(a) Requirements for becoming a derivative work on an original;

B. Whether the title of the work itself can be protected as a work

(c) The case holding that, in case where the author of the novel "audio" consented to the use of the film "audio" and its title 2,3, 4 as well as the motion picture "audio" and thereafter acquired the well-knownness as a motion picture separately from the novel in the process of entertainment, the production and screening of the motion picture "audio 5" do not constitute an unfair competition act under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act;

A. For the purpose of becoming a derivative work of an original work, a work produced on the basis of the original work is not sufficient simply with the same or similar ideas, theme, materials, etc. of which are merely identical or similar to those of the original work, and the composition, development process, and the crossing of appearing figures, etc. between the two works must be able to directly obtain the intrinsic characteristics of the original work from the new work.

B. Generally, the title of a work itself cannot be seen as an expression of work that is merely an independent idea and a creative expression of appraisal, and thus, the title of a novel cannot be protected as a work.

C. Even if the author has consented to the production of the film "Eas" using the above novel as the original work, and then there was no implied consent or objection to the use of the title in producing the two, three, and four parts of the film "Eas". If most of the film shown above are successful in entertainment and the film has already acquired the well-knownness as a film separate from the above novel and the two signs exist together, it is difficult for the author to give the right of priority as the first being used, and it is difficult for the author to give the right of priority as a sign which is being used, and if the measure is withdrawn to reduce the risk of confusion such as adding a distinction from the place where a new film is produced in accordance with the principle of balancing profits, the act of producing the film cannot be viewed as a "the act of producing the film as the author's consent and the number of the above authors," and it cannot be viewed as a "the act of producing the film as the act of being newly formed in good faith," and thus, it cannot be seen as a "the act of creating the film as a new film."

(a) Article 5, (b) Article 2, (c) Article 4 of the Copyright Act, Article 2 and Article 4 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act;

Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Expenses

federal film corporation

Seoul Central District Court Order 91Ka41790

1. The petitioner's appeal is dismissed;

2. Costs of appeal shall be borne by the applicant.

The original decision shall be revoked.

The respondent shall not produce, distribute, screen or advertise the movies of the items indicated in addition to the "Eas 5" or "Eama".

In addition to "Ieman 5" and other "Ieman 5" or "Ieman", each part, scenarios using the title indicating "Ieman 5" or "Ieman" and any films which film it, contact for the cinematographic of this objection and other advertising material possession of the respondent, and order the recipient entrusted by the applicant to keep it in custody.

The delivery officer shall publicly announce the purport of the custody in an appropriate manner.

The expenses of the application shall be borne by the respondent in both the first and second instances.

성립에 다툼이 없는 소갑 제1호증의 1, 2(소설 애마부인, 표지 및 내용), 소갑 제2호증의 1, 2(시나리오 애마부인, 표지 및 내용), 소갑 제3호증의 1, 2(시나리오 애마부인 5, 표지 및 첫페이지), 소갑 제4호증의 1, 2(잡지'선데이서울' 표지 및 내용), 소갑 제6호증(공문, 제작신고확인의뢰에 대한 통보), 소갑 제8호증(신문기사), 소갑 제9호증의 1, 2(영화소식, 표지 및 내용), 소갑 제10호증의 1, 2(영화예술, 표지 및 내용), 소을 제3호증의 4, 5(각 사유서), 9(검열합격통보), 10(포스터), 소을 제4호증의 7(검열합격통보), 8(애마부인포스터), 소을 제5호증의 7(영화심의결과통보), 8(포스터), 소을 제6호증의 7(영화심의결과 통보), 8(영화심의 필증), 9(애마부인포스터), 소을 제7호증의 6(포스터 및 제호), 소을 제9, 10, 11, 12, 13(각 원작시나리오), 공성 부분의 성립에 다툼이 없고 사문서부분은 원심증인 이문웅의 증언에 의하여 진정성립이 인정되는 소갑 제5호증(인증서, 이문웅)의 각 기재와 위 증인과 원심증인 정영식의 각 증언에 심리의 전취지를 종합하면, 신청인은 1960.경 장편소설 "나상의 계집애들"을 발표하면서 문단에 데뷔한 이래 수편의 소설을 발표하여온 소설가인데 1979. 가을경부터 "애마부인"이라는 제목으로 소설을 집필하여 1980. 여름경 완성한 사실, 영화감독인 신청외 정영식(예명 정인엽)은 평소 잘 알고 있는 신청인의 위 소설 집필사실을 알고 위 소설을 영상화 할 것을 제안하여 신청인이 이에 동의한 사실, 이에 따라 위 정영식이 위 소설을 토대로 시놉시스(줄거리)를 만든 다음 여러 영화사를 찾아 가서 위 소설의 영화제작을 건의하였으나 당시에는 방화가 전반적으로 불황이었고 검열통과의 어려움도 우려한 영화사들이 위 소설의 영화제작을 꺼려 하여 제작에 나서려는 영화사가 없었던 사실, 그러던 중 1981.초경 피신청인의 기획실장으로 있던 신청외 손병진이 위 소설의 영화화에 긍정적인 반응을 보이면서 피신청인 대표이사인 최춘지를 수차에 걸쳐 설득하여 1981.3.경 피신청인이 제작자로 되어 위 소설을 영화화 하기로 결정하게 된 사실, 이에 따라 위 정영식은 신청인으로부터 소설 "애마부인"의 원고를 넘겨 받아 시나리오 작가인 신청외 이문웅에게 건네주었고 위 이문웅은 이를 영화 시나리오로 각색한 사실, 피신청은 1981.10.경 영화 "애마부인"의 제작신고를 하였다가 영화제목이 문제되자 1981.11. 이를 "애마부인"으로 개제하여 문화공보부장관의 승인을 받았고 위 영화는 1982.1.말경 완성되어 같은 달 28. 검열 합격되어 1981.2.경 서울 극장에서 개봉되어 관객 328,000명을 동원하는 대성공을 거둔 사실, 한편 신청인의 위 소설은 1981.11.30.인쇄되어 같은 해 12.15.발행된 사실, 피신청인은 위 영화의 성공에 힘입어 영화 "애마부인 2"를 제작하기로 하여 1982.5.위 정영식에게 다시 감독을 맡겼고 위 영화는 1983.5.경 제작신고되어 제작되었다가 1983.12.17. 검열 합격되어 그 무렵 상영된 사실, 그 후 "애마부인 3"을 제작하기로 하여 1985.4.경 제작신고하여 위 정영식이 다시 감독을 맡아 제작하자 1985.9.13. 검열에 합격하여 그 무렵 상영된 사실, 피신청인은 1988.1.경 "애마부인 4"의 제작을 기획하여 신청외 석도원으로 하여금 감독을 맡게 하여 이를 제작하고 1990.8.8.심의를 마친 후 그 무렵 상영되게 한 사실, 1990.9.경에는 "애마부인 5"의 제작을 기획하여 1991.2.경 영화제작 신고를 한 후 위 석도원으로 하여금 감독을 맡게 하여 그 제작을 완료하고 1991.6.이래로 서울 등지의 극장에서 상영중인 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 위 인정사실에 반하여 영화 "애마부인"의 시나리오가 위 이문웅의 원작시나리오라는 피신청인 주장을 뒷받침하는 소을 제1호증의 1, 2, 3(월간영화, 표지 및 내용), 소을 제2호증(신문기사), 소을 3호증의 1(제작 및 보수계약서), 2(작가승낙서), 3(영화제작신고서), 8(검열신청서), 소을 제14호증(확인서, 사서인증), 소을 제15호증의 1(마장 6월호 표지), 2(내용, 애마부인의 비밀, 이문웅 글), 3(마장 끝표지)의 각 기재와 원심증인 손병진의 증언은 앞서 든 소갑 제5호증의 기재와 증인 이문웅,정영식의 각 증언에 비추어 믿지 않으며 달리 위 인정 사실을 뒤집을 증거 없다.

The applicant (1) The film "EM 5" is not only used the characteristic and technique of the expression of the "Samaman" but also expresses the character of the "Samaman" created by the applicant as it is. Although the respondent has produced the above film without the consent of the applicant as the original author, it infringes the right to prepare the second copyrighted works, etc. protected by Article 21 of the Copyright Act. (2) The film "Eamaman" represents the idea and appraisal of the free dial-a-a-the-art and it is the work protected under the Copyright Act, it is an infringement of the right to reproduction as provided by Article 16 of the Copyright Act, and the production of the "Eaman" by using it is an infringement of the right of reproduction as well as the infringement of the right of reproduction as provided by Article 16 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, and (3) the act of producing the film "Eaman" is an infringement of the right of reproduction as well as the right of reproduction as the right of reproduction of the first copyrighted work, which is the subject of the film.

Therefore, (1) As to the assertion of the above, the author has the right to prepare and use the derivative work using the original work as a part of the author’s right (Article 5(1), 5(2), and 21 of the Copyright Act) since the author’s work is often protected by his husband’s own work by means of translation of the original work, arrangement, alteration, color or other means, and the protection of the derivative work does not affect the author’s rights (Article 5(1), 5(2), and the author has the right to write and use the derivative work whose work is composed of the original work (Article 21 of the above Act). Meanwhile, in order to become the derivative work of the original work, it is not sufficient to say that the work written on the basis of his husband’s name is the same as or similar to that of his husband’s work, and it is difficult to see that there is no conflict between the author’s name and the 5-year film work that has been written on the basis of his husband’s name and 5-year film.

Next, the term "work protected under the current Copyright Act" refers to a creative production that expresses ideas or emotions, which falls within the scope of literature, science, or art (Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Copyright Act). If such creative creation is created only, it may be protected as a work from the time of the original work. However, in general, the title of a work itself is merely merely an indication of a work, and it is difficult to regard it as an independent idea or a creative expression of appraisal, and it does not meet the requirements of a work. Therefore, the applicant's assertion, a title of the above novel, is without merit.

Lastly, according to the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, if an applicant uses any one identical with or similar to the name, trade name, trademark, container or package of goods widely known in the Republic of Korea or any other one, or sells, distributes or imports goods using such one, and thereby causes confusion with another's goods, the applicant may request the court to suspend the act (Article 4 (1)). However, even if the film mark is well-known, the applicant's right to use the above novel is hard to produce the film because it is hard to say that the respondent has consented to the production of the film by means of a non-applicant's appearance, and it is hard to say that the respondent has no prior approval to use the film as the subject of unfair competition, and it is hard to say that the respondent has no prior approval to use the film as the subject of the above Respondent's right to use the film as the subject of unfair competition, and it is hard to say that the respondent has no prior approval to use the film as the subject of the above Respondent's right to use the film and its value as the subject of unfair competition.

Thus, the petitioner's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it has no reason to regard it as a single copy, and the order of the court below is just and therefore, the petitioner's appeal of this case is dismissed as it has no reason to do so, and the costs of appeal shall be borne by the losing party and shall be decided as per the order.

Judge Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Judge)