Rethinking the Authorship of Contemporary Art in Copyright Law: Chance·Indeterminacy Music as a Case Study

{"title":"Rethinking the Authorship of Contemporary Art in Copyright Law: Chance·Indeterminacy Music as a Case Study","authors":"","doi":"10.30582/kdps.2023.36.1.55","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study focuses on the concept of the ‘author’ in copyright law, particularly in the context of chance and indeterminacy music, where the composer intentionally excludes their authorship from the work. In copyright law, ‘creation’, required to become an author is generally understood as the act of “concretizing a particular idea or emotion into a creative external expression.” Applying this concept to chance and indeterminacy music, it caused the legal problem of denying the work’s copyrightability or destabilizing the traditional status of the author. Re-examining this through the theory of copyright justification, it was pointed out that the legal problem cannot be merged with the justification of the copyright system. Fundamentally, the limitation of the “idea-expression dichotomy” principle, a premise to the concept of the creator, was identified. Raising doubts as to whether it is truly valid for this principle to play a major role in the concept of the creator, this study proposed the application of Balganesh’s copyrightable causation theory as an alternative, and concluded that a normative judgment criterion must be used to determine whether a work qualifies as “creation” in order for law and art to be harmonized.","PeriodicalId":350441,"journal":{"name":"Korea Copyright Commission","volume":"43 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korea Copyright Commission","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30582/kdps.2023.36.1.55","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study focuses on the concept of the ‘author’ in copyright law, particularly in the context of chance and indeterminacy music, where the composer intentionally excludes their authorship from the work. In copyright law, ‘creation’, required to become an author is generally understood as the act of “concretizing a particular idea or emotion into a creative external expression.” Applying this concept to chance and indeterminacy music, it caused the legal problem of denying the work’s copyrightability or destabilizing the traditional status of the author. Re-examining this through the theory of copyright justification, it was pointed out that the legal problem cannot be merged with the justification of the copyright system. Fundamentally, the limitation of the “idea-expression dichotomy” principle, a premise to the concept of the creator, was identified. Raising doubts as to whether it is truly valid for this principle to play a major role in the concept of the creator, this study proposed the application of Balganesh’s copyrightable causation theory as an alternative, and concluded that a normative judgment criterion must be used to determine whether a work qualifies as “creation” in order for law and art to be harmonized.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
著作权法对当代艺术作者身份的再思考——以《偶然·不确定性音乐》为例
本研究侧重于版权法中“作者”的概念,特别是在偶然性和不确定性音乐的背景下,作曲家故意将其作者身份排除在作品之外。在版权法中,成为作者所需的“创作”通常被理解为“将特定的想法或情感具体化为创造性的外部表达”的行为。将这一概念应用于偶然性和不确定性音乐,就会产生否认作品的版权性或破坏作者传统地位的法律问题。通过著作权正当性理论重新审视这一问题,指出法律问题不能与著作权制度正当性混为一谈。从根本上确定了创造者概念的前提——“思想-表达二分法”原则的局限性。对于这一原则在创作者概念中发挥主要作用是否真的有效提出质疑,本研究提出将Balganesh的版权因果关系理论作为一种替代,并得出结论,必须使用规范的判断标准来确定作品是否符合“创作”的条件,以使法律与艺术协调一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Limitations on Granting Copyrights to AI-Generated Works and Alternative Protection Methodologies The Meaning and Content of Article 22, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution as a Standard for Constitutionality Review Determining Fair Use and the Role of Transformative Use Test: On the Rulings in Wofsy v. De Fontbrune Quo vadis, What will be the Future of Appropriation Art?: Focusing on “The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith” A Study on the Free Use of Public Works: Focused on the Seoul Central District Court’s 2019 Gadan 5207564 Decision
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1