[업무방해(변경된죄명:저작권법위반)]〈모바일 애플리케이션에 관한 저작권법 위반 사건〉[공2016하,903]
Whether an act of Internet link constitutes the preparation of reproduction, exhibition, or derivative work under the Copyright Act (negative) / Whether the foregoing legal doctrine is the same as a case of connecting a mobile web page managed and operated by a third party similar to an Internet link to a mobile web page managed and operated by a third party (affirmative)
Internet link is merely an indication of the web location or route of each copyrighted work stored in the web page or website, etc. that is intended to link on the Internet. Thus, even if Internet users directly connect a link to a web page or an individual copyrighted work, this does not constitute “a fixed object or a remaking into a tangible object” as provided in Article 2 Subparag. 22 of the Copyright Act, but does not constitute “drawing or posting a tangible object” as provided in Article 19 of the same Act. In addition, in light of the nature of the Internet link, the Internet link does not constitute a correction, increase, or decrease to the extent that new creativity can be recognized on each copyrighted work, and it does not constitute a derivative copyrighted work. This legal doctrine likewise applies to the case where mobile application is linked to a mobile web page managed and operated by a third party similar to the Internet.
Article 2 Subparag. 22 of the Copyright Act, Articles 5(1), 19, and 136(1)1 of the Copyright Act
Supreme Court Decision 2009Da4343 Decided March 11, 2010 (Gong2010Sang, 718) Supreme Court Decision 2012Do13748 Decided March 12, 2015 (Gong2015Sang, 583)
Defendant
Prosecutor
Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014No416 decided October 16, 2015
The appeal is dismissed.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
The so-called Internet link is merely an indication of the web location or route of individual copyrighted works, etc. stored in the web page or website, etc. that the Internet user intends to link on the Internet. Even if the Internet user directly connects the link to the web page or individual copyrighted works, it does not constitute “a fixed object or a re-making by tangible material” as provided in Article 2 Subparag. 22 of the Copyright Act, but does not constitute “a display or posting of tangible material” as provided in Article 19 of the same Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da4343, Mar. 11, 2010). In addition, in light of the nature of the above Internet link, the Internet link does not constitute a correction or increase of the link’s web page or individual copyrighted works to the extent that new originality can be recognized, and thus, it does not constitute a mobile copyrighted work that the Internet user manages and operates. This legal doctrine also applies to the case where the Internet link is made from the Internet web page.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the defendant on the ground that the mobile application registered by the defendant based on its adopted evidence could not be deemed as a reproduction or display of the victim's mobile web page or a derivative work of the victim's copyrighted work, if the mobile application, which was activated in the smartphone, was combined with the cafeteria which was marked in the cafeteria, etc., and then the cafeteria, was operated in a manner similar to the Internet link, which was linked to the mobile web page produced by the victim.
Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on copyright infringement, or by misapprehending the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)