哲学[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007:126—127. [18] 姚辉.论人格权法与侵权责任法的关系[J].华东政法大学学报,2011(1): 104. [19] 隋彭生.法定孳息——用益的对价[M].社会科学论坛:学术研究卷,2008(6): 54. [20] 李林.人格权商业利用浅析[J].中国经贸导刊,2010(14):90. [21] 迪特尔·施瓦布.民法导论[M].郑冲,译.北京:法律出版社,2006:207. [22] 李锡鹤.民法哲学论稿[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2009:40. [23] 杨立新.民法判解研究与适用:第8集[M].北京:人民法院出版社,2004:455. [24] 隋彭生.论肖像权的客体[J].中国法学,2005(1):50—55. [25] 王泽鉴.侵权行为法:第1册[M].北京:中国政法出版社,2001:121. [26] 迈克尔·D·贝勒斯.法律的原则—一个规范的分析[M].中国大百科出版社,1996:111. [27] 张天上.隐私权的经济分析[J].法制与社会发展,2006(1). [28] 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,石宏,郝倩,等,译.中国法制出版社,2004:290—291. [29] 杨立新,袁雪石.论声音权的独立及其民法保护[J].法商研究,2005(4). [30] 胡·贝弗利·史密斯.人格的商业利用[M].李志刚,缪因知,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:197—199.
计量
- 文章访问数: 710
- HTML全文浏览量: 1
- PDF下载量: 339
下载:
