臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：運動形象權的法律經濟分析
作者：王凱立
作者(外文)：Kai-Li Wang
校院名稱：國立體育大學
系所名稱：體育研究所
指導教授：邱金松
葉公鼎
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2009
主題關鍵詞：運動；運動娛樂；形象權；形象公開權；賽局理論；寇氏定理；sport；sport entertainment；image rights；the right of publicity；game theory；Coase Theorem
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(1) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:38
為健全運動產業，界定清楚的運動形象權是一個可能的選項。本研究藉由文獻回顧，比較各種智慧財產權與運動產業的關聯，得出運動形象利益保護的必要性。本研究進一步比較各國立法例，瞭解到形象利益常以冒用行為、誹謗、一般人格權、隱私權、著作人格、或公開權來加以處理。我國法律對形象利益的保護，主要是透過侵權行為請求權基礎來進行的。在審視重要的法院判決後，發現我國主要乃遵循德國法的解釋方式，站在「人格尊嚴」的立場，透過一般人格權的擴張解釋來對形象權(在該案例為肖像權)的法益作保護。但是法院的判決對於損害賠償數額的認定仍有相當的不確定性。本研究嘗試從賽局的角度建立形象權的經濟模型。模型中認為形象利益的商業價值，是促使運動員從事「進階練習」而經紀人從事「長期經紀」的重要誘因；但這個商業價值的多寡，主要受到所創造形象利益的排他性程度而定；形象利益的分配比例也是重要因素。本研究先從策略式賽局來分析，考察各種法律制度下的最佳不合作均衡解為何。研究有幾點重要發現：
一、如果將形象利益視為公共資源，則運動員多半沒有誘因努力練習，而經紀人只有在排他性夠大時，才會進行長期經紀。
二、如果經紀人使用運動員形象利益後，補償移轉給運動員的非財產上損害太高，有可能使經紀人不願從事任何經紀活動。特別注意的是，這種偏向人格利益補償的分配，並不會改變運動員是否努力練習的誘因。
三、如果形象利益是以財產法則加以保護的話，經紀人將不願從事經紀，從而運動員因為沒有額外利益，故也不願進階練習。
四、比較好的方式是以補償法則進行對形象利益的保護。這個時候會受到補償比例的高低(β的大小)與排他性的強弱(γ的大小)所綜合影響。只要β與γ都夠大，運動員與經紀人都會努力。如果β與γ都太小，則兩者都不願努力。當β與γ兩者都在一個中間值時，由於運動員與經紀人的行為比較難預測，所以另以詳盡式賽局來分析。
在該分析下，如果讓運動員先決定行動策略，其將可能僅僅選擇基本練習，從而整體損失較大。本研究提出兩種解決這個問題的方法：
一、禁止運動員獲取短期經紀收益，除非運動員從事進階練習。
二、經紀人先行投入長期經紀所需額外投入的部份成本。(前提是有排他經紀權)
而在合作解的情況，即使交易成本很大(假設交易成本為外生變數)。只要排他性與分配比例不要同時都太小，在採取補償法則的前提下，還是有可能達到有效率的境界。否則運動員和經紀人將會面對比較激烈的分餅問題。如果假設交易成本為內生的，則一般認為財產法則是一個比較有效率的方式，但由於運動員與經紀人可能會面臨資訊成本偏高的情況，立法者對分配比率加以預設，可能是一種折衷方式。
本研究再進行了兩項實證研究。其中，對SBL第一季運動明星所做的實證分析顯示：運動員的受歡迎程度、主要是受到曝光度與運動員外貌的影響，和運動表現關連不大。這表示當前述模型所稱的排他性與分配比例無法拉高時，運動員可能會受不利之影響。
對CPBL觀眾進場人數的實證研究指出：運動員人氣、球隊組合、短期戰況激烈程度、賽程連續比賽之安排、星期與場地都是影響觀眾人數的因素。尤其是在控制交互作用的影響後，球隊的顯著性還是存在的。這顯示球隊對於運動產值的貢獻，還是有獨立於運動員存在的空間。因此，在進行運動員形象權管理時，考慮集團性利用的議題仍是有意義的。
To complete the sport industry, one possible option is to clearly define the sport image rights. This paper sets out to compare the correlation between each intellectual property right and the sport industry by literature review to figure out the necessity to protect the sport image benefit. This paper further compares the legislative norms of various countries, showing that image benefit is often handled under the name of passing off, defamation, general personality right, the right of privacy, moral right or the right of publicity. The Law of Taiwan R.O.C. resorts to tort as the base of the claims for the protection of the image benefit. Review on important court sentences reveals Taiwan’s compliance with German law for interpretation whereby the image rights (portrait right in this case) is being protected by virtue of extensive interpretation of personality rights in view of “human dignity.” Nevertheless, court judge of the amount of compensation for infringement remains uncertain in some degree. This research attempts to establish an economic model of image rights from the standpoint of game theory. The model suggests that the business value of image benefit serves to urge sportsmen to make ‘advanced practice’ and the agency brokers to maintain ‘long-term agency activity.’ The amount of that business value, however, depends on the degree of exclusivity of the created image benefit. The assigned proportion of image benefit also counts. This research will first utilize strategic form game to find out the optimal equilibrium solution of non-cooperation. Results show that:
1. With the image benefit deemed public resources, sportsmen would be less willing to keep practicing diligently and the agency broker would not perform long-term agency activity without sufficient degree of exclusivity.
2. In case the agency broker’s use of sportsmen’s image benefit incurs excessively high non-monetary loss transferred to the sportsmen, the agency broker may become unwilling to perform agency activities. It is interesting to note that such distribution of quasi-compensation for personality interests fails to change sportsmen’s willingness to keep practice diligently.
3. When property rules are utilized to protect image benefit, the agency broker will not be willing to perform the agency activity. Without extra benefit incurred, the sportsmen would accordingly be less willing to make advanced practice.
4. It may be better to apply liability rules to the protection of the image benefit. In so doing, it will be affected by the level of compensation proportion (level of β) and the degree of exclusivity (level of γ). Both the sportsman and the agency broker are willing to make efforts with sufficient levels of β and γ. On the contrary, insufficient levels of β and γ will render them unwilling to make efforts. When both of β and γ reach a median, extensive form game will be employed for analysis due to the unpredictability of the behavior of sportsman and the agency broker.
Under such analytic conditions, a sportsman, when allowed to determine the action strategy, may tend to choose to make basic practice, leading to overall loss by a large margin. Two solutions to such problem are proposed in this paper:
1. The sportsman is disallowed to obtain benefits from short-term agency activity unless the sportsman is willing to make advanced practice.
2. The agency broker prematurely introduces partial additional cost, which is required for long-term agency activity (under the premises of ownership of exclusive agency)
In terms of cooperative solution, despite the high transaction cost (assume that the transaction cost is an exogenous variable), efficiency can still be anticipated with liability rules applied as long as the exclusivity and the assigned proportion are not too low at the same time. Otherwise, the sportsman and the agency broker will be subject to a severer issue regarding interest distribution. Provided that the transaction cost is intrinsic, the property rules would be widely considered a more efficient method. In consideration of comparatively high information cost that may be faced by the sportsman and the agency broker, however, legislators may take an elastic measure by presetting the assigned proportion.
Two empirical studies were performed for this paper. One of them, as targeting the sports stars of SBL Season 1, shows that: the popularity of sportsmen is affected more by the exposure and their looks rather than the sports performance. It indicates that sportsmen may be subject to adverse influences due to failure to raise the exclusivity and assigned proportion as mentioned in the aforesaid models.
An empirical study on the number of CPBL spectators suggests that: factors such as player popularity, team match, short-term degree of competitiveness, continuous game play, days and venue all influence the number of spectators.
Especially, the significance of teams remains even with the influence of interaction controlled. It can be concluded that a team, as such, makes contribution independently to the sports industry as compared with the sportsmen. Therefore, it remains significant to take into consideration the application of a group to the management of sport image rights.
王文宇(2000a)：從經濟觀點論保障財產權的方式。載於王文宇編：民商法理論與經濟分析(一)(3-86頁)。台北：元照。new window
王文宇(2000b)：論契約法預設規定的功能─以衍生損害的賠償規定為例。載於王文宇編：民商法理論與經濟分析(一)(163-198頁)。台北：元照。new window
王文宇、鄭中人(2007)：從經濟觀點論智慧財產權的定位與保障方式。月旦法學雜誌，147期，167-200頁。
王澤鑑(2001)：侵權行為法第一冊：基本理論一般侵權行為。台北：自印。
王澤鑑(2002)：債法原理(二)：不當得利。台北：自印。
王澤鑑(2006)：法律思維與民法實例：請求權基礎理論體系。台北：自印。new window
何正偉(2008)：Fantasy Sports Game 之法律問題研究：以著作權與形象權保護為中心。法律研究所碩士論文(未出版)。台中：逢甲大學。
吳漢東(2004)：形象的商品化與商品化的形象權。法學，10，77-89頁。
李亦伸、蔡裕隆、方正東(2005，9月29日)：侵犯肖像權可能賠天價。民生報，A3版。
李明德(2003)：美國形象權法研究。環球法律評論，冬季號。
林慧婷(2007)：第四季超級籃球聯賽球隊戰績表現潛力與排名之分析研究。大專體育學刊，9卷3期，47-55頁。new window
林聰毅(2003，5月17日)：搶姚明代言 可口、百事鬧雙包。聯合報，C3版。
洪偉鈞(2007)：中華職棒主場優勢之研究。論文發表於2007年全國體育運動學術團體聯合年會既學術研討會論文，台北市，國立臺灣大學。
段榮芳(2006)：運動員肖像權保護的法律分析─從個案引申出來的法律問題談起。體育與科學，27卷4期，77-80頁。
徐彬彬(2004)：論商品化權。法律研究所碩士論文(未出版)。上海：華東政法學院。
張芳文(2005)：超級籃球聯賽攻防技術與成績表現之迴歸分析。東南學報，28輯，467-472頁。new window
張建、張書御(2005)：超級籃球聯賽勝負隊間攻防動作技能區別分析。致理學報，20輯，305-313頁。
陳靜宜(2008，8月28日)：維力大欺小？小妹妹要告。聯合報，A6版。
彭仁暉(2006)：中華職棒競爭平衡之研究。運動與休閒管理研究所碩士論文(未出版)。台北：國立台灣師範大學。
程合紅(2002)：商事人格權論：人格權的經濟利益內涵及期實現與保護。北京：中國人民大學出版社。
黃瑋如(2006)：形象權之保護及其限制。法律研究所碩士論文(未出版)。台中：逢甲大學。
楊東遠(2005)：以傳播觀點探討SBL超級籃球聯賽。輔仁大學體育學刊，4期，309-325頁。new window
廖清海、邱義松(2005)：從傳播符號理論看運動競賽的傳播意義。輔仁大學體育學刊，4期，326-341頁。new window
廖清海、陳景森、張志成(2007)：運動表現與報紙曝光率之關聯性探討：以蘋果日報刊載第三屆超級籃球聯賽照片為例。體育學報，40卷1期，63-76頁。new window
趙豫(2005)：運動員形象權的法律保護。體育學刊，12卷2期， 17-20頁。
劉江彬(2004)：智慧財產法律與管理案例評析(二)。台北：華泰。
劉進(2007)：歐洲國家對運動員形象權的法律保護。體育學刊，14卷7期，27-31頁。
蔣憶德(2005)：2003年大邱世界大學運動會籃球賽攻守技術分析之研究。體育學報，38卷2期，137-149頁。new window
鄭中人(2004)：論我國著作權法上之使用報酬請求權。月旦法學雜誌，105期，92-107。
鄭智仁(2006)：高中女子籃球聯賽攻守技術分析及影響比賽勝負因素之研究。大專體育學刊，8卷2期，121-131頁。new window
蕭白雪(2007a，5月1日)：一朗告侵權 廠商判賠500萬。聯合報，A12版。
蕭白雪(2007b，11月28日)：台灣不太熟？：侵鈴木一朗像 賠金砍400萬。聯合報，A14版。
謝銘洋(2008)：智智慧財產權法。台北：元照。
關中烈(2004)：姚明肖像權糾紛的法律思考。廣西政法管理幹部學院學報，19卷4期，90-92頁。
Ayres, I., & Talley, E. (1995). Solomonic bargaining: Dividing a legal entitlement to facilitate Coasean Trade. Yale Law Journal, 104 , 1027.
Baird, D. G., Gertner, R. H., & Picker, R. C. (1994). Game theory and the law. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Beverley-Smith, H. (2002). The commercial appropriction of personality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Beverley-Smith, H., Ohly, A., & Lucas-Schloetter, A. (2005). Privacy, property and personality: Civil law perspectives on commercial appropriation. Cambridge: Cambridge Universiy Press.
Biddle, J. E., & Hamermesh, D. S. (1998). Beauty, productivity, and discrimination: Lawyers’ looks and lucre. Journal of Labor Economics, 16(1), 172-201.
Blackshaw, I. (2006). Intellectual property rights and sport. In S. Gardiner (Ed.), Sports Law (pp. 399-431). New York: Routledge-Cavendish.
Blackshaw, I. S., & Siekmann, R. C. R. (Eds.). (2005). Sports image rights in Europe. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Calabresi, G., & Melamed, A. (1972). Property rules, liability rules, and inalienability: One view of the Cathedral. Harvard Law Review, 85, 1089.
Carl, A. I. (1998). Be a good sport and refrain from using my patented putt: Intellectual property protection for sports related movements. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, 80, 808.
Coase, R. H. (1959). The federal communications commission. Journal of Law and Economics, 2, 1-40.
Coase, R. H. (1960). The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics, 3, 1-44.
Coase, R. H. (1990). Notes on the problem of socail cost. In R. H. Coase (Ed.), The firm, the market, and the law (pp. 157-186). Chicage: University of Chicago Press.
Cooter, R., & Ulen, T. (2004). Law and economics (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Cunningham, M. R. (1986). Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: Quasi-experiments on the sociobiology of female facial beauty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(5), 925-935.
Cunningham, M. R. (1990). What do women want? Facialmetric. assessment of multiple motives in the perception of male facial physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(1), 61-72.
Davenport, T. H., & Beck, J. C. (2001). The attention economy: Understanding the new currency of business. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Deloitte & Touche Sport. (2001). Deloitte & Touche Sport Analysis.
Etcoff, N. (2000). Survival of the prettiest: The science of beauty. New York: Anchor Books.
Forrest, D., & Simmons, R. (2002). Outcome uncertainty and attendance demand in sport: The case of English soccer. The Statistician, 51(2), 229-241.
Fort, R., & Rosenman, R. (2001). Attendance and uncertainty of outcome in Major League Baseball. Unpublished Manuscript. Washington State University.
Halpern, S. W. (1995). The law of defamation, privacy, publicity, and moral right: Cases and materials on proection of personality interests (3rd. ed.). Columbus, Ohio: JPm books.
Hamermesh, D. S., & Biddle, J. E. (1994). Beauty and the labor market. The American Economic Review, 84(5), 1174-1194.
Hausman, J. A., & Leonard. G. K. (1997). Superstars in the Natonal Basketball Association: Economic value and policy. Journal of Labor Economics, 15(4), 586-624.
Lee, Y. H. (2004). Competitive balance and attendance in Japanese. Korean, and U.S. professional baseball leagues. In R. Fort & J. Fizel (Eds.), International comparisons in sports economics (pp. 281-291). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Lypzic, D. (2000). Copyright and neighboring rights. New York: UNESCO.
McCarthy, J. T. (1995). The rights of publicity and privacy (Vo1.1)。 Thomson West.
Mullin, B. J., Hardy, S., & Sutton, W. A. (2000). Sport marketing (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers.
Persico, N., Postlewaite. A., & Silverman. D. (2004). The effect of adolescent experience on labor market outcomes: The case of height. Journal of Political Economy, 112(5), 1019-1053.
Pfann, G. A., Biddle, J. E., Hamermesh, D. S., & Bosmand, C. M. (2002). Business success and businesses’ beauty capital. Economics Letters, 67(2), 201-207.
Pinckaers, J. C. S. (1996). From privacy toward a new intellectual property right in persona: The right of publicity (United States) and portrait law (Netherlands) balance with freedom of speech and free trade principles. Cambridge, MA: Kluwer Law International.
Shavell, S. (2004). Foundations of economic analysis of law. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Smart, B. (2005). The sport star: Modern sport and the cultural economy of sporting celebrity. London: SAGE Publications.
Stigler, G. J. (1972). The law and economics of public policy: A plea to the scholars. The Journal of Legal Studies, 1(1), 1-12.
Thorndike, E. L. (1920). A constant error in psychological rating. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 25-29.
Wann, D. L., Melnick, M. J., Russell, G. W., & Pease, D. G. (2001). Sport Fans: The psycology and social impact of spectators. London: Routledge.
Welki, A. M., & Zlatoper, T. J. (1994). US professional football: The demand for game-day attendance in 1991. Managerial and Decision Economics, 15(5), 489-495.
Welki, A. M., & Zlatoper., T. J. (1999). U.S. professional football game-day attendance. American Economics Journal, 27(3), 285-298.
Whannel, G. (2002). Media sport stars: Masculinities and moralities. London: Routledge.
Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2, Pt.2), 1-27.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：474（臺灣：468，外國：6） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1669892 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67462736
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上