:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:拒絕被影射的權利?--從德國、美國二則判決看文學創作自由與人格權之頡頏
書刊名:國立中正大學法學集刊
作者:方瑋晨
作者(外文):Fang, Wei-chen
出版日期:2014
卷期:45
頁次:頁75-138
主題關鍵詞:影射小說個人傳記藝術自由言論自由人格權名譽權隱私權基本權利衝突Roman a clefAutobiographical novelFreedom of artFreedom of speechRight of personalityRight of reputationRight of privacy
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(0) 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:54
  • 點閱點閱:104
文學作品經常反映當代的社會狀況,若該文學作品的性質為影射小說或個人傳記時,此類作品將大量描寫人與人之間的互動,作者必須大量描寫出各種場景、人物間關係及互動。由於此類作品的刻劃取決於作者個人想法、生活經驗及價值判斷,故此類型文學作品將與真實世界的人、事、物高度雷同。由於此類型文學作品具有「與真實世界高度相似」、「以真實人物作為基礎」兩大特色,因此書中角色很容易被讀者連結至真實人物,讀者在閱讀該文學作品後,有可能先入為主的認為書中的所有描述皆為事實,將可能侵害被影射者的權利。此際,我們將遇到一個兩難的狀況,作者在撰寫此類文學作品時,基於其個人經驗及言論自由,實難以避免利用真實世界架構小說內容。但若在書中對於特定角色有負面描寫時,又將造成該角色所連結到的真實人物人格、名譽上的損害。此時小說作者的文學作品創作自由與被影射者的人格權,即處於糾葛難分,互相衝突的緊張關係。本文由兩則案例出發,逐步探討並描繪出德國與美國之憲法規範與憲政司法實務上對於此類事件之處理理路、態度、思考模式之異同。並於判決介紹後,聚焦於本文之核心關懷者,逐項討論。進而分析探討此類型事件司法者於基本權利衡量可能的出路。
Literary works often reflect the situation of the present society and the present days. Especially the autobiographical novel and the roman a clef use the interaction of real characters as the main theme, bringing out the circumstance and interpersonal relationship of the characters in the book. Because of the autobiographical novel and the roman a clef should base on author's individual will, life experience and personal value. For this reason, this kind of literary works always, inevitably, highly similar to the real facts. As the above-noted, these kind of literary works often have the condition of "highly similar to real person" and "being based on real story." Therefore, the characters inside the books will be connected to specific real person by readers. Readers will presume the real person's life experience by the novel and will encroach on real person's rights. We will be struck by a dilemma. When the author writes the novel, he must build the fictional world by real world. This is the expression of his own personal will and his right of expression and right of speech. However, when it comes to the person who is insinuated by the novel, the disclosure about real character's private information will violate privacy and reputation. This article begins by introducing and examining two cases that provide a window into contemporary privacy tort law in the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany. The subject matter of the cases also proves quite similar; in each, a plaintiff object to an author's sharing of intimate details about him or her with the public. The American decision, Bonome v. Kaysen, concerned a memoir that revealed numerous intimate details of the author's life with plaintiff. The German decision, the Esra opinion, concerned a novel that depicted the author's relationship with his girlfriend and included many intimate details about them.
期刊論文
1.許家馨(20120800)。言論自由與名譽權的探戈--我國名譽侵權法實務與理論之回顧與前瞻。政大法學評論,128,203-260。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.Bloustein, Edward J.(1964)。Privacy as an Aspect of Human Dignity: An Answer to Dean Prosser。N.Y.U.L.R.,39,962-1007。  new window
3.甘大空(200511)。公眾人物隱私權與新聞採訪、報導自由的衝突與其解決之硏究。司法硏究年報,25。  延伸查詢new window
4.徐筱菁(20140100)。兒少保護法作為藝術自由之限制。東吳法律學報,25(3),1-36。new window  延伸查詢new window
5.Schwartz, Paul M.、Peifer, Karl-Nikolaus(2010)。Prosser's Privacy and the German Right of Personality: Are Four Privacy Torts Better than One Unitary Concept?。California Law Review,98,1925-1987。  new window
6.李念祖(20110700)。王煒博先生就社會秩序維護法第89條第2款規定有違憲疑義聲請憲法解釋鑑定意見。憲政時代,37(1),43-65。  延伸查詢new window
7.Solove, Daniel J.(2006)。A taxonomy of privacy。University of Pennsylvania Law Review,154(3),477-560。  new window
8.蔡宗珍(20100900)。法律保留思想及其發展的制度關聯要素探微。國立臺灣大學法學論叢,39(3),1-68。new window  延伸查詢new window
9.王澤鑑(20060400)。人格權保護的課題與展望(2)--憲法上人格權與私法上人格權。臺灣本土法學雜誌,81,89-108。  延伸查詢new window
10.Prosser, William L.(1960)。Privacy。California Law Review,48(3),383-423。  new window
11.王澤鑑(20070800)。人格權保護的課題與展望(3)--人格權的具體化及保護範圍(6):隱私權。臺灣本土法學雜誌,97,27-50。  延伸查詢new window
12.Christian Starck、蔡宗珍(20120101)。基本權與法律的一段發展史[專題演講]。臺灣法學雜誌,191,10-25。  延伸查詢new window
13.Warren, Samuel D.、Brandeis, Louis D.(1890)。The Right to Privacy。Harvard Law Review,4(5),193-220。  new window
學位論文
1.林佳蓉(1998)。藝術補助與言論自由--以美國相關憲法判決之研究為中心(碩士論文)。東吳大學。  延伸查詢new window
2.黃松茂(2008)。人格權之財產性質--以人格特徵之商業利用為中心(碩士論文)。臺灣大學。  延伸查詢new window
3.林昱梅(1993)。藝術自由之研究--藝術自由之保障、限制與藝術之扶助(碩士論文)。輔仁大學。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.Solove, Daniel J.(2007)。The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the Internet。Yale University Press。  new window
2.王澤鑑(2012)。人格權法--法釋義學、比較法、案例分析。台北:王澤鑑。  延伸查詢new window
圖書論文
1.Starck, Christian、陳愛娥(201110)。學術的責任。法的起源。元照。  延伸查詢new window
2.Starck, Christian、蔡宗珍(201110)。憲法法學、規範審查與憲法解釋。法的起源。台北:元照。  延伸查詢new window
3.王韻茹譯(201105)。變性人改名裁定。德國聯邦憲法法院裁判選輯。司法院。  延伸查詢new window
4.吳綺雲(200410)。摩洛哥卡洛琳公主案。德國聯邦憲法法院裁判選輯。司法院。  延伸查詢new window
5.李建良(200907)。人權維護者的六十回顧與時代挑戰。憲法解釋之理論與實務。新學林。  延伸查詢new window
6.林昱梅(200610)。表示自己姓名之權裁定。德國聯邦憲法法院裁判選輯。司法院。  延伸查詢new window
7.張懿云(199906)。日記證據案判決。德國聯邦憲法法院裁判選輯。司法院。  延伸查詢new window
8.李建良、陳新民(199211)。梅菲斯特案--藝術自由與人格權的法益權衡。基本人權與憲法裁判。永然文化。  延伸查詢new window
9.程明修(201105)。多重意涵的言論表達及前邦總理名譽保護案之判決。德國聯邦憲法法院裁判選輯。司法院。  延伸查詢new window
10.蕭文生(199105)。一九八三人口普查案判決。西德聯邦憲法法院裁判選輯。司法院。  延伸查詢new window
11.陳耀祥(2002)。論廣播電視中犯罪事實之報導與人格權保障之衝突--以德國聯邦憲法法院之雷巴赫裁判為討論核心。當代公法新論(上)--翁岳生教授七秩誕辰祝壽論文集。臺北市:元照。new window  延伸查詢new window
12.林子儀(2002)。言論自由之理論基礎。言論自由與新聞自由。臺北:元照。new window  延伸查詢new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE