ven 50 years after her death, Marilyn Monroe continues to remain relevant. In a strongly worded Opinion (available here) last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Estate of Marilyn Monroe does not have the right to stop others from using Marilyn Monroe’s name and likeness. At issue in the case was whether Monroe’s Estate inherited a right of publicity in Marilyn Monroe’s name and likeness under California law. 在強而有力以文字載述下來的見解，第九巡迴上訴法院上週判決瑪麗蓮夢露遺產管理人無權去禁止他人利用其姓名及樣貌。本件之爭點是，瑪麗蓮夢露遺產管理人依照加州法是否繼承瑪麗蓮夢露之知名度（名氣權）。 Background: For the past 50 years—since Monroe’s death in August 1962—Monroe’s Estate (and its successor, Monroe, LLC) has been asserting that it inherited Monroe’s right of publicity, claiming to own Monroe’s images, voice, likeness and biographical information—rights that were worth $27 million in 2011. 背景：從夢露1961年去世50年來—夢露之繼承人，夢露股份有限公司主張其繼承夢露之知名度，宣稱其對夢露的圖像、聲音、樣貌、自傳資料擁有權利，這些權利在2011年值2千7百萬美元。 New York or California? Rights of publicity vary from state to state: though most states recognize the right during a person’s lifetime, only a few states extend those protections after death. Though in California individuals have a posthumous publicity right, which can be bequeathed, in New York, the right of publicity is extinguished at death. Monroe died at a house she owned in Brentwood, California, though she also maintained her prior residence in New York City. Thus, the issue before the court was clear: if Monroe was a California resident at her death, the Monroe Estate would have inherited control of her name and likeness; if she was a New York resident, those rights would have expired when Monroe died. 紐約或加州：知名度這個權利之適用法各州不同，雖然大部分的州承認在人生存期間有知名度這個權利。僅有少許之州擴張至人死後仍擁有該權利。雖然加州人承認死後名氣權，可以繼承；但在紐約州名氣權於人死時消滅。夢露死於其位於加州Brentwood的房子內，雖然她亦主張在紐約市有住所。因此審理法院很明確地了解到本案爭點係，假如夢露死時是加州居民，那麼夢露遺產管理人將取得支配其姓名及樣貌之權，反之，夢露死時若是紐約州居民，上開權利將於其死亡時消滅。 Prior Proceedings. After her death, Monroe’s lawyer and executor, Aaron Frosch, asserted to both the New York Surrogate’s Court and the California tax authorities that Monroe died a domiciliary of New York. This allowed the Monroe Estate to avoid substantial California estate, inheritance and income taxes. And in 1994, the Monroe Estate faced a claim by Monroe’s alleged daughter, Nancy Miracle, who sought 50% of the Estate under a provision of California law, which was not available under New York law. The Estate defeated that claim by alleging that Monroe died a New York citizen. 於夢露死後，前訴訟程序中，夢露的律師同時亦是遺產執行人Aaron Frosch在紐約Surrogate's Court 和加州稅捐機關皆主張夢露是紐約州居民。這使得夢露的遺產可規避大筆的遺產稅和所得稅。1994年由一位宣稱是夢露女兒者Nancy Miracle依據加州法律對夢露遺產起訴請求50%的遺產，惟該法律為紐約州所無。最終判決認定夢露死時是紐約居民適用紐約州法，夢露遺產獲得保全。（待續） The Current Lawsuit and the May 2007 Ruling. The lawsuit was brought in March 2005, when the Marily Monroe, LLC (the successor to the Estate) sued Milton Greene Archives, Inc., claiming ownership of Monroe’s right of publicity and alleging that the defendant unlawfully used Monroe’s image and likeness. In May 2007 the district court granted summary judgment, holding that Monroe LLC did not own Monroe’s right of publicity because at the time of Monroe’s death neither New York nor California recognized a descendible, posthumous right of publicity. As the District Court explained, the California law that made publicity rights inheritable was only passed in 1984, decades after Monroe’s 1962 death. The California Legislature Overturns the Court. In direct response to the Distict Court’s 2007 ruling, the California legislature passed a bill later that year, which said the publicity rights inheritance law was retroactive and applied to all those who had died prior to 1984. The new law made the right of publicity freely transferable, descendible and able to pass through the residual clause in the will of the deceased personality The law was explicitly designed to abrogate the 2007 ruling. The District Court’s Second Ruling. Monroe LLC later sought reconsideration of the district court’s ruling. Although the district court granted Monroe LLC’s motion for reconsideration, it found that Monroe LLC was “advanc[ing] a position inconsistent with that taken by the estate in the prior proceeding[s].” The District Court thus ruled that judicial estoppel would preclude Monroe, LLC from now taking an inconsistent position. Ninth Circuit Ruling. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court that judicial estoppel prevented Monroe LLC from taking the position that Monroe died domiciled in California when it had prevailed in earlier suits on the premise that Monroe was a domiciliary of New York: “This is a textbook case for applying judicial estoppel. Monroe’s representatives took one position on Monroe’s domicile at death for 40 years, and then changed their position when it was to their great financial advantage,” the appeals court said. Thus photographers, artists, and others will be able to exploit images without authorization from the estate. As the Ninth Circuit explained: “We observe that the lengthy dispute over the exploitation of Marilyn Monroe’s persona has ended in exactly the way that Monroe herself predicted more than 50 years ago: ‘I knew I belonged to the public and to the world, not because I was talented or even beautiful but because I had never belonged to anything or anyone else.”
assumption of risk 自承風險 assumption of risk 自承風險 風險承擔（assumption of risk、自承風險）屬於英美侵權法中的一種抗辯，如果被告能夠證明原告自願且明知地承擔了他所處的危險活動中所受的損害之固有的風險，則法律就會限制或減少原告對過失侵權行為人(被告)的追償權（故意侵權沒有適用）。 Attending baseball games and other sporting events is a quintessential American pastime. However, it is not uncommon that an accident can result in the injury of a fan. 參加棒球賽及其他運動賽事在美國是典型的消遣。然而，球迷在球賽中被球擊中卻是普遍現象。 Hit by a foul ball:被界外球擊中 In July 2015, a fan attending a Brewers/Braves baseball game at Milwaukee’s Miller Park was struck in the face by a foul ball. The fan sustained near-fatal injuries that have resulted in over $200,000 in medical bills and will require lifelong care. In August 2016, another fan was struck by a line-drive at Miller Park. 2015年，一位球迷在密爾瓦基觀看釀酒人與勇士兩隊的大聯盟賽事被界外球擊中臉部。該名球迷遭受到幾近致命之傷害，進而支出超過20萬美元之醫療費用，同時需要終身醫療。2016年8月另一名球迷在同場地被平飛球擊中。 Unfortunately, Miller Park isn't alone when it comes to spectator injuries. A 2014 study by Bloomberg News found 1,750 fans per year were injured by foul balls at Major League games. In 2018, A woman died after being hit in the head with a foul ball at Dodgers Stadium, making her the first foul-ball fatality in nearly 50 years. Spectators of hockey and NASCAR are also at risk of potentially hazardous projectiles at games and races as well. But if you are injured by a foul ball or stray hockey puck that flies into the stands, who is responsible for your medical bills, or possible lost time at work? 當談到觀眾受傷，米勒棒球場（密爾瓦基釀酒人之主場）並不是唯一。2014年彭博新聞指出大聯盟賽事每年有1750名球迷被界外球擊中。2018年在道奇隊球場，一名婦人在被界外球擊中頭部後死亡，離之前首位被擊中身亡者將近50年。職業冰球的冰球及全國運動汽車競賽協會舉行的賽事裏的賽車在比賽中係極具淺在危險性之拋射體。假如你在觀眾席被界外球擊中或冰上曲棍球的冰球擊中，誰要負擔你的醫療費及工作能力之損失？ The answer, unfortunately, is you.很不幸，答案是你（亦即你自己要負擔醫療費用及所受的傷害、損害） “Assumed Risk” and your ticket:自承風險及你的賽票 Assumed risk falls into the category of liability that applies to the so-called “baseball rule,” that is implemented in both professional and amateur leagues. If you read the fine print on the back of your ticket to a sporting event, it usually outlines refund policies and rules regarding flash photography. This is also where you will find that statement of assumed risk, which is why the venue isn’t liable for your injuries. 「自承風險」落入適用所謂“棒球法則”責任歸屬之範疇，其在職業及業餘賽事都有適用。假如你閱讀你賽票背面小號字體印刷品，其通常會將補償方案及法則用以凸顯方式概略出來，你將會發現自承風險的聲明，這也是為何賽事場地對你所受之傷毋庸負責之理。 It is assumed, that when choosing to attend a sporting event, the spectator understands that flying objects may enter the seats. And it is the spectator’s responsibility to avoid them. 其已被自我承擔，當選擇觀看賽事時，觀眾意識到飛來物會進入觀眾席，同時觀眾有責任去迴避牠。 The exception:自承風險之例外： While most risks at sporting events are considered "inherent to the game," there are situations in which negligent circumstances would hold the stadium/venue liable for injuries. For example: 然而，在運動賽事裏大部分的風險被認為是“比賽中所固有的”，有些情況被認為是運動場/賽場對該傷害有過失，例如： If you were to fall due to a broken handrail or other forms of facility disrepair such as a damaged net or partition, one could find the ballpark negligent for improper maintenance of the grounds. 假如你摔倒係因扶手損壞或是其他設施維護失當，例如護網毀損或被劃開，會認為球場基於不當維護而有過失為由。 In other cases, dram shop laws (like “social host” law) can be applied if a patron is over-served alcohol by stadium concessions and causes an accident of some sort while intoxicated.在其他情形，適用酒類供應商責任法，假如球場攤商過度供酒予顧客，造成其酒醉時的一些意外。 Unfortunately for many, this baseball rule was adopted when the game was quite different. Things happen a lot faster on the field these days and the entertaining nature of the sport often creates more “sideshows” that distract fans from what is happening on the field. We are forced to assume a certain level of risk any time we attend a spectator sport. So even with nets and barriers to protect fans, the most you can do is to always be alert while watching a game.
She Belongs to the Public: Court Rules that Marilyn Monroe Estate has no Rights of Publicity Background: For the past 50 years—since Monroe’s death in August 1962—Monroe’s Estate (and its successor, Monroe, LLC) has been asserting that it inherited Monroe’s right of publicity, claiming to own Monroe’s images, voice, likeness and biographical information—rights that were worth $27 million in 2011. 背景：自從瑪麗蓮夢露1962死亡至今已50年，其繼承人夢露有限責任公司持續主張其擁有瑪麗蓮夢露的名氣權，包括圖像、聲音、樣貌和傳記資料，這些在2011年總價值2千7百萬美元。 New York or California? 該繼承人主張其擁有瑪麗蓮夢露知名氣權，準據法究竟係依紐約州法抑或是加州法？ Rights of publicity vary from state to state: though most states recognize the right during a person’s lifetime, only a few states extend those protections after death. 美國各州對知名度之保護，採取不同的保護強度，雖然大多數的州承認人於其生存其間可主張知名度，僅有少不分的州承認死後名人權。Though in California individuals have a posthumous publicity right, which can be bequeathed, in New York, the right of publicity is extinguished at death. 在加州承認死後名人權，有可被繼承人所繼承，但在紐約知名度在人死後即消滅。Monroe died at a house she owned in Brentwood, California, though she also maintained her prior residence in New York City. 瑪麗蓮夢露於其加州Brentwood自宅內死亡，雖然其住所設在紐約Thus, the issue before the court was clear: if Monroe was a California resident at her death, the Monroe Estate would have inherited control of her name and likeness; if she was a New York resident, those rights would have expired when Monroe died.所以，於訴訟時爭點非常明確，假如瑪麗蓮夢露死時，是加州居民，其繼承人人可繼承並得支配其姓名與樣貌，假使她是紐約居民，上開權利於其死亡時即消滅。（待續）
搖頭公仔可受那些智慧財產權的保護 我國旅美知名的棒球投手甲在大聯盟屢創佳績，某乙看準當下商機，竟未得其同意，仿效該投手之身形樣貌，製作成造型可愛的搖頭公仔〈娃娃〉，並將該球員投球的英姿縮小成一吋相片大小，使用於其發行筆記本、拖鞋等商品，以增加商品的買氣，某乙的行為可能涉及那些智慧財產權？ 爭點解析 名人的身形樣貌受智慧財產保護否？搖頭公仔受何種智慧財產權保障？將名人身形樣貌予以縮小，使用於商品上涉及那些智慧財產權？ 結論 首先知名度〈名氣〉是那一種權利？我國有無保護名氣？是否名人才享有名氣的保護？簡單的說，名氣就是個人姓名財產化的保護，姓名在我國是人格權非財產權，而在美國名氣不僅是一種財產權，更是一種智慧財產權，其是由隱私權演化而來，而此種權利並非僅存在於名人，而係人人都有，只是通常名人才會去主張，一般人比較不會主張；試想一個默默無名的人，廠商會否將其姓名或樣貌使用於其商品或服務來做廣告行銷之用，以提升其買氣？即使廠商如此為之，若他人未得該人同意，將其姓名或樣貌使用於商品或服務上，係增加該人的名氣，即使有所侵害，該人亦不會因之興訟。美國之所以將名氣認定為財產權，主要是因為財產權可以讓與或繼承，一旦認定為人格權，在權利的行使上就受到限縮，而不可否認的是，肖像或姓名這些屬於人格權範疇的權利，在利用上不可諱言地產生財產上利益，已非僅具人格權性質乃是不爭的事實，然在我國因受限於歐陸法系框架，仍堅守樣貌或姓名屬於人格權，對人民權利的保護實屬不周。據此；本題乙將甲的樣貌身形製作成搖頭公仔，可解釋成侵害甲的肖像權，但限於甲生存時才可以依民法相關規定主張財產上和非財產上損害而獲賠，至於搖頭公仔依著作權法第五條第一項各款著作內容例示〈行政命令〉，其中第二條〈四〉美術著作：包括繪畫…美術工藝品及其他之美術著作，可認定為美術工藝品而受著作權法保障。本題的乙雖有可能侵害甲的肖像權，但並不當然代表侵害著作權，端視該搖頭公仔是否為乙自行創作而定，畢竟侵害肖像權和著作權係兩碼子事，這點要特別分清楚。〈其餘部分待續〉 參拙著美國名人權法制研究
【 起訴事實 】 委任人甲原本於乙公司任職，離職後自行創業，不久乙公司竟稱甲所出版的教材，侵害乙公司專有之改作權、重製權、公開口述權及散布權，起訴請求甲應賠償500 萬元，並應將判決書以半版之篇幅（寬26公分、長35.5公分），刊登於中國時報、聯合報及自由時報之全國版頭版各一天，並應將本判決書全文以一頁之篇幅，刊登於商業週刊、天下雜誌及遠見雜誌各一期。........https://www.alicelaw.com.tw/cases_content.html?n=64