CHOSUN

판례에 나타난 퍼블리시티권에 관한 연구

Metadata Downloads
Author(s)
이건근
Issued Date
2013
Abstract
It is not justified to appropriate commercially others' names and images without their permission to gain profits. In this case, the victims should share the economic income, and have the authority to prohibit anyone from using their identity. The publicity rights are the way to keep one's own identity like this. To get economic income, many businesses are using famous person's name or likeness. This magnetism of a trade mark is known to have succeeded in increasing the companies' sales.
In the meanwhile, there happened a dispute between the owner of identity and the user of it over the publicity right, especially in the countries which have developed in the entertainment and media industry. The main country, America, acknowledged firstly the rights in the process of solving a lot of legal battles. The publicity rights have been set up as a firm right through many judicial precedents.
In Korea as well as the U.S. these rights have been paid attention to since 1980s. Recent Han Wave has made Korean celebrities' pictures and images used without their previous permission, which resulted in the legal disputes between the people who are earning commercial gains. It is likely that the number of such disputes will be larger as more people will get reputation around the world.
But no nations except America have regulated the rights directly or explicitly, which means the publicity rights should be confirmed only in the judge-made laws, and accepted in the positive laws. In Korea as well, there is no legislation stipulating this right, and so the persons directly concerned should depend on the individual rulings of the courts. What is worse, the codification of publicity rights is not easy or simple.
The publicity rights are controversial because they exceptionally authorized financial values to the individuals and caused a lot of legal problems these days. For example, who can own the publicity rights, whether corporate bodies or organizations can have those rights, what is required to establish the rights, whether the right should be used only commercially or not, whether a person's identity modified or distorted can be the matter of the rights, whether the rights are assignable and inheritable, and if possible, how many generations can have the inheritance of the rights.
In the near future, we should legalize this rights considering our Continental law system. This thesis offers the direction of the legislature of the publicity rights by determining the essence and character of the rights through judicial precedents assuming we should enact the laws for the publicity rights. The second chapter studies the judgements of America, Germany, and Japan, and the third chapter treats our country's. The last chapter shows several theories and methods to make such a law. I hope this thesis should be helpful in making the laws of the publicity rights in Korea.

topic word: the publicity rights, publicity, identity, personal rights, privacy
Alternative Title
A Study of Publicity Rights On The Cases
Alternative Author(s)
Lee Geon-geun
Affiliation
조선대학교 대학원
Department
일반대학원 법학과
Advisor
권상로
Awarded Date
2013-08
Table Of Contents
-目 次-

Abstract

第1章 서 론
제1절 연구의 목적 ··································································1
제2절 연구범위와 방법 ·····························································3
第2章 외국판례에 나타난 퍼블리시티권의 태동과 발전
제1절 미국에서의 퍼블리시티권의 형성과 발전 ································4
1. 미국의 발달과정에 관한 개요 ···················································4
2. 성명ㆍ초상권에 관한 논의를 촉발한 두 개의 판결 ·····························5
가. Roberson판결 : 프라이버시권 논쟁의 시발 ····································5
나. Pavesich판결 : ‘혼자 있을 권리로서’ 프라이버시권 인정 ····················6
다. Melvin 판결 : 확고한 프라이버시권의 인정 ··································7
3. 퍼블리시티권이 프라이버시권으로부터 분화되는 과정 ·························7
가. 재산적 요소를 인정하지 않는 프라이버시권 : 1950년대 이전 ·················7
나. 재산권적 요소를 내용으로 하는 퍼블리시티권의 인정 : 1950년대 이후 ······8
다. 퍼블리시티권을 인정한 최초의 연방대법원 판결의 등장 : Zacchini 사건 ·····9
4. 퍼블리시티권에 관한 이론의 전개 ··············································11
가. Publicity권의 본질에 관한 이론의 전개 ·····································11
(1) Nimmer 교수의 공개가치이론 ·············································11
(2) 자연법적 보수와 인센티브 이론 ···········································12
나. 프라이버시권에 대한 침해유형 이론 ·········································12
다. 상표의 ‘Persona'에 퍼블리시티권의 개념을 포함하려는 이론 ················13
5. 퍼블리시티권 내용의 확대과정 ················································14
가. 퍼블리시티권의 주체에 관한 판결 ············································14
나. 퍼블리시티권의 대상 ························································15
(1) 유명인의 목소리 : Midler v. Ford 사건 ··································15
(2) 개인이 사용하는 슬로건 ; Johnny Carson 사건. ··························16
(3) 자동차 경주선수의 차량 : 1974년 Motschenbacher 사건 ··················16
(4) 로봇인형을 사용 : 1992년 삼성전자사건 ···································16
(5) 유명인의 경력 : Palmer 사건 ··············································17
(6) 동물의 퍼블리시티권 : Lawrence v. Ylla 사건 ····························17
다. 상속의 인정여부와 사후 존속기간의 범위 ···································18
(1) 각 주의 퍼블리시티권 인정의 경향 ·······································18
(2) 퍼블리시티권의 상속성에 관한 판례의 태도 ······························21
6. 미국의 판례에 나타난 퍼블리시티권의 내용과 향후 전망 ······················23
가. 미국 판례에 나타난 퍼블리시티권의 내용 정리 ·····························23
나. 향후의 전망 ··································································24
제2절 독일에서의 퍼블리시티권의 형성과 발전 ·······························25
1. 독일의 퍼블리시티권에 대한 성문법 현황 ·····································25
가. 초상권에 관한 규정 : 「조형예술 및 저작물의 저작권에 관한 법률(KUG)」제22조 ················································································26
나. 성명권에 관한 규정 : 독일민법 제12조과 제823조 제1항 ····················27
2. 독일 판례에 나타난 퍼블리시티권의 발전 ·····································28
가. 인격권 침해에 대한 보호의 인정과 재산적 가치의 인정 ····················28
(1) 초상권의 재산권성의 인정 : 1956년 Paul Dahlke판결 ····················28
(2) 초상ㆍ성명의 무단사용에 대한 불법행위책임의 인정 : 1958년 Herrenreiter판결이후 ···············································································28
나. 퍼블리시티권의 내용확대 ·····················································29
(1) 양도성의 인정여부에 관한 판결 : 1986년 Nana 사건 ···················29
(2) 상속성의 인정문제 : 2000년 Marlene Dietrich판결 ························31
(3) 초상권의 내용확대 : 1989년 Heinz Erhardt판결 ··························32
(4) 사후 존속기간의 문제 ·····················································32
다. 정리 : 독일 판례에 나타난 퍼블리시티권의 발전 과정의 평가 ··············35
제3절 일본에서의 퍼블리시티권의 형성 ········································37
1. 일본에서의 퍼블리시티권 개관 ················································37
2. 퍼블리시티권에 관한 하급심의 판례들 ········································38
가. 최초의 퍼블리시티권의 인정 : 1976년 Mark Lester 사건 ···················38
나. 퍼블리시티권의 부정 : 1980년 McQeen 사건 ···························39
다. 퍼블리시티권에 관한 본격적인 인정 : 1990년 오냥코사건 ··················40
라. 최초의 퍼블리시티권 용어사용 : ‘光 GENJI 사건’ ···························40
마. 성명ㆍ초상 외의 대상에 퍼블리시티권 인정 : 1999년 킹크림슨 사건 ········40
3. 그 밖의 일본판례와 정리 ·······················································41
第3章 국내의 판결에 나타난 퍼블리시티권
제1절 국내의 판례에 나타난 퍼블리시티권 ····································43
1. 국내 판례의 전개과정에 관한 개관 ···········································43
2. 퍼블리시티권에 대한 논의의 촉발 ··············································44
가. 초상권 침해에 대한 손해배상청구사건 -1989년 한혜숙 사건 ················44
나. 초상권의 내용확대 - 1997년 MBC 시사매거진 사건 ·······················44
다. 그 외 초상권침해를 인정한 사건 ············································45
3. 퍼블리시티권의 인정과 발전과정 ··············································46
가. 퍼블리시티권의 정의 : 1995년 이휘소 사건 ··································46
나. 퍼블리시티권의 인정 : 1998년 황인정 사건 ·································47
다. 퍼블리시티권의 인정과 부정의 혼란 : 제임스 딘 사건 ·····················48
(1) 퍼블리시티권을 인정한 1997년 제임스 딘 사건 ····························48
(2) 퍼블리시티권의 부정과 상속의 부정 : 2002년 제임스 딘 사건 ············50
라. 퍼블리시티권의 양도성 인정 : 2000년 2월 2일 비달사순사건 ················51
4. 퍼블리시티권의 내용 확대과정 ·················································52
가. 발전과정의 개요 ······························································52
나. 퍼블리시티권 침해의 사례 유형화 : 2001년 신대철 사건 ····················53
다. 일반인에게도 퍼블리시티권이 인정된 판결 : 2004년 허브좌훈 사건 ·········53
라. 유명인에게만 퍼블리시티권의 인정 : 2004년 이영애 사건 ·················54
마. 캐릭터에도 퍼블리시티권을 인정 : 2005년 정준하사건 ····················55
바. 휴대용 게임물에 퍼블리시티권을 인정 : 2006년 이종범 사건 ···············56
사. 상속성의 인정과 사후 존속기간 50년 인정 : 2006년 이효석 사건과 ·········57
아. 이후의 판결들 ································································58
(1) 2007년 한류스타 사건 ······················································58
(2) 2007년 배드민턴 선수 사건 ···············································59
(3) 영문이니셜을 퍼블리시티권의 대상으로 인정 : 2010년 마구마구게임 사건 ·····59
5. 최근의 주목할 만한 대법원 판결 ··············································59
가. 2010년 네이버 광고방해사건 ·················································60
나. 2012년 대장금 캐릭터 사건 ··················································60
제2절 국내의 판결에 나타난 퍼블리시티권에 관한 정리 ····················62
1. 퍼블리시티권의 내용에 관한 판례의 태도 ······································62
2. 평가와 전망 ···································································63
第4章 퍼블리시티권에 대한 입법화 논의
제1절 퍼블리시티권의 본질 ·····················································65
1. 본질의 쟁점 ·····································································65
2. Publicity權의 철학적 기반 ······················································66
가. 정당성에 관한 이론 ··························································66
(1) 자연권 이론 ································································66
(2) 배분적 효율성(Allocative Efficiency) 이론 ································66
(3) 유인(Incentive)이론 ························································67
(4) 부당이득의 금지(Preventing Unjust Enrichment)이론 및 노동이론 ·······68
(5) 혼동(False Endorsement)방지이론 ·········································68
(6) 양도필요성론 ······························································69
나. 소결 ··········································································69
3. 퍼블리시티권의 성질 ···························································70
가. 논의 현황 ···································································70
나. 법적 성질에 관한 학설 ·······················································71
(1) 프라이버시권을 포기하는 권리로 보는 설 ·································71
(2) 인격권과 독립된 재산권으로 보는 설 ······································71
(3) 인격권의 일부로 보는 설 ··················································71
제2절 퍼블리시티권 관련 규정의 검토 ·········································72
1. 개 관 ···········································································72
2. 퍼블리시티권 관련 법률들 ······················································74
가. 부정경쟁방지를 위한 표지에 관한 규정 ·····································74
나. 타인의 성명ㆍ초상 등의 임의적 이용의 제한에 관한 규정 ··················75
다. 저작물ㆍ초상화 등에 대한 성명표시에 관한 규정 ···························76
(1) 저작물 등에 대한 성명표시권 규정 ········································76
(2) 초상화 등의 사용에 대한 ‘이용동의’ 규정 ·································77
3. 소 결 ···········································································78
제3절 퍼블리시권의 국내에 입법화에 관한 방법론 ····························79
1. 퍼블리시티권 도입방법에 관한 논의의 현황 ····································79
2. 제17대 국회에 제출된 적 있는 개정안에 대한 비판 ····························79
가. 저작권법의 개정을 통한 도입의 시도 ········································80
나. 민법개정을 통한 도입의 시도 ················································81
3. 퍼블리시티권의 입법 방안에 대한 사견 ········································82
第5章 결 론 ·······································································84

參 考 文 獻
Degree
Master
Publisher
조선대학교 대학원
Citation
이건근. (2013). 판례에 나타난 퍼블리시티권에 관한 연구.
Type
Dissertation
URI
https://oak.chosun.ac.kr/handle/2020.oak/11811
http://chosun.dcollection.net/common/orgView/200000264092
Appears in Collections:
General Graduate School > 3. Theses(Master)
Authorize & License
  • AuthorizeOpen
  • Embargo2013-08-22
Files in This Item:

Items in Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.