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）
In what the plaintiff called a “nearly identical” case filed at the beginning of 2019, Hadid similarly copied and posted a paparazzi photo of herself, owned by Xclusive-Lee, Inc., to one of her social media accounts without license or permission from the copyright owner. Xclusive-Lee, Inc. v. Hadid, 1:19-cv-00520-PKC-CLP (E.D.N.Y. 2019). 於2019年年初，哈蒂重製一張由狗仔對所攝含有她自己的照片並上傳於其社群網頁，而該照片之著作權人為Xclusive-Lee, Inc.,該公司遂以“幾近相同”為由，對之提起侵害著作財產權訴訟。 Aside from bringing the same claim as Cepeda, Xclusive also notes that Hadid had first-hand knowledge that what she was doing constituted copyright infringement since she had been sued for the same thing just two years prior. The district court dismissed this case due to a lack of a copyright registration, though Hadid’s legal team also raised the defenses of fair use and implied license. The second case may have begun paving the way for future legal challenges to clarify these issues by raising a novel argument—implied license—alongside the more typical defense of fair use. Perhaps the time has come for these arguments to finally be decided by the court since Hadid has been sued yet again—this time for posting a photographer’s copyrighted photo of her former boyfriend and singer/songwriter, Zayn Malik, without license or permission. O’Neil v. Hadid, 1:19-cv-8522 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). An initial pretrial conference is scheduled for January 14, 2020.以上中文譯文，為本人所譯；請尊重著作權，違法利用，本人必究。
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.
知名連鎖服飾遭同行假藉違反商標法提告，經律師協助迅速取回遭查扣數萬件服飾並獲不起訴處分。
Rights & Licenses 權利及授權 [Sender.Name] is requesting the exclusive right and license to utilize this name in connection with the advertisement, promotion, and sale of their product. This contract is an agreement for those rights and services with the following terms being in place. 被授權者（下稱甲）要求專屬權及被授權利用權利者（下稱乙）之姓名於廣告行銷與銷售產品。本契約係依根據下列條款所為係爭權利與服務之協議。 [Endorser.Name] will provide rights for [Sender.Company] to hold all exclusive rights and licenses needed during the term of [Agreement.Term]. including the ability for use of any nicknames, initials, autographs, photographs, or any other property in relation to the advertisement or sale of mentioned product. 在契約期間，乙將專屬授權與甲，包括有權去利用任何乙之別名、藝名、簽名，照片或其他任何與廣告行銷有關之財產或本契約提及之銷售產品。 Endorsement Agreement Effective Date 代言契約生效日 This agreement shall become effective as of signature dates below and will remain effective for a term of 12 months unless prematurely terminated for failure to comply with any of the terms or conditions listed in this agreement. 本契約於下簽名日時生效，並於簽名生效後12個月為契約期間，除非契約任一方有違約情事，於預先終止本契約，否則契約仍有效存續。 Payment of Royalties 給付權利金 [Sender.Company] agrees to pay all royalties due from sales of such products as agreed between parties.Any and all royalties owed will be due on a yearly basis and shall be payable no later than thirty (30) days after the termination of the preceding full calendar quarter. For each royalty period due [Sender.Comany] will provide endorser with written notice of all royalties as well as any and all descriptions of Products that were sold during the Royalty Period or whether any actual Royalty was owed. “Net Sales” shall mean [Sender.Company] gross sales of Product, excluding all customary discounts and allowances as well as returns. The receipt or acceptance by [Endorser.LegalName] for above mentioned statement or payment shall not prevent Endorser from challenging or requesting proof of such document findings. Any and all obligations for the payment of Royalties shall survive expiration or termination of this Agreement and will continue for as long as Endorsed Constructor continues to sell the Product or payment is owed. In the event of underpayment to endorser for any and all royalties, endorser will bill for all royalties as well as interest fees in relation for said royalties.
蘇思鴻律師
許志嘉律師
