Pub Date : 2022-12-31DOI: 10.30582/kdps.2022.35.4.97
Jin-keun Jeong
In a virtual world such as the metaverse, architectural works in the real world are duplicated by imitating the real world or fusion with the real world. In this new convergence environment, it was examined whether virtual world buildings infringe copyrights on real world buildings. Since the virtual world architecture can be recognized for its creativity by imposing creativity on its elements, computer programs and design elements, it is possible to protect such creative expressions by copyright. And, if only the shape of the virtual world building is copied into the virtual world building, there is a high possibility of copyright infringement. On the other hand, if real-world buildings are implemented in the virtual world, copyright infringement is likely to be denied as it corresponds to ‘Freedom of Panorama’. Nevertheless, it seems necessary to carefully examine whether there is copyright infringement on architectural works implemented in virtual space, and it is necessary to present guidelines for the use of architectural works in virtual space for such services are activated in the near future.
{"title":"Study on the Copyright Issues for Use of Architectural Works on Metaverse","authors":"Jin-keun Jeong","doi":"10.30582/kdps.2022.35.4.97","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30582/kdps.2022.35.4.97","url":null,"abstract":"In a virtual world such as the metaverse, architectural works in the real world are duplicated by imitating the real world or fusion with the real world. In this new convergence environment, it was examined whether virtual world buildings infringe copyrights on real world buildings. Since the virtual world architecture can be recognized for its creativity by imposing creativity on its elements, computer programs and design elements, it is possible to protect such creative expressions by copyright. And, if only the shape of the virtual world building is copied into the virtual world building, there is a high possibility of copyright infringement. On the other hand, if real-world buildings are implemented in the virtual world, copyright infringement is likely to be denied as it corresponds to ‘Freedom of Panorama’. Nevertheless, it seems necessary to carefully examine whether there is copyright infringement on architectural works implemented in virtual space, and it is necessary to present guidelines for the use of architectural works in virtual space for such services are activated in the near future.","PeriodicalId":350441,"journal":{"name":"Korea Copyright Commission","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130216480","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-31DOI: 10.30582/kdps.2022.35.4.51
Junseok Park
Despite the some positive aspect of the 2014 Korean Supreme Court ruling on the chinjeong-eomma (the married woman’s mother) case (hereinafter “chinjeong-eomma decision”) that more clearly defined the requirement of joint works, the chinjeong-eomma decision has already been heavily criticized by many Korean scholars for its misinterpretation of Article 48 of the Korean Copyright Act which directly did conflict with a clear phrase stipulating that all copyrights can be exercised only with unanimous agreement among co-authors. The reason why this article belatedly criticizes the above decision is that the following additional important flaws is found in the respective logic of the judgments by the lower courts in the chinjeong-eomma case and the case review report by a senior judicial researcher in the Supreme Court involved in chinjeong-eomma decision, among the issues also dealt with by chinjeong-eomma decision, particularly on whether self-use by a co-author without consent of the other co-authors (hereinafter ‘free use’) would be infringement on copyright of the other co-authors. First, it was too hasty to conclude that the relationship of co-authors was not joint-tenancy under the Korean Civil Act, but joint-in-common under the same Act, so it was treated as if one co-author was a tenant in common under the Civil Act. Second, in terms of whether to recognize the free use of joint works, it was treated as a majority vote in line with the fact that other Korean IP laws, such as the Patent Act, have already acknowledged the free use of a co-owner. Third, the non-rivalrous (non-excludable) nature of copyright and the natural phenomenon of relatively low utilization of joint works due to the some refusal of consent from other right holders were improperly used as grounds for recognizing free use. Fourth, above all, by overlooking the main characteristic of copyright as a “bundle of rights”, it was not understood that there was no room for raising so-called a free use defense against the facts of this criminal case in the first place in terms of performance rights, not reproduction rights, etc. To prevent this kind of mistake being repeated in another case, a clear awareness of the above characteristic is needed at the starting line of reviewing any copyright cases. Fifth, more reasonable alternatives were not taken, such as actively expanding and adopting the good faith standard of Article 48 already designed by the legislator, acknowledging implied consent, and strictly acknowledging criminal intent.
{"title":"The Possibility of Self-Use of a Co-author without Consent of the Other Co-authors","authors":"Junseok Park","doi":"10.30582/kdps.2022.35.4.51","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30582/kdps.2022.35.4.51","url":null,"abstract":"Despite the some positive aspect of the 2014 Korean Supreme Court ruling on the chinjeong-eomma (the married woman’s mother) case (hereinafter “chinjeong-eomma decision”) that more clearly defined the requirement of joint works, the chinjeong-eomma decision has already been heavily criticized by many Korean scholars for its misinterpretation of Article 48 of the Korean Copyright Act which directly did conflict with a clear phrase stipulating that all copyrights can be exercised only with unanimous agreement among co-authors. The reason why this article belatedly criticizes the above decision is that the following additional important flaws is found in the respective logic of the judgments by the lower courts in the chinjeong-eomma case and the case review report by a senior judicial researcher in the Supreme Court involved in chinjeong-eomma decision, among the issues also dealt with by chinjeong-eomma decision, particularly on whether self-use by a co-author without consent of the other co-authors (hereinafter ‘free use’) would be infringement on copyright of the other co-authors. First, it was too hasty to conclude that the relationship of co-authors was not joint-tenancy under the Korean Civil Act, but joint-in-common under the same Act, so it was treated as if one co-author was a tenant in common under the Civil Act. Second, in terms of whether to recognize the free use of joint works, it was treated as a majority vote in line with the fact that other Korean IP laws, such as the Patent Act, have already acknowledged the free use of a co-owner. Third, the non-rivalrous (non-excludable) nature of copyright and the natural phenomenon of relatively low utilization of joint works due to the some refusal of consent from other right holders were improperly used as grounds for recognizing free use. Fourth, above all, by overlooking the main characteristic of copyright as a “bundle of rights”, it was not understood that there was no room for raising so-called a free use defense against the facts of this criminal case in the first place in terms of performance rights, not reproduction rights, etc. To prevent this kind of mistake being repeated in another case, a clear awareness of the above characteristic is needed at the starting line of reviewing any copyright cases. Fifth, more reasonable alternatives were not taken, such as actively expanding and adopting the good faith standard of Article 48 already designed by the legislator, acknowledging implied consent, and strictly acknowledging criminal intent.","PeriodicalId":350441,"journal":{"name":"Korea Copyright Commission","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129515962","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-31DOI: 10.30582/kdps.2022.35.4.257
Hyunjeong Lee, Daeheon Bae
‘Generative Art’ is a artistic work in which some or all of the work is produced using an autonomous system programmed with algorithms; it is a field of Digital Art. This art form has existed for years, but works were not properly evaluated since it is difficult to prove what is original. However, with the advent of Non-Fungible Tokens(NFTs), the original can now be verified, and thus this art form has achieved rapid growth over the last few years. This study examined whether Generative Art can be protected by the current Copyright Act. To this end, it classified Generative Art creation based on the level of contribution by human into four different types. 1)A type in which humans create works using software, 2)a type in which humans create parts and combine them with algorithms, 3)a type in which works are created with mathematical functions, and 4)a type in which works are created using Artificial Intelligence(AI). This study also sought ways to protect works created by AI, which are not protected under the current Copyright Act. In addition, it examined how to protect Generative Art by reviewing whether the exemption provisions of Online Service Providers(OSP) can be applied when a violated work is traded on an NFT platform.
{"title":"A Study on the Protection of Generative Art","authors":"Hyunjeong Lee, Daeheon Bae","doi":"10.30582/kdps.2022.35.4.257","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30582/kdps.2022.35.4.257","url":null,"abstract":"‘Generative Art’ is a artistic work in which some or all of the work is produced using an autonomous system programmed with algorithms; it is a field of Digital Art. This art form has existed for years, but works were not properly evaluated since it is difficult to prove what is original. However, with the advent of Non-Fungible Tokens(NFTs), the original can now be verified, and thus this art form has achieved rapid growth over the last few years. This study examined whether Generative Art can be protected by the current Copyright Act. To this end, it classified Generative Art creation based on the level of contribution by human into four different types. 1)A type in which humans create works using software, 2)a type in which humans create parts and combine them with algorithms, 3)a type in which works are created with mathematical functions, and 4)a type in which works are created using Artificial Intelligence(AI). This study also sought ways to protect works created by AI, which are not protected under the current Copyright Act. In addition, it examined how to protect Generative Art by reviewing whether the exemption provisions of Online Service Providers(OSP) can be applied when a violated work is traded on an NFT platform.","PeriodicalId":350441,"journal":{"name":"Korea Copyright Commission","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131635023","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-31DOI: 10.30582/kdps.2022.35.4.215
Yunsoo Kim
Cases that the artists denied the works which were known to be their own works (i. e. forgery cases) have been raised for a long time. Also, there were cases that the artist voluntarily acknowledged a forgery as the authentic work of the artist. There are various reasons why artists carry through their arguments that contradict the facts and court’s decision of the authenticity of the artwork in issue; to defend the artist's own social honor or subjective honor, or to strongly express the artist’s favor on the usage or ownership of the work, or due to some other interest matters related the work, etc. There are two types of artists’ disavowal; (1) the artist’s denial of the fact that the artist oneself created the work (i.e. usually meaning the 'forgery'); (2) the artist’s announcement that the artwork is no longer his or her work based on some incidents (damage, alteration of the work, or consumption and usage of the work that the artist did not want, etc.) to prevent further attribution of the artist’s name on the work or transaction of the work. When the dispute over the forgery of a work or the legality of an artist’s disavowal of a work rises, the artwork’s price in the market might go extremely unstable or it could be excluded from the auction. Moreover, not only the author but also the various parties such as the dealer, gallery owner, collector, or owner of the artwork can file lawsuits involving diverse issues like infringement of the artist’s right to attribution or right to integrity, or breach of contract issues, etc. The court reviews the claims of the parties, expert opinions, and the evidence of facts relevant to the work. Factual evidence of the art transaction and the artist’s history tends to play a great role in the court’s decision. However, if the parties continue to adhere to their stance despite the authentication results or the court decision, it causes various problems in the art market. This paper tries to find a way to protect both the freedom of trade and the safety of trade while respecting the various parties’ interests, the opinions of the art professionals, and the decision of the judiciary. In addition, this paper covers the methods of attributing the author and indicating artwork’s information during controversies, and ideas for drafting the contract and legal documents for such cases.
{"title":"Discussion based on the Copyright Law about When the Artist Controverts the Decision on Artwork’s Authenticity: Focusing on the Artist’s Disavowal Cases","authors":"Yunsoo Kim","doi":"10.30582/kdps.2022.35.4.215","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30582/kdps.2022.35.4.215","url":null,"abstract":"Cases that the artists denied the works which were known to be their own works (i. e. forgery cases) have been raised for a long time. Also, there were cases that the artist voluntarily acknowledged a forgery as the authentic work of the artist. There are various reasons why artists carry through their arguments that contradict the facts and court’s decision of the authenticity of the artwork in issue; to defend the artist's own social honor or subjective honor, or to strongly express the artist’s favor on the usage or ownership of the work, or due to some other interest matters related the work, etc. There are two types of artists’ disavowal; (1) the artist’s denial of the fact that the artist oneself created the work (i.e. usually meaning the 'forgery'); (2) the artist’s announcement that the artwork is no longer his or her work based on some incidents (damage, alteration of the work, or consumption and usage of the work that the artist did not want, etc.) to prevent further attribution of the artist’s name on the work or transaction of the work. When the dispute over the forgery of a work or the legality of an artist’s disavowal of a work rises, the artwork’s price in the market might go extremely unstable or it could be excluded from the auction. Moreover, not only the author but also the various parties such as the dealer, gallery owner, collector, or owner of the artwork can file lawsuits involving diverse issues like infringement of the artist’s right to attribution or right to integrity, or breach of contract issues, etc. The court reviews the claims of the parties, expert opinions, and the evidence of facts relevant to the work. Factual evidence of the art transaction and the artist’s history tends to play a great role in the court’s decision. However, if the parties continue to adhere to their stance despite the authentication results or the court decision, it causes various problems in the art market. This paper tries to find a way to protect both the freedom of trade and the safety of trade while respecting the various parties’ interests, the opinions of the art professionals, and the decision of the judiciary. In addition, this paper covers the methods of attributing the author and indicating artwork’s information during controversies, and ideas for drafting the contract and legal documents for such cases.","PeriodicalId":350441,"journal":{"name":"Korea Copyright Commission","volume":"65 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115713894","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-31DOI: 10.30582/kdps.2022.35.4.5
Shiwon Ryu
We met only a few cases that assessed fair use over ten years since fair use clause were introduced to our copyright act. Therefore, a pile of U.S. fair use cases that have accumulated in the fields of art and technology can be good reference to interpreting our fair use clause. The concept of transformative use bears a significant role in fair use analysis of U.S. case law. The U.S. Supreme Court defines the transformative use as adding new purpose or character to the original works by changing its “expression, meaning or messages”, and accepted the fair use defense in Campbell and Google mainly based on its assessment that the the use was transformative in each case. The role of transformativeness is essential in realization of the purpose of fair use doctrine, i.e., flexibly responding to technological changes in order to provide “breathing room” for freedom of expression. There also exist concerns regarding this concept as increasing vagueness of fair use standards leading to declined predictability, as well as harming carefully designed balance between copyright protection and fair use. Conflicting interests were expressed in a recent case related to a portrait photograph work employed in appropriation art works, Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith. As the district court and the appellate court arrived at opposite conclusions showing different views on transformativeness of Andy Warhol’s works, the U.S. Supreme Court is to resolve issues regarding limits of transformative use. As reviewed in this article, it was timely and meaningful attempt that the appellate court sought for the balance of conflicting interests of copyright owners and users while paying attention to the relationship between derivative works and transformative use. However, the appellate court decision exposed some limitations in terms of compatibility with the Supreme Court’s standards and its logic of interpretation. The Supreme Court’s decision to be made would have great meaning in modern application of fair use clause, and bring about great impact in the creation of modern art and licensing business. Also, the issues being dealt with in this case bear significance in our own situation where Korean Supreme Court provides no specific standards on the application of our fair use clause which was imported from U.S. copyright law.
{"title":"Transformative Use under Test in Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith","authors":"Shiwon Ryu","doi":"10.30582/kdps.2022.35.4.5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30582/kdps.2022.35.4.5","url":null,"abstract":"We met only a few cases that assessed fair use over ten years since fair use clause were introduced to our copyright act. Therefore, a pile of U.S. fair use cases that have accumulated in the fields of art and technology can be good reference to interpreting our fair use clause. The concept of transformative use bears a significant role in fair use analysis of U.S. case law. The U.S. Supreme Court defines the transformative use as adding new purpose or character to the original works by changing its “expression, meaning or messages”, and accepted the fair use defense in Campbell and Google mainly based on its assessment that the the use was transformative in each case. The role of transformativeness is essential in realization of the purpose of fair use doctrine, i.e., flexibly responding to technological changes in order to provide “breathing room” for freedom of expression. There also exist concerns regarding this concept as increasing vagueness of fair use standards leading to declined predictability, as well as harming carefully designed balance between copyright protection and fair use. Conflicting interests were expressed in a recent case related to a portrait photograph work employed in appropriation art works, Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith. As the district court and the appellate court arrived at opposite conclusions showing different views on transformativeness of Andy Warhol’s works, the U.S. Supreme Court is to resolve issues regarding limits of transformative use. As reviewed in this article, it was timely and meaningful attempt that the appellate court sought for the balance of conflicting interests of copyright owners and users while paying attention to the relationship between derivative works and transformative use. However, the appellate court decision exposed some limitations in terms of compatibility with the Supreme Court’s standards and its logic of interpretation. The Supreme Court’s decision to be made would have great meaning in modern application of fair use clause, and bring about great impact in the creation of modern art and licensing business. Also, the issues being dealt with in this case bear significance in our own situation where Korean Supreme Court provides no specific standards on the application of our fair use clause which was imported from U.S. copyright law.","PeriodicalId":350441,"journal":{"name":"Korea Copyright Commission","volume":"82 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122728441","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-31DOI: 10.30582/kdps.2022.35.4.131
Ji-Young Han
Recently, discussions on work made for hire, which have been a lot of issues in the past in the field of copyright, are underway again. Furthermore, amendments to work made for hire have been drawn in drafts of the Copyright Act from the viewpoint of the amended Bill as well as the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism. Works made for hire have been controversial in that they give the authorship to juridical person, not employee of a legal person, as the only exception to the ‘creator principle’, which is the underlying principle in the Copyright Act. Under the circumstances, it is desirable to submit an amendment on work made for hire in the drafts of the Copyright Act from the viewpoints of the amended Bill as well as Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, but there are still insufficient aspects to calm controversy as to work made for hire. It is believed that many domestic scholars have made meaningful suggestions on various issues raised by work made for hire. In this paper, the application of the legal philosophical theory on work made for hire was reviewed, and a regulation on work made for hire in the Korea Copyright Act is comparatively analyzed with the relevant overseas legislations. In addition, the previous researchers' suggestions on work made for hire were analyzed and summarized, and the drafts of the Copyright Act from the viewpoints of the amended Bill as well as Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism were reviewed from a critical point of view. In this regard, I suggested the direction to be amended as to issues on work made for hire in my own way.
{"title":"A Study on Work made for Hire in the Amended Bill of the Copyright Act","authors":"Ji-Young Han","doi":"10.30582/kdps.2022.35.4.131","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30582/kdps.2022.35.4.131","url":null,"abstract":"Recently, discussions on work made for hire, which have been a lot of issues in the past in the field of copyright, are underway again. Furthermore, amendments to work made for hire have been drawn in drafts of the Copyright Act from the viewpoint of the amended Bill as well as the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism. Works made for hire have been controversial in that they give the authorship to juridical person, not employee of a legal person, as the only exception to the ‘creator principle’, which is the underlying principle in the Copyright Act. Under the circumstances, it is desirable to submit an amendment on work made for hire in the drafts of the Copyright Act from the viewpoints of the amended Bill as well as Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, but there are still insufficient aspects to calm controversy as to work made for hire. It is believed that many domestic scholars have made meaningful suggestions on various issues raised by work made for hire. In this paper, the application of the legal philosophical theory on work made for hire was reviewed, and a regulation on work made for hire in the Korea Copyright Act is comparatively analyzed with the relevant overseas legislations. In addition, the previous researchers' suggestions on work made for hire were analyzed and summarized, and the drafts of the Copyright Act from the viewpoints of the amended Bill as well as Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism were reviewed from a critical point of view. In this regard, I suggested the direction to be amended as to issues on work made for hire in my own way.","PeriodicalId":350441,"journal":{"name":"Korea Copyright Commission","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128797034","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-30DOI: 10.30582/kdps.2022.35.3.123
Yunseok Pak
Recently, some online platform regulations have been the subject of debate regarding Platform Responsibilities in the EU, U.S.A., Korea, and Japan. In 2019, the European Union introduced Article 17 of the Digital Single Market Directive that strengthens liabilities for online content-sharing services providers (OCSSP). First, in the EU, Germany enacted a new Copyright-Service Provider Act to introduce Article 17 whose directive is the OCSSPs’ direct responsibility for communicating copyright-infringing content to the public and to make their best efforts to obtain licenses from the copyright-holder to receive immunity from copyright infringement. OCSSPs must take blocking measures to prevent the continuous upload of copyright-infringing content in the future if the right-holder of the contents informs OCSSPs of the substantial information that copyright infringing content is servicing their platform. The German Act introduced some articles to respond to an overblocking measure of OCSSPs. For example, “Uses authorized by law”, “Uses presumably authorized by law”, “Minor uses”, and “Flagging of uses authorized by law” are introduced to ensure the fundamental rights of service users. In addition, OCSSPs should pay compensation to the copyright-holder and related-rights holder, if works are used for fair use. Compared to the Korean Copyright Act, OCSSPs may belong to a hosting service provider and a special type of online service provider. An obligation to obtain a license, to take notice and stay down, and to pay compensation, is necessary for debating the improvement of Korea’s online service provider immunity regulations.
{"title":"Analysis of the German Copyright-Service Provider Act in the perspective of Korean Copyright Law","authors":"Yunseok Pak","doi":"10.30582/kdps.2022.35.3.123","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30582/kdps.2022.35.3.123","url":null,"abstract":"Recently, some online platform regulations have been the subject of debate regarding Platform Responsibilities in the EU, U.S.A., Korea, and Japan. In 2019, the European Union introduced Article 17 of the Digital Single Market Directive that strengthens liabilities for online content-sharing services providers (OCSSP). First, in the EU, Germany enacted a new Copyright-Service Provider Act to introduce Article 17 whose directive is the OCSSPs’ direct responsibility for communicating copyright-infringing content to the public and to make their best efforts to obtain licenses from the copyright-holder to receive immunity from copyright infringement. OCSSPs must take blocking measures to prevent the continuous upload of copyright-infringing content in the future if the right-holder of the contents informs OCSSPs of the substantial information that copyright infringing content is servicing their platform. The German Act introduced some articles to respond to an overblocking measure of OCSSPs. For example, “Uses authorized by law”, “Uses presumably authorized by law”, “Minor uses”, and “Flagging of uses authorized by law” are introduced to ensure the fundamental rights of service users. In addition, OCSSPs should pay compensation to the copyright-holder and related-rights holder, if works are used for fair use. Compared to the Korean Copyright Act, OCSSPs may belong to a hosting service provider and a special type of online service provider. An obligation to obtain a license, to take notice and stay down, and to pay compensation, is necessary for debating the improvement of Korea’s online service provider immunity regulations.","PeriodicalId":350441,"journal":{"name":"Korea Copyright Commission","volume":"50 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115226803","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-30DOI: 10.30582/kdps.2022.35.3.5
Seungkyoon Kye
This article deals with copyright issues for exam questions in educational institutions. Since Korea has traditionally been a country with a lot of enthusiasm for education, it can be said that interest on the examination questions of educational institutions are also very high. However, the examination questions posed by educational institutions also have the character of a work, especially a work made for works. First of all, it can be said that examination questions in secondary education institutions have the characteristics of a work, unless the test taker does not copy the work of others. In this regard, the Supreme Court of Korea also approves the fact that the examination questions are copyrighted works. In addition, since it is planned or planned to achieve a certain educational schedule, educational goals, and students’ academic background within an educational institution, it can be said that the requirements f or w ork s made f or h ire are also s atisfied. Therefore, for example, when a teacher poses a examination question in a middle or high school, in the case of a public school, the local educational government that has jurisdiction over the public school, in the case of a national school, the state, and in the case of a private school, the foundation to which the teacher belongs. become the copyright holder. The Supreme Court of Korea has taken the same stance on this point.…
{"title":"Questions in Examination in the School or Educational Institutions and Copyright in Korea","authors":"Seungkyoon Kye","doi":"10.30582/kdps.2022.35.3.5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30582/kdps.2022.35.3.5","url":null,"abstract":"This article deals with copyright issues for exam questions in educational institutions. Since Korea has traditionally been a country with a lot of enthusiasm for education, it can be said that interest on the examination questions of educational institutions are also very high. \u0000However, the examination questions posed by educational institutions also have the character of a work, especially a work made for works. First of all, it can be said that examination questions in secondary education institutions have the characteristics of a work, unless the test taker does not copy the work of others. In this regard, the Supreme Court of Korea also approves the fact that the examination questions are copyrighted works. \u0000In addition, since it is planned or planned to achieve a certain educational schedule, educational goals, and students’ academic background within an educational institution, it can be said that the requirements f or w ork s made f or h ire are also s atisfied. \u0000Therefore, for example, when a teacher poses a examination question in a middle or high school, in the case of a public school, the local educational government that has jurisdiction over the public school, in the case of a national school, the state, and in the case of a private school, the foundation to which the teacher belongs. become the copyright holder. The Supreme Court of Korea has taken the same stance on this point.…","PeriodicalId":350441,"journal":{"name":"Korea Copyright Commission","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127536654","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-30DOI: 10.30582/kdps.2022.35.3.29
Hyun-Kyung Kim
Even in Europe, where database rights(Sui Generis Database Rights) were first created, questions about the utility of these rights have been raised and discussions for revision is going on. We, who benchmarked these European cases at the time, also need to pay attention to the changes in EU. Therefore, in this study, the problems of the database rights were analyzed and future improvement tasks were derived. The results of the s tudy a re a s follows. First, the EU is changing the criteria for judging database rights infringement through the CJEU decision. In order to accommodate the innovation of data, the creation of added value through reuse of users and competitors and the possibility of innovation are accepted as the criteria for judging infringement. We also need to take this into account in our “significant investment” and “determination of infringement”. Second, it is necessary to think about the extension of the exception range of the database right. In Europe, through a separate legislative measure called the Data Act, a wide range of exceptions are being allowed by excluding the database right for databases acquired or created by the use of products or services. This is premised on the premise that the establishment and utilization of databases in various artificial intelligence services, including IoT, is essential anyway, so there is no need to induce investment by guaranteeing sui generis rights. As such, in certain cases, it is necessary to review the introduction of regulations that restrict database rights. Third, like public works, free use of public databases needs to be introduced. Public databases are already trying to create added value through private use through other individual laws. In addition, it is questionable whether the criteria for judging infringement, such as ‘significant investment’ and ‘risk of recovery of investment’, can be applied to the act of creating a database funded by the state finances. Therefore, it is necessary to review the introduction of database rights restrictions on public works.
{"title":"Re-examination of database rights - Focused on the revision trend of EUcases (CV-Online Latvia v Melons) and EU Database Directive -","authors":"Hyun-Kyung Kim","doi":"10.30582/kdps.2022.35.3.29","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30582/kdps.2022.35.3.29","url":null,"abstract":"Even in Europe, where database rights(Sui Generis Database Rights) were first created, questions about the utility of these rights have been raised and discussions for revision is going on. We, who benchmarked these European cases at the time, also need to pay attention to the changes in EU. Therefore, in this study, the problems of the database rights were analyzed and future improvement tasks were derived. The results of the s tudy a re a s follows. \u0000First, the EU is changing the criteria for judging database rights infringement through the CJEU decision. In order to accommodate the innovation of data, the creation of added value through reuse of users and competitors and the possibility of innovation are accepted as the criteria for judging infringement. We also need to take this into account in our “significant investment” and “determination of infringement”. \u0000Second, it is necessary to think about the extension of the exception range of the database right. In Europe, through a separate legislative measure called the Data Act, a wide range of exceptions are being allowed by excluding the database right for databases acquired or created by the use of products or services. This is premised on the premise that the establishment and utilization of databases in various artificial intelligence services, including IoT, is essential anyway, so there is no need to induce investment by guaranteeing sui generis rights. As such, in certain cases, it is necessary to review the introduction of regulations that restrict database rights. \u0000Third, like public works, free use of public databases needs to be introduced. Public databases are already trying to create added value through private use through other individual laws. In addition, it is questionable whether the criteria for judging infringement, such as ‘significant investment’ and ‘risk of recovery of investment’, can be applied to the act of creating a database funded by the state finances. Therefore, it is necessary to review the introduction of database rights restrictions on public works.","PeriodicalId":350441,"journal":{"name":"Korea Copyright Commission","volume":"95 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126137301","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-30DOI: 10.30582/kdps.2022.35.3.157
hyun-wook jung
Considering that excessive protection of the database may lead to a reduction in database use or restrictions on information exchange, which in turn may hinder the development of science and technology based on sharing information, it is necessary to interpret the current copyright law that protects the database by granting exclusive rights so as not to cause excessive restrictions on the distribution and use of information. Similar concerns have been raised about the issue of information monopoly in the same way as for the EU Database directive which protects databases in a similar way to ours, and the European Court of Justice tries to reduce this risk by narrowly interpreting the scope of the rights of database producers in the British Horseracing Board judgement. The materials of the database can be protected by misappropriation clause of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act. And the fact that the recent revision of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act has added illegal data acquisition to unfair competition is also a change in the environment to be considered in protecting the rights of database producers. Recently, Supreme Court of Korea Decision of 12 May 2022 2021Do1533 has ruled on whether data collection by data crawling constitutes a violation of the rights of database producers according to Copyright Law Article 93. In this judgment, the Supreme Court presented a clear standard of judgment regarding ‘a substantial part of the contents of Database’ and ‘repeated and systematic coping’ which are the requirements for infringement of the rights of database producers, taking into account the above concerns and changes in the environment.
{"title":"A Study on the Infringement of the Right of Database Producers under the Copyright Act - Focusing Supreme Court of Korea, Decision of 12 May 2022, 2021Do1533 -","authors":"hyun-wook jung","doi":"10.30582/kdps.2022.35.3.157","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30582/kdps.2022.35.3.157","url":null,"abstract":"Considering that excessive protection of the database may lead to a reduction in database use or restrictions on information exchange, which in turn may hinder the development of science and technology based on sharing information, it is necessary to interpret the current copyright law that protects the database by granting exclusive rights so as not to cause excessive restrictions on the distribution and use of information. \u0000Similar concerns have been raised about the issue of information monopoly in the same way as for the EU Database directive which protects databases in a similar way to ours, and the European Court of Justice tries to reduce this risk by narrowly interpreting the scope of the rights of database producers in the British Horseracing Board judgement. \u0000The materials of the database can be protected by misappropriation clause of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act. \u0000And the fact that the recent revision of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act has added illegal data acquisition to unfair competition is also a change in the environment to be considered in protecting the rights of database producers. \u0000Recently, Supreme Court of Korea Decision of 12 May 2022 2021Do1533 has ruled on whether data collection by data crawling constitutes a violation of the rights of database producers according to Copyright Law Article 93. In this judgment, the Supreme Court presented a clear standard of judgment regarding ‘a substantial part of the contents of Database’ and ‘repeated and systematic coping’ which are the requirements for infringement of the rights of database producers, taking into account the above concerns and changes in the environment.","PeriodicalId":350441,"journal":{"name":"Korea Copyright Commission","volume":"99 8","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121002172","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：