beta
Text
All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
G
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors or misapprehension of legal principles) (based on the instant pictures, the lower court held that the instant pictures were a separate independent work even if the design (G; hereinafter “the instant design”) was used, but it does not necessarily require to reproduce an existing copyrighted work in order to constitute a reproduction, and even if a part of the pictures were reproduced, if they were to have a reproduction of the creative part of the relevant copyrighted work and have a quantitative reasonableness, it shall be deemed as constituting a reproduction.
Therefore, the act of photographing a copyrighted work without permission of the copyright holder and posting it on the web page constitutes infringement of copyright.
The lower court determined that the instant pictures were used in the instant design, but the instant pictures were new independent works, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had the intent of copyright infringement. However, insofar as the pictures of the model models on which the instant design was used were posted on the web page, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant was aware of the infringement of the copyright of the instant design, and even in light of the fact that the copyright holder continued to display the pictures of the Defendant, even though the copyright holder had sent a peremptory notice informing the Defendant of copyright infringement, the Defendant’s intentional intent can be recognized.
2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, namely, ① characteristics as a work of this case, ② characteristics as a work of this case, ② characteristics as a work of this case, ③ characteristics of Rabler business operated by the Defendants, etc., it is difficult to view that the Defendants’ act of posting the instant pictures infringed on the copyright of this case’s design, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
Therefore, it is true.