저작권 제한사유 중 「사적이용을 위한 복제」와 「미술저작물등의 자유이용」에 관한 소고- 기술발전 등 사회 변화에 대응하여 - = Review of the Reproduction for private use and Exhibition of works of Art, etc. in the restricting copyright regulations

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The court asks for the requirements of the legality for the original that were not specified in the regulation of copyright law in order for the duplicating activity using webhard to be admitted as the Reproduction for private use. As webhard is a kind of system that an individual duplicates one by one through the service provider not like P2P that the duplication by multiple users is carried out simultaneously, it would be originated from that there is a room for it to be admitted as the personal duplication by being sorted as 'the use within the restricted range such as home'. However, such interpretation of Reproduction for private use by the court does not seem appropriate for many reasons as it may be the one that violates the stipulation of copyright law. But, as the realistic necessity of restricting the private duplication using webhard exists, it can be regarded as the joint tort in a regard that the copyright of its owner is infringed as it reaches the level that it exceeds the private duplication eventually by combining individual duplicating activities of webhard users.
The use of art works displayed in the open public place is freely allowed as the another ground of restricting the copyright. By the way, the court interprets the meaning of open public place as the outdoor one in restrict way. However, it can be the inappropriate interpretation considering the reality that the indoor place can be more open to public than outdoor place occasionally as well as literal interpretation of copyright. So, to restrict copyright of the art works exhibited in indoor place open to public, I tired to find out the possibility that Incidental inclusion of copyright material newly revised regulation or fair use regulation can be applied as alternative way. But restricted copyright of the art work, so called freedom of panorama is usually admitted in case of background of picture or video that it can not be easily seen as incidental inclusion or it dose not have any meaningful changes. So it is somewhat hard to apply those regulations to restrict copyright of the art works exhibited in open public indoor place. Consequently, it is more proper that interpreting the copyright law Article 35, Exhibition of Reproduction of Works of Art, etc., can be applied even to the art works exhibited in the open public indoor place.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 임광섭, "컴퓨터프로그램저작물과 공정이용–Oracle America, Inc. v. Google LLC 판결을중심으로" 서울대학교 기술과법센터 14 (14): 2018

2 김상용, "채권각론" 법문사 2003

3 윤철홍, "채권각론" 법원사 2001

4 곽윤직, "채권각론" 박영사 2004

5 이은영, "채권각론" 박영사 2004

6 송영식, "지적소유권법(하)" 육법사 2013

7 김인철, "전시권에 관련된 규정의 개정 필요성에 관한 소고" 법학연구소 6 (6): 117-139, 2016

8 신재호, "저작권법" 법문사 2008

9 한지영, "인터넷에서 저작권 침해와 사적 복제에 관한 비교법적 고찰" 경북대학교 IT와 법연구소 3 : 2009

10 박준석, "인터넷상 불법원본을 다운로드 받는 행위는 불법인가? - 우리 저작권법상 사적복제의 요건과 관련하여 -" 법조협회 59 (59): 241-299, 2010

11 최상필, "웹스토리지 서비스에 관한 법률관계 - 서울중앙지법 2008.8.5. 선고, 2008카합968 판결을 참조하여 -" 법학연구소 (44) : 221-246, 2009

12 문건영, "미술저작물등의 부수적 이용에 관한 연구 - 대법원 2014. 8. 26. 선고 2012도10786 판결(Be the Reds 사건)을 중심으로 -" 한국저작권위원회 32 (32): 129-168, 2019

13 하동철, "공중에 개방된 장소의 범위와 저작권의 제한－호텔 라운지에 전시된 미술저작물" 한국저작권위원회 21 (21): 57-76, 2008

14 정태윤, "공동불법행위의 제도적 취지에 관한 재검토" 한국민사법학회 (16) : 1998

15 최진원, "건축 저작물의 광고 이용에 대한 법적 고찰 - ‘UV 하우스’ 사건(서울중앙지방법원 2007.9.12.선고 2006가단208142 판결)을 중심으로" 법학연구소 10 (10): 401-424, 2009

16 최호진, "개정 저작권법 제35조의3(저작물의 공정한 이용)에 따라 공정이용을 판단할 때 발생할 수 있는 문제점에 대한 고찰과 해석론의 제시" 한국저작권위원회 25 (25): 69-98, 2012

17 박인회, "가상현실/증강현실과 관련된 저작권법적 문제" 법학연구소 59 (59): 351-381, 2018

18 서광민, "共同不法行爲의 성립요건" 한국민사법학회 (41) : 401-450, 2008

19 김경숙, "“저작물의 부수적 이용”에 관한 신설 조항의 검토" IT와 법연구소 (20) : 1-38, 2020

20 권용수, "[영국] 사적 복제의 예외 규정을 철회하기로 결정" 한국저작권위원회 (1) : 2016

21 Dulong de Rosnay, M, "Public artworks and the freedom of panorama controversy:a case of Wikimedia influence" Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society 6 (6): 2017

22 안효질, "P2P환경 하에서의 저작권침해책임" 한국법제연구원 2001

23 Käte Nicolini, "Hartwig Ahlberg & 19 more" Kommentar, Verlag Franz Vahlen 2000

24 WIPO, "Guide to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works" 1978