beta
(영문) 대법원 2015.06.24 2013다58460

저작자확인

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by an independent party intervenor, including the part resulting from an intervention in the appeal.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 2 subparag. 21 of the Copyright Act provides that “joint works” shall be “the works jointly created by two or more persons, and the part of each contribution may not be separately used.” Thus, even if multiple persons participate in the creation of a work, if each person’s creative activity can be separately used, it shall be deemed that such work is not a joint work but a so-called combined work.

(2) On October 4, 2005, the court below decided 2004Ma639 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2004Ma639, Oct. 4, 2005). The court below acknowledged that the plaintiff newly created the part of the domestic work among the foreign grains composed of the original family and the musical music at the request of the intervenor joining the defendant, and that S and R (hereinafter referred to as "e.g.") made the part of the musical work by arranging the musical music, and that the "Rules on Distribution of the Fees for Music Works" of the intervenor joining the independent party is 5/12, respectively, and that the distribution ratio of the musical work is 2/12, and the defendant reported the musical work of this case to the intervenor who is the trustee under the copyright trust agreement on March 6, 2003, and confirmed that the copyright of this case belongs to 100% of the original musical work of this case, and that the defendant did not return it to 200% of the copyright rights of this case.