Of the judgment below, the part on Defendant 2’s video works is reversed, and this part of this case is applied.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. (1) Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Copyright Act defines a work as a “a creative production that expresses human thoughts or emotions” and requires creativity.

Here, creativity does not require complete originality, but to be recognized as creative, at least, it should not simply imitate others, and should include its own independent expression of the author of ideas or emotions.

Therefore, it cannot be said that any expression that can be the same or similar even if any, contains any expression that does not reveal the creative identity of the author of the work, i.e., the creative identity of the author of the work, is creative.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do291, Feb. 10, 2011). A so-called ice broadcast program produced in a situation expressed by contributors, etc. solely on the basis of the approximate composition without a specific script may be protected as a work, if such originality exists.

The Liice Broadcasting Program consists of various elements, such as stage, background, props, music, progress method, and game rules, and these elements are selected and arranged in accordance with a certain production intent or policy, and may display a feature or identity that is clearly distinguishable from other programs.

Therefore, in determining the originality of a ice broadcast program, it is necessary to consider whether these individual elements are specific as they are selected and arranged in accordance with a certain production intent or policy, and whether the program itself has a creative identity distinct from that of other programs, and to the extent that they are protected as a work.