商業利用權與言論自由之調和──以美國法為借鏡

Harmonization of Right of Publicity and Freedom of Speech: Lessons from the United States

商業利用權源自於普通法之隱私權，而在財產權之分析下發展壯大，當個人達到相當的人氣，其姓名及其他得以確認之特徵本身的利用足以創造出經濟上價值，個人對於該等利用排他控制之權利，即熟知美國法上之「商業利用權」，該等權利主要在允許個人就其得以確認之特徵的利用，行使排他權而作為獲得經濟收益的工具，雖然商業利用權有其重要之功能，卻可能限制創作者，也因此，商業利用權直接與美國憲法第一修正案保障個人之言論自由產生扞格，一方面，美國憲法第一修正案要求國家捍衛言論自由，另一方面，個人使用權之法理則承認這種緣起於人格權而形成之財產權，如何在當中畫出一道妥適的界線，對於司法實務誠屬艱困之任務。美國司法實務及立法在過往發展出商業利用權，然隨著科技之演進，卻也關注如何加以詮釋，更需注意商業利用權與美國憲法第一修正案之平衡，個人經濟價值遭受利用及作品之商業性表達其間之融整，使得司法判決分歧，在各種融整之檢驗模式各自表述下，恐怕應由美國最高法院出面來定紛止爭。在這之前，本文分析現有融整之檢驗模式，而建議以「轉化性檢驗」做為我國之借鏡。

The Right of publicity was born of common law privacy rights and flourished under property law analysis. When a person reaches a level of popularity that inherently creates economic value in the use of their name and likeness, that person is entitled to the exclusive control of such use. Known as the right of publicity, this entitlement essentially allows every person to exclude others from using their identity as a means for acquiring economic gain. Though it has many important uses, one unfortunate consequence of the right of publicity is that it restricts artists' abilities to portray real persons in their works. In so doing, the right of publicity directly conflicts with the First Amendment protections of an individual's freedom of expression. The constitutional command embodied in the First Amendment safeguards freedom of expression in our society. On the other hand, right of publicity jurisprudence recognizes the property right that stems from the value of an individual's persona. Where to draw the line is often a difficult determination for the court. As courts and legislatures developed the right of publicity over the past decades, changes in technology have provided for considerations concerning how the right should be interpreted. Courts have constantly maintained that the right of publicity must be balanced with First Amendment concerns. The balance between a man or woman's economic value being exploited against the commercial expression of a work has left litigants confused. With various tests being used in the judiciary and different levels of common law and statutory protection throughout the country, it is time that the Supreme Court gets ＂in the game.＂. This thesis also analyize these various tests, and recommend transformative test to learn.