Haƙƙoƙin ɗabi'a

Daga Wikipedia, Insakulofidiya ta kyauta.
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Haƙƙoƙin ɗabi'a, wani lokacin ake Kira da haƙƙin tallatawa, haƙƙoƙi ne ga mutum don sarrafa kasuwancin kasuwanci na ainihin mutum, kamar suna, hoto, kamanni, ko wasu abubuwan ganowa marasa tabbas. Gabaɗaya ana ɗaukarsu azaman haƙƙin mallaka, maimakon haƙƙoƙin mutum, Kuma don haka ingancin haƙƙoƙin tallatawa na iya tsira daga mutuwar mutum zuwa digiri daban-daban, ya danganta da hurumi.

Rabewa[gyara sashe | Gyara masomin]

Haƙƙoƙin ɗan adam gabaɗaya ana ɗaukarsu sun ƙunshi nau'ikan haƙƙoƙi guda biyu: haƙƙin tallatawa, [1] ko yancin kiyaye hoton mutum da kamanninsa daga yin kasuwanci ba tare da izini ba ko diyya na kwangila, wanda yayi kama da (amma ba iri ɗaya ba) da amfani da alamar kasuwanci ; da haƙƙin keɓantawa, ko haƙƙin a bar shi kaɗai kuma ba a ba da wakilcin mutum a bainar jama'a ba tare da izini ba. Sannan kima A cikin hukunce-hukuncen shari'a na gama gari, haƙƙoƙin tallatawa suna faɗuwa a cikin yanayin da ake aikatawa . Hukuncin shari'a na Amurka ya tsawaita wannan haƙƙin sosai.

Shaidar da aka saba bayyanawa ga wannan koyaswar, ta fuskar siyasa, ita ce ra'ayi na haƙƙin halitta da ra'ayin cewa kowane mutum ya kamata ya sami 'yancin sarrafa yadda wani ɓangare na uku ke tallata haƙƙin tallarsa, idan ma. Sannan Sau da yawa, ko da yake ba koyaushe ba ne, abin da ke motsa yin irin wannan tallace-tallace shine don taimakawa wajen haɓaka tallace-tallace ko ganuwa ga samfur ko sabis, wanda yawanci yakan kai wani nau'i na maganganun kasuwanci [2] (wanda hakan ke karɓar mafi ƙarancin matakin binciken shari'a. ).

Dokar farar hula da hukunce-hukuncen shari'a[gyara sashe | Gyara masomin]

Tsarin shari'a na duniya: dokar farar hula cikin shuɗi, dokar gama gari cikin ja.

Ya bambanta da hukunce-hukuncen doka na gama-gari, mafi yawan hukunce-hukuncen dokokin farar hula suna da takamaiman tanadin kundin tsarin jama'a waɗanda ke kare hoton mutum, Kuma bayanan sirri da sauran bayanan sirri gabaɗaya. An keɓance keɓancewa daga waɗannan gabaɗayan haƙƙoƙin sirri da yawa yayin mu'amala da labarai da manyan jama'a. Don ne haka, yayin da zai iya keta sirrin ɗan ƙasa don yin magana game da bayanan likitan su, galibi ana barin mutum ya ba da rahoton ƙarin cikakkun bayanai a cikin rayuwar mashahurai da 'yan siyasa.

Ba kamar yawancin hukunce-hukuncen shari'a ba, haƙƙoƙin mutumtaka a cikin dokar farar hula gabaɗaya ne gada, don haka mutum na iya yin da'awar a kan wanda ya mamaye sirrin dangin da ya rasu idan irin wannan ɗaba'ar ta ruɗe ta.

Common law world.png

Haƙƙoƙin ɗabi'a sun samo asali ne daga ƙa'idodin doka na gama-gari na dukiya, cin zarafi da azabtarwa da gangan . Don haka haƙƙoƙin mutumtaka, gaba ɗaya magana, doka ce ta alƙali, kodayake akwai hukunce-hukuncen da wasu ɓangarori na haƙƙoƙin mutumci suke bisa ka'ida. A wasu hukunce-hukuncen, haƙƙoƙin tallatawa da haƙƙin keɓantawa ba a bambance su a fili ba, sannan kuma ana amfani da kalmar haƙƙin talla gabaɗaya. A cikin shari'ar haƙƙin talla, batun yanke shawara shine ko za a yaudari wani muhimmin sashe na jama'a don gaskata (ba daidai ba) cewa an kammala tsarin kasuwanci tsakanin mai ƙara da wanda ake tuhuma wanda a ƙarƙashinsa wanda mai ƙara ya amince da tallan da ya shafi hoton ko sunan wani shahararren mutum. Bambancin da za a iya aiwatarwa yana buƙatar shawara cewa mai ƙara ya amince ko ba da lasisin samfuran wanda ake tuhuma, Kuma ko ta yaya zai iya sarrafa waɗannan samfuran. Ana yin hakan ta hanyar ɓacin rai .

An fi kwatanta ma'anar doka ta manyan lamurra a kan batun.

takamaiman hukunce-hukuncen ƙasa[gyara sashe | Gyara masomin]

Ostiraliya[gyara sashe | Gyara masomin]

A Ostiraliya, ƙungiyoyin ƙarya ko amincewa ana iya aiwatar da su ta hanyar dokar wucewa, ba wata doka ta daban ta "haƙƙin mutumtaka". Shari'ar Henderson [3] yanke shawara ce ta Kotun Koli ta New South Wales (dukansu na farko da ikon daukaka kara). Masu shigar da karar ’yan rawa ne na ball kuma sun kai karar wanda ake karar da laifin wucewar laifin da ake zargin ya wallafa hotonsu bisa kuskure a bangon rikodin gramophone mai suna Strictly for Dancing: Vol. 1 . Kuma An ba da umarnin a kan cewa amfani ya ba da shawarar masu gabatar da kara sun ba da shawarar ko sun amince da kayan wanda ake tuhuma, ko kuma suna da alaƙa da kayan.

Duk da haka, a cikin shari'ar 1988 na Honey v Australian Airlines, Gary Honey, wani sanannen dan wasan Australia ya gaza a yunkurinsa na samun kyautar diyya bayan da ƙasar Australian Airlines ya yi amfani da hotonsa a kan wani fosta ba tare da izininsa ba. Alkalin ya rike, a zahiri, cewa hoton ya nuna kyawu a gaba daya maimakon wani mutum.

Kanada[gyara sashe | Gyara masomin]

Kariyar doka[gyara sashe | Gyara masomin]

Lardunan British Columbia, Manitoba, Newfoundland da Labrador, da Saskatchewan sun kafa dokar keɓancewa da ke hulɗa da haƙƙin mutum, waɗanda ke da halaye masu zuwa: [4]

  1. Ana iya samun rabon ɗabi'a ta hanyar amfani da sunan mutum, kamanni, ko muryar mutum (amma British Columbia tana da ma'anar takurawa).
  2. Dole ne a gano mai ƙara ko a iya gane shi ta hanyar amfani da mutumcinsa.
  3. Wani mataki don rabon mutuntaka zai iya yin nasara ne kawai a inda wanda ake tuhuma ya yi niyyar aikata ba daidai ba (amma British Columbia ba ta da buƙatun "nufin").
  4. Amfani da wanda ake tuhuma na mutum mai ƙara dole ne ya haifar da riba ko fa'ida ga wanda ake tuhuma (amma British Columbia yana da ma'anar takurawa, wanda ya shafi riba kawai).
  5. Ana iya aiwatar da rabon mutum ba tare da tabbacin lalacewa ba.
  6. Haƙƙin yin aiki don karkatar da mutumci yana ƙarewa bayan mutuwar mutumin da aka keta sirrinsa.
  7. Abubuwan da ke zuwa sun zama kariyar doka a duk larduna huɗu: (i) cewa mai ƙara ya yarda da yin amfani da mutuminsa; (ii) cewa yin amfani da mutumin da ya shigar da kara ya kasance mai haɗari ga amfani da Kuma haƙƙin kare mutum ko dukiya; (iii) cewa an ba da izini ko buƙatar amfani a ƙarƙashin dokar lardi ko ta kotu, ko kowane tsari na kotu; da (iv) cewa aikin ya kasance na jami'in zaman lafiya da ke aiki a cikin ayyukansa. Dokar Manitoba tana ba da ƙarin tsaro.

Lardunan dokokin gama gari[gyara sashe | Gyara masomin]

Dokar gama gari ta Kanada ta amince da iyakacin haƙƙin mutum. An fara yarda da shi a cikin shawarar 1971 na Ontario na Krouse v. Chrysler Canada Ltd., inda Kotun ta yanke hukuncin cewa inda mutum yana da kimar kasuwa a kamannin su kuma an yi amfani da shi ta hanyar da ta nuna amincewa da samfur to akwai dalilai na yin aiki a cikin dacewa da mutuntaka. Daga baya an fadada wannan haƙƙin a cikin Athans v. Kanad Adventure Camps a shekarata (1977) inda Kotun ta yanke hukuncin cewa haƙƙin haƙƙin mutum ya haɗa da hoto da suna.

A cikin Gould Estate v. Stoddart Publishing Co. Ltd. a shekarata (1998), Kotun Daukaka Kara ta Ontario ta kammala da cewa kawai yin rubutu game da wani, ko da don samun riba, ba ya haɗa da mutuntaka.

Har ila yau ana ci gaba da aiwatar da hukuncin kisa na mutuntaka,to amma a halin yanzu[yaushe?] ana jayayya cewa za a gane shi a duk lardunan doka, [4] tare da wasu halaye: [4]

  1. Athans ya tabbatar da cewa akwai "haƙƙin mallaka a cikin keɓantaccen tallace-tallace don samun damar halayensa, siffarsa da sunansa. . ."
  2. Koyaushe akwai abin da ake buƙata cewa mai ƙara ya kasance a iya gane shi.
  3. Matakin da za a yi don karɓo halin mutum zai kasance da gangan don mai ƙara ya murmure a dokar gama gari.
  4. Akwai wata bukata cewa wanda ake tuhuma dole ne ya yi aiki don manufar kasuwanci, amma Gould ya nuna cewa ana iya iyakance wannan ga "lala'i irin na amincewa".
  5. Wani al'amari na rashin tabbas ko dokar gama-gari na cin zarafin mutum na iya aiwatar da ita ko dai ko kuma dole ne a nuna barna.
  6. Ana kashe haƙƙoƙin keɓantawa yayin mutuwa, amma haƙƙoƙin mutumci na gado.
  7. Wanda ake tuhuma ba zai kasance abin dogaro ba don rabon mutuntaka a dokar gama gari inda: (i) ya yarda da amfani da mutumcinsa; (ii) Amfani da haƙƙinsa na mutumtaka ya kasance kawai ta hanyar wani dalili; ko (iii) littafin ya kasance wani al'amari na maslahar jama'a.

Quebec[gyara sashe | Gyara masomin]

A cikin shekarata 1994, sabuwar dokar farar hula ta Quebec ta gabatar da sabbin tanadi waɗanda ke ba da haƙƙin keɓantawa a matsayin sifa ta mutumtaka:

A cikin Aubry v Éditions Vice-Versa Inc, Kotun Koli ta Kanada ta kuma tabbatar da cewa a ƙarƙashin Dokar Haƙƙin Dan Adam da 'Yanci na Quebec, Kuma mai daukar hoto na iya ɗaukar hotuna a wuraren jama'a amma ba zai iya buga hoton ba sai dai idan an sami izini daga batun., sai dai inda batun ya bayyana a cikin kwatsam, Sannna ko wanda nasarar sana'arsa ta dogara da ra'ayin jama'a. Abubuwan da suka dace na Yarjejeniyar sune:

Don haka, ana iya zana waɗannan halaye na gaba ɗaya: [4]

  1. Ana iya samun cancantar halin mutum ta hanyar amfani da sunan mutum, kamanninsa, ko muryarsa.
  2. Dole ne a gane wanda ya shigar da karar domin a iya tantance mutumtaka ta zama mai aiki.
  3. Babu bukatar kotuna su nemi wani bangare na niyya.
  4. Bambance-bambancen da suka danganci dalilai na kasuwanci ba su da mahimmanci, kuma sun saba da s 9.1 na Yarjejeniya ta Quebec.
  5. Ana buƙatar mai gabatar da ƙara ya nuna cewa ta sami lahani ta hanyar karɓe haƙƙin ɗan adam.
  6. Dokokin Quebec na iya ba da izinin ɗaukar wani mataki ta hanyar mallakar wani mamaci, Kuma muddin za a iya tabbatar da cewa akwai wani al'amari na ubanci a cikin gungumen azaba.
  7. Wanda ake tuhuma ba zai kasance abin dogaro ba don rabon mutuntaka a ƙarƙashin dokar Quebec inda: (i) mai gabatar da ƙara ya yarda a fili ko a fake don rabon halayensa; (ii) yin amfani da mutuniyar mutum ya saba da wata manufa; (iii) doka ta ba da izini ga rabon mutuntaka; ko (iv) bugawa al'amari ne da ya shafi al'umma baki daya.

Cyprus[gyara sashe | Gyara masomin]

A Cyprus, mutanen da aka nuna a cikin hotuna suna iya adawa da amfani da su a tallace-tallace da kuma buga su a cikin mujallu, ko kuma da an ɗauka a wurin jama'a.

Denmark[gyara sashe | Gyara masomin]

A Denmark, Kundin Penal Code surori 26 da 27, Kuma sun ba da wasu haƙƙoƙin mutumci. Hukumar Kare Bayanai ta Danish na gwamnati, ta ba da sanarwar game da bugawa a Intanet na hotunan da aka ɗauka a wurin jama'a:

Babban abin da ake magana a kai, shine duk wani bugu na hoton hoto yana buƙatar yarda [na mutumin da aka kwatanta]. Babban Dalilin wannan shine, irin wannan littafin na iya ba wa wanda aka zana rashin jin daɗi, mai yiwuwa tare da wasu bayanai kamar suna, na bugawa ga duk wanda ke da damar yin amfani da intanet, kuma ana la'akari da wannan rashin jin daɗi a matsayin mafi mahimmanci fiye da yuwuwar sha'awar bugawa.

An bayyana hoton hoto azaman hoto, tare da manufar kwatanta takamaiman mutum ɗaya ko fiye. Sannna Kuma Duk da haka ana iya ba da kwangilar haƙƙoƙin mutum don mutanen da aka yarda da su gabaɗaya a matsayin jama'a.

Faransa[gyara sashe | Gyara masomin]

A Faransa ana kiyaye haƙƙin ɗan adam a ƙarƙashin sashi na tara 9 na kundin farar hula na Faransa. Duk da yake ba a ba da kariya ga bayanan da aka sani a bainar jama'a da kuma hotunan jiga-jigan jama'a ba, yin amfani da hoton wani ko tarihin kansa an aiwatar da shi a ƙarƙashin dokar Faransa. Kuma Shahararriyar shari'ar da ta fi shahara a tarihin kwanan nan ita ce watakila buga littafin a kan François Mitterrand da ake kira Le Grand Secret wanda likitan Mitterrand ya buga wani littafi wanda ba wai kawai ya bayyana bayanan sirri game da rayuwar Mitterrand ba, har ma ya bayyana amintattun likitocin da likita ke kiyaye shi – gata mai hakuri .

Jamus[gyara sashe | Gyara masomin]

A Jamus ana kiyaye haƙƙin ɗan adam a ƙarƙashin kundin tsarin mulkin Jamus, inda manufar "cikakken mutum na tarihin zamani" ya ba da damar kwatanta daidaikun mutane waɗanda suke cikin tarihi amma har yanzu suna ba su wasu kariya daga haƙƙinsu na sirri a wajen jama'a. KumanAna iya samun taƙaitaccen bayani na dokar Jamus a cikin bayanin shari'a mai zuwa daga shari'ar Marlene Dietrich : an amince da haƙƙin ɗan adam gabaɗaya a cikin shari'ar Bundesgerichtshof tun shekarata 1954 a matsayin ainihin haƙƙin tsarin mulki wanda Arts 1 da 2 na Basic Law kuma a lokaci guda a matsayin "sauran hakki" da aka kiyaye a cikin dokar farar hula karkashin § 823 (1) na BGB (kafa shari'ar tun BGHZ 13, 334, 338 - haruffa masu karatu). Kuma Yana ba da tabbacin kare mutuncin ɗan adam kamar yadda yake a duk duniya. Siffofin musamman na bayyanar da haƙƙin haƙƙin haƙƙin haƙƙin haƙƙin haƙƙin haƙƙin haƙƙin nasu hoton (§§ 22 ff. na KUG) da haƙƙin sunan mutum (§ 12 na BGB). Suna ba da garantin kariya ga mutuntaka don yanayin da aka tsara su. [5]

Baya ga haƙƙin ɗan adam na gabaɗaya, akwai ƙa'idodi na musamman waɗanda ke hana ɗaukar hotuna masu kusanci ba tare da izini ba (§ 184k StGB), kuma waɗanda ke hana ɗaukar hotuna waɗanda ke keta “mafi girman yanayin sirri” na waɗanda aka zana (§ 201 StGB - musamman, hotuna). Kuma na al'amuran sirri kamar a cikin ɗakin kwana, da hotunan mutanen da ba su da taimako, kamar wadanda hatsarin ya shafa). Sabanin ka’idojin gama gari game da ‘yancin hoton mutum, wadannan ka’idojin kuma sun shafi daukar hotuna ne kawai, ba wai kawai a buga su ba.

Portugal[gyara sashe | Gyara masomin]

A cikin Portugal ana kiyaye haƙƙin ɗan adam a ƙarƙashin tutela geral da personalidade akan shafi na 70 na Kundin Tsarin Mulki na Portugal da kuma, a cikin labarin 17 na Kundin Tsarin Mulki na Jamhuriyar Portugal. Wasu haƙƙoƙin mutumtaka, Kuma kamar haƙƙin hoto ko girmamawa ana kwatanta su musamman ma a cikin kundin jama'a a cikin labaran da ke bin tutela geral.

Girka[gyara sashe | Gyara masomin]

Dokokin Girka da suka dace sun haɗa da AK57 da 2472/1997. Dangane da daukar hoto:

  • Ɗaukar hoton mutum a cikin fili: Yana buƙatar izini. Ɗaukar hoto ko bidiyo na wani ko zana su a cikin zanen ya zama haramtacciyar doka da kanta bisa ga Mataki na 57 na Kundin Tsarin Mulki na Girka (57 ΑΚ, 57 Αστικός Κστικός Κώικός Κώικός Κώικός Κώδικας) ko da ba tare da buga wani hoto, bidiyo ko zane ba. Doka ta ɗauka cewa an ba da izini shiru idan an biya wanda aka zana don zaman daukar hoto. Har ila yau, dokar ta ba da wasu keɓancewa ga mutanen tarihin wannan zamani . Haka kuma, dokar ta shekarata 2472/1997 tana aiki a yanayi da dama, har ma da daukar hoton gangamin siyasa a wuraren taruwar jama'a ko wajen daukar hoton 'yan sanda; Har ila yau Girka na buƙatar masu daukar hoto su sami izinin gwamnati kafin su ɗauki hoton mutanen da ke zanga-zangar siyasa a wuraren taruwar jama'a.
  • Buga hotunan mutum a cikin fili: Yana buƙatar izini. [6] Buga hotunan jami'an 'yan sanda da aka gano suna dukan fararen hula a wuraren taruwar jama'a na iya sabawa doka ta shekarar 2472/1997 don haka ya kamata a mayar da wadannan hotuna ga hukuma don sake duba su. [7]
  • Amfani da kasuwanci na hoton mutum da aka buga a cikin fili: Yana buƙatar izini. [6]

Guernsey[gyara sashe | Gyara masomin]

An kafa dokar Guernsey mai dacewa a ranar 3 ga Disamba Shekarata 2012 a ƙarƙashin sunan Hakkin Hotuna Bailiwick na Dokar Guernsey 2012 kuma ta ba da damar yin rajistar haƙƙin mutum, tare da hotuna masu alaƙa da wannan ɗabi'a. Kuma An fayyace hotuna da yawa kuma suna iya zama kowane adadin halayen mutum, kamar kamanni, ɗabi'a, motsin rai, murya, laƙabi da sauransu.

Mutanen da ke da ikon yin rajista sun faɗi cikin rukuni 5, wato tafin kafa, haɗin gwiwa, rukuni, halaye na doka da na almara. Bugu da ƙari, ana iya yin rajistar mutane har zuwa shekaru 100 bayan ranar mutuwar, wanda ya sa dokar ta dace sosai ga masu kula da gidaje da masu kula da su.

Hong Kong[gyara sashe | Gyara masomin]

In Hong Kong, as in most other common law jurisdictions, there is no separate "personality right", and false association or endorsement is actionable under the law of passing off. The main case on this point relates to Cantopop singer/actor Andy Lau and Hang Seng Bank over the allegedly unauthorized use of Lau's image on credit cards, which has led to the observation that only limited personality rights exist in this jurisdiction.

Jamaica[gyara sashe | Gyara masomin]

A cikin shari'ar a shekarata 1994 da ta shafi mallakar Bob Marley, Kotun Koli ta Jamaica ta amince da haƙƙin mallaka na mutum wanda ya tsira daga mutuwarsa.

Japan[gyara sashe | Gyara masomin]

A cikin Oktoba shekarata 2007, J-pop duo Pink Lady ta kai karar Kobunsha akan ¥ 3.7 miliyan bayan mujallar mawallafin Josei Jishin ta yi amfani da hotunan duo akan labarin cin abinci ta hanyar rawa ba tare da izininsu ba. Kotun gundumar Tokyo ta yi watsi da karar . Kuma A watan Fabrairun shekarar 2012, Kotun Koli ta yi watsi da ƙarar da biyun suka ɗauka bisa haƙƙin tallatawa.

Koriya[gyara sashe | Gyara masomin]

Yayin da aka ce haƙƙin ɗan adam na wanzuwa zuwa wani lokaci ta hanyar tasirin tsarin mulki, da kuma azabtarwa, ƙararrakin da aka shigar don tilasta irin waɗannan haƙƙoƙin kan manyan kantuna ba su yi nasara ba.

Jamhuriyar Jama'ar Sin[gyara sashe | Gyara masomin]

A cikin jamhuriyar jama'ar kasar Sin, an kafa hakkin bil Adama bisa ka'ida. Bisa ka'ida ta 100 da ta 101 na babban ka'idar dokar farar hula ta Jamhuriyar Jama'ar kasar Sin, an kare hakkin suna da 'yancin hoto. An haramta amfani da hoton wani don amfanin kasuwanci ba tare da izinin wannan mutumin ba. Kuma A cikin sabuwar Dokar Laifin Laifuka wacce ta fara aiki a ranar 1 ga Janairu, shekarata 2021, an ambaci haƙƙin sirri a karon farko a cikin dokar.

Iran[gyara sashe | Gyara masomin]

Akwai 'yan nazari kan 'yancin yin suna a cikin dokokin Iran. Koyaya, ta hanyar ka'idoji na gabaɗaya, an yi ƙoƙari don tallafawa mashahuran mutane. [8]

Afirka ta Kudu[gyara sashe | Gyara masomin]

A Afirka ta Kudu ana kiyaye haƙƙoƙin ɗan adam a ƙarƙashin dokar Afirka ta Kudu da kuma dokar haƙƙin ɗan adam, Kuma duk wanda kuma ya tanadi 'yancin faɗar albarkacin baki da 'yancin yin tarayya . Bayan rashin tabbas da yawa game da amincewa da haƙƙin hoto a Afirka ta Kudu, Kotun Koli ta ɗaukaka ƙara ta ba da haske game da babban shari'ar Grütter v Lombard . [9] [10] A Afirka ta Kudu, ana keta haƙƙin mutum na ainihi idan aka yi amfani da halayen mutumin ba tare da izini ba ta hanyar da ba za a iya daidaitawa da ainihin siffar mutumin ba. [11] Baya ga yin amfani da hoton mutum ba tare da izini ba, irin wannan cin zarafi kuma yana haifar da wani nau'in ɓarna game da mutum, kamar cewa mutum ya yarda ko ya amince da wani samfur ko sabis ko kuma cewa lauya abokin tarayya ne a kamfani, Sannna yayin da wannan ya kasance. ba haka lamarin yake ba. Na biyu, an keta haƙƙin haƙƙin mallaka idan an yi amfani da sifofin mutum ba tare da izini daga wani mutum ba don samun kasuwanci. Baya ga amfani da hoton mutum ba tare da izini ba, irin wannan amfani kuma da farko yana haifar da manufar kasuwanci wanda ke da niyya kawai don haɓaka sabis ko samfur ko neman abokan ciniki ko abokan ciniki. Gaskiyar cewa mai amfani na iya amfana ko riba daga kowane samfur ko sabis wanda aka yi amfani da halayen mutum bisa ga kuskure, bai wadatar a kanta ba. Wannan take haƙƙin haƙƙin mallaka don haka kuma ya haɗa da amfani da sifofin mutum ba tare da izini ba tare da manufar kasuwanci, ko kuma ana yin ta ta hanyar tallace-tallace ko kera da rarraba kayayyaki da aka rufe da halayen mutum. Haƙƙin mutumci ba cikakke ba ne kuma yana tafiya ba tare da faɗi cewa amfani da sifofin mutum dole ne ya zama haramun ba kafin mai ƙara ya yi nasara da kowace da'awa. Tare da yin amfani da hoton mutum, haƙƙoƙin mutum, sirri, mutuncin ɗan adam da yancin haɗin kai na mutum dole ne a auna sau da yawa a kan haƙƙin mai amfani na 'yancin faɗar albarkacin baki . Kuma Ana iya yin amfani da siffar mutum bisa dalilai na yarda, gaskiya da muradin jama'a, sharhi na gaskiya da izgili. [12]

Spain[gyara sashe | Gyara masomin]

A cewar hukumar (Spanish) Kariyar bayanan bayanai don tattarawa da yadawa a Intanet na hotunan mutum ba tare da izininsu ba na iya zama babban keta dokar kare bayanan da za a ci tarar mafi ƙarancin Euro 60,000. Kuma A cewar El Mundo Data Protection Agency ya yanke shawarar bincikar ex officio ta hanyar rarraba hoton mutum akan Intanet ba tare da izininsu ba. [13]

Amurka[gyara sashe | Gyara masomin]

A ƙasar Amurka, haƙƙin tallatawa haƙƙi ne na tushen dokar jiha, sabanin tarayya, kuma amincewa da haƙƙin na iya bambanta daga jiha zuwa jiha. Dalilin da ke tattare da haƙƙin tallatawa a Amurka ya samo asali ne a cikin sirri da cin gajiyar tattalin arziki. Haƙƙoƙin sun dogara ne a cikin dokar azabtarwa, da kuma layi daya na Prosser's "Four Torts" wanda za'a iya taƙaita su kamar: 1) Kutsawa kan kadaici na zahiri; 2) bayyanawa jama'a abubuwan sirri; 3) nunawa a cikin hasken ƙarya; da 4) rabon suna da kamanceceniya. Idan ana kallon ta ta hanyar fa'ida na laifuka huɗu na Prosser, take hakkin tallata ya fi dacewa da ƙima. Sannan Haƙƙin tallatawa galibi yana bayyana a cikin tallace-tallace ko tallace-tallace. A cikin jahohin da ba su da takamaiman haƙƙin ƙa'idar talla, galibi ana sanin haƙƙin talla ne ta hanyar doka ta gama gari. Haƙƙin tallatawa ya samo asali cikin sauri, tare da tarihin ba da rahoto a cikin Amurka da kuma duniya baki ɗaya.

An ayyana haƙƙin tallatawa a matsayin haƙƙin kowane ɗaiɗai don sarrafa amfani da kasuwanci na sunaye, hotuna, kamanni, ko wasu abubuwan gano ainihin su. A cikin wasu mahallin, haƙƙin tallatawa yana iyakance (a ƙarƙashin dokar Amurka) ta Canjin Farko . Ana iya kiran haƙƙin tallatawa a matsayin haƙƙin tallatawa ko ma haƙƙin mutumci . Alƙali Jerome Frank ne ya ƙirƙira kalmar "haƙƙin tallatawa" a cikin shekarata 1953.

Girman amincewa da wannan haƙƙin a Amurka yana da tasiri ta hanyar doka ko doka . To Domin ‘yancin tallatawa ana gudanar da shi ne ta hanyar dokar jiha (saɓanin na tarayya), ƙimar amincewa da haƙƙin tallatawa na iya bambanta daga wannan jiha zuwa na gaba. Haƙƙin talla ba wai kawai ana magana ne da dokar alamar kasuwanci ba, kodayake ana iya lura da cewa haƙƙin talla yana da wani abu gama gari tare da kariyar alamun kasuwanci muddin mutum ya fahimci cewa haƙƙin tallan wani koyaswar doka ce ta daban, tare da kuma nata nata. manufofi, manufofi da ma'auni, gami da fitattun bambance-bambance daga dokar alamar kasuwanci. Misali, rashin gaskiya ko yiwuwar rudani gabaɗaya ba dole ba ne a kafa shi don gabatar da da'awar talla mai launi mai launi.

A matakin ƙasa, Kotun Koli ta Amurka ta gudanar da shari'ar shekarata 1977 Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. cewa Kwaskwarima na Farko bai yi wa tashar talabijin rigakafi kariya daga alhakin watsa aikin ɗan adam na Hugo Zacchini ba tare da izininsa ba. Wannan shi ne na farko, kuma ya zuwa yanzu kaɗai, Kotun Koli ta ƙasar Amurka ta yanke hukunci kan haƙƙin tallatawa kuma hakan ya tabbatar da ingancin koyarwar gabaɗaya da kuma muradun da take karewa.

Indiana yana daya daga cikin mafi karfi da hakkin na talla dokokin a ƙasar Amurka, samar da amincewa da hakkin ga 100 shekaru bayan mutuwa, da kuma kare ba kawai saba "suna, image da kama", amma kuma sa hannu, hoto, gestures, rarrabe bayyanuwa. da dabi'u. Musamman ma, Oklahoma kuma yana ba da kariya ta shekaru 100 bayan mutuwa, kuma dokar Tennessee tana ba da haƙƙoƙin da ba su taɓa ƙarewa ba idan aka ci gaba da amfani. Akwai wasu sanannun halaye na dokar Indiana, kodayake mafi yawan manyan motsi a cikin haƙƙin tallace-tallace sun fito ne daga New York da California, tare da Kuma muhimmiyar doka ta shari'ar da ke ba da shawarar matsayi na iya cin karo da juna game da amincewa da haƙƙin tallatawa a ƙarƙashin wasu. yanayi.

Wasu jihohi sun amince da haƙƙin ta hanyar doka wasu kuma ta hanyar dokar gama gari. California tana da nau'ikan iko na doka da na gama-gari waɗanda ke kare ɗan ɗanɗano nau'ikan haƙƙi. sannan Haƙƙin tallace-tallace yana da alaƙa da haƙƙin mallaka kuma don haka ana iya mika shi ga magada bayan mutuwarsu. An zartar da Dokar Haƙƙin Celebrities a California a cikin shekarar 1985 kuma ta tsawaita haƙƙin ɗan adam ga mashahuran zuwa shekaru 70 bayan mutuwarsu. A baya can, shekarata 1979 Lugosi v. Hukuncin Hotunan Duniya da Kotun Koli ta California ta yanke cewa Bela Lugosi ba zai iya samun haƙƙin ɗan adam ga magadansa ba.

  • A cikin Oktoba shekarata 1990, dan wasan kwaikwayo Crispin Glover ya shigar da kara a kan Universal Studios don yin amfani da shi ba tare da izini ba na kamanninsa da kuma yin amfani da hotunansa daga Komawa zuwa Gaba a Komawa zuwa Gaba Sashe na II ; Ba a nemi izininsa ga na ƙarshe ba kuma bai karɓi kuɗi ba. Bayan da aka ki amincewa da bukatar korar, an yanke hukunci kan adadin da ba a bayyana ba. The Screen Actors Guild ya canza dokokinsa don hana membobinta yin kwaikwayon sauran membobin SAG ba tare da izini ba.
  • A cikin Satumba shekarata 2002, Tom Cruise da Nicole Kidman sun kai karar kamfanin Sephora na kayan kwalliyar alatu bisa zargin yin amfani da hoton su ba tare da izini ba a cikin wata kasida mai tallata turare .
  • A cikin Maris shekarata 2003, mambobi takwas na ƙungiyar The Sopranos sun yi zargin cewa mai sayar da kayan lantarki Best Buy sun yi amfani da hotunan su a tallace-tallacen jarida ba tare da izini ba.
  • A cikin watan Yuli shekarata 2003 yanayin ETW Corp. v. Jireh Publishing ya yanke hukuncin cewa zanen ɗan wasan golf Tiger Woods da sauransu yana da kariya ta Canjin Farko na Kundin Tsarin Mulki na Amurka kuma bai taka kan alamun kasuwanci na golfer ko haƙƙin tallatawa ba. Hakanan a cikin shari'ar Yuli shekarata 2003 na Johnny da Edgar Winter v. DC Comics, hoton blues music duo the Winter 'yan'uwa a cikin wani littafin ban dariya kamar yadda tsutsotsi da ake kira Autumn Brothers samu Farko Kwaskwarima kariya daga talla haƙƙin mallaka. A cikin Mayu shekarata 2005, Tony v. Oreal USA Inc. ya fayyace banbance tsakanin haƙƙin mallaka da yanayin haƙƙin tallatawa. [14]
  • Shari'ar Kotun Koli ta New York County ta 2006 Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia, bayan watsi da korafin akan ka'idojin iyakancewa, an gudanar da shi a madadin cewa haƙƙin ɗan adam yana iyakance ta haƙƙin ƴancin yancin faɗar albarkacin baki na Farko. [15] [lower-alpha 1] An tabbatar da hukuncin a kan ƙarar da Sashen ɗaukaka da Kotun Daukaka Kara, amma waɗannan kotuna kawai sun yi magana game da ka'idojin iyakancewa, ba riƙewar Farko ba. [16]
  • A cikin shekarar 2008, wani alkali na tarayya a California ya yanke hukuncin cewa ba za a iya kare hakkin Marilyn Monroe na talla ba a California. Kotun ta yi nuni da cewa tunda Monroe na zaune a New York a lokacin mutuwarta, kuma New York ba ta kare haƙƙin shaharar da ta mutu ta tallatawa kuma haƙƙin tallarta ya ƙare bayan mutuwarta.
  • A cikin shari'ar shekarata 2009 na James "Jim" Brown v. Electronic Arts, Inc., Kotun Gundumar Tsakiyar California ta kori ka'idar Jim Brown na amincewa da ƙarya a ƙarƙashin Dokar Lanham kuma ta ƙaddara cewa Kwaskwarima na Farko yana kare rashin izini na alamar kasuwanci a cikin aikin fasaha lokacin da alamar ta kasance. dacewa da fasaha ga aikin kuma baya ɓarna a sarari game da tushen ko abun cikin aikin. Yin amfani da wannan gwajin, kotun ta sami rashin amincewa da gaskiya kuma ta ce gyare-gyaren Farko ya kare fasahar lantarki a cikin amfani da ɗan wasan ƙwallon ƙafa mai kama da Mista Brown.
  • A ranar 29 ga Afrilu, shekarata 2020, Hukumar Gwamnonin NCAA ta goyi bayan shawarwarin da aka ba da shawarar ga 'yan wasan kwaleji da ake sa ran za su fara aiki a 2021. Dokokin za su ba da damar biyan ’yan wasa don amfani da sunansu, hotonsu da kamanninsu (NIL) wajen amincewa da bayyanarsu.

Jihohin Amurka waɗanda suka amince da haƙƙin tallatawa[gyara sashe | Gyara masomin]

Duba wasu abubuwan[gyara sashe | Gyara masomin]

Bayanan kula[gyara sashe | Gyara masomin]

  1. In New York, the "Supreme Court" is a trial-level court, equivalent to what is called "Superior Court" in other states. The court equivalent to what most states call a "Supreme Court" is the New York Court of Appeals.

Manazarta[gyara sashe | Gyara masomin]

Sources[gyara sashe | Gyara masomin]

  •  

Ci gaba da karatu[gyara sashe | Gyara masomin]

Hanyoyin haɗi na waje[gyara sashe | Gyara masomin]

  1. Mirshekari, A. Foundations of Legal Protection of Reputation. Comparative Law Review, 2020; 11(1): 339-361. doi: 10.22059/jcl.2020.290488.633904
  2. Mirshekari, A. Conflict of two rights: publicity right and freedom of expression Focusing on Legal Systems of Iran, Germany, France & the USA. The Judiciarys Law Journal, 2020; 84(110): 213-240. doi: 10.22106/jlj.2020.115618.2968
  3. Henderson v Radio Corp Pty Ltd, (1960) 60 SR(NSW) 576, [1969] RPC 218
  4. 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Conroy 2012.
  5. (1 December 1999).
  6. 6.0 6.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named greek57ak
  7. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named greekpolice
  8. mirshekari, A. Commercial exploitation of the reputation of the deceased. Journal of Law Research, 2019; 22(85): 97-120. doi: 10.22034/jlr.2019.178645.1353
  9. 2007 4 SA 89 (SCA).
  10. Cornelius, Steve. "Image Rights in South Africa" 2008/3-4 International Sports Law Journal 71.
  11. O'Keeffe v Argus Printing and Publishing Co Ltd 1954 3 SA 244 (C).
  12. Cornelius, Steve. "Commercial Appropriation of a Person's Image" 2011 Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal 182.
  13. Article by Paloma Días Sotero, El Mundo, p. 33, February 5, 2009.
  14. (2005).
  15. (2006).
  16. (2007).