In a case where the Defendant was indicted on charges of infringing upon Party A’s copyright by moving most of the final scripts without Party A’s consent and allowing Party A to use it for musical performances, the case holding that the final scripts constitute a joint work of the Defendant and Party A, on the grounds that the Defendant’s use of it by himself does not constitute copyright infringement even if the Defendant independently uses it.

In a case where the Defendant was indicted on charges of infringing upon Party A’s copyright by moving most of the final scripts without Party A’s consent to use it for musical performances, the case holding that the Defendant’s act constitutes a joint work as provided by Article 2 subparag. 21 of the former Copyright Act (amended by Act No. 10807, Jun. 30, 201; hereinafter the same) on the ground that, in light of the overall circumstances, the final scripts are a single work in which the correction and supplementation work of Party A et al. are indivisible rather than the “second copyrighted work” separate from the primary scripts, and the new creativity was added through the correction and supplementation of Party A, and thus, the Defendant constitutes a joint work as provided by Article 2 subparag. 21 of the former Copyright Act (amended by Act No. 10807, Jun. 30, 201; hereinafter the same) and the Defendant’s act of solely utilizing the final scripts constitutes an infringement of copyright under Article 48(1)36 of the former Copyright Act.

Article 136(1) of the former Copyright Act (Amended by Act No. 10807, Jun. 30, 2011); Articles 2 subparag. 21, 5(1), and 48(1) and (2) of the Copyright Act; Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Jung-jin et al.

Law Firm Squa, Attorney Lee Jong-soo

The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of the facts charged in this case

Around August 2004, the Defendant written and published the ○○○○○○○○,” and around June 2006, the Defendant written the draft of the drama “○○○○○○” through a work contract with Nonindicted Co. 1 Co., Ltd., a performance planning company, in order to play the said multiples in a drama. However, Nonindicted 2, who was selected as a performance-based annual investment in the said drama, proposed the proposal that “the drama’s technical elements are lacking, and the main revision is required,” and agreed to the revision, Nonindicted 2 recommended Nonindicted 3, the complainant as the author to revise the said draft, and the complainant concluded a written color contract with Nonindicted Co. 1.

Meanwhile, from November 2006 to April 2007, the complainant maintained the overall distance based on the Defendant’s “○○○○” and the primary drama scripts, which are the Defendant’s original work. In addition, the complainant appeared as a new person, changed the arrangement order of the pages, as well as changed the considerable portion of the expression such as an ambassador, etc. to the extent that substantial similarity with the original work is maintained, and as a result, the complainant completed the script of the drama “○○○○○○”, which is a secondary work, through considerable changes to the extent that it maintains substantial similarity with the original work, and made and performed the drama “○○○○” by using this.

Around January 2010, the Defendant entered into a performance planning company’s “△△○○” contract and a theater contract for the production and performance of “○○○○,” which is called a musical work in Seoul and below, and entered into a performance planning company’s “△△○○,” which is a constituent element of the musical community, from around that time to around March of the same year, added a singing house, or added an additional a young path of the △△△△△△○, which is a musical element, into a musical community, and without the consent of the complainant, transferred most of the expressions, such as figures, Ambassador, etc. appearing in the main text of the “○○○,” which is a derivative work of the complainant, to the same community and the local community from around April 201 to May 201, thereby infringing upon the musical community’s “○○,” which is a musical musical work.

2. Determination

(a) Basic facts

According to the records, the following facts are recognized:

(1) On June 5, 2006, the Defendant, as an original author of the “○○○○○○○○○,” written a drama script with Nonindicted Incorporated Company 1 and the Defendant in order to play the drama “○○○○○○○○○○” on the part of the Defendant. Nonindicted Incorporated Company 1 entered into a contract with the Defendant to pay 3.5% of the net income of the performance (where the amount is less than 5 million won, 5 million won) and 500,000 won per local performance performance in return for a script, and completed the first set of the punishment.

(2) In order to perform a high performance with a high level of performance, Nonindicted Party 2, who is a drama “○○○○○”, concluded a color agreement with the Defendant on November 5, 2006 with Nonindicted Party 1 Company and the Defendant to receive KRW 100,000,000 per performance and KRW 50,000,000 per color, respectively.

(3) In accordance with the above color agreement, the complainant performed the correction and supplementation work of the first half of the half of the half of the half of the half of the half of the half of the half of the half of the half of the half of the half of the half of the half of the half of the half of the half of the half of the half of the half of the half of the half of the half of the half of the half of the half of the half of the half of the half of the half of the half of the half of the half of the half of the half of the first half of the half of the half of the half of the half of the half of the half of the half of the half of the half of

(4) A drama “○○○○” performed, around April 2007, the 5th correction and supplementation work performed by the complainants (hereinafter “final script”) with some additions to the smoke and the smoke and the smoke from the site. At the time, the signs of the last script drawn up by the Defendant at the time, and the drama posters, etc. drawn up by Nonindicted Co. 1 are indicated as “dives, Defendant and Nonindicted Co. 3”.

(5) The final representation is prepared by modifying and supplementing the primary set in which the Defendant written, and is identical to that of the primary set in the primary set. However, while the primary set in the primary set in the first set in the order of time took a joint and several composition that calls for the case, the last set of the primary set in the past and the present three-dimensional organization was adopted, while the primary set in the first set in the order of time took part in the joint and several composition that calls for the case, and in contrast with the primary set in the public figures, the author newly added the figures of the “Malsung” and the case related thereto, and the primary set of the two-dimensional set of the two-dimensional set of cases were greatly strengthened.

(6) Meanwhile, the Defendant, who had a career of more than 15 years around the instant case, had been engaged in writing a set of TV program scripts including the KBS weekends (drum name omitted), while the complainant had no experience of writing a drama or broadcast caption independently, except in part of his musical work.

B. Judgment on the issue

(1) The relationship between the “○○○○” and the instant primary and final scripts

Article 5(1) of the former Copyright Act (amended by Act No. 10807, Jun. 30, 2011; hereinafter the same) provides that “original works produced by means of translation, arrangement, alteration, color, image production, etc. of original works (hereinafter referred to as “second-class works”) shall be protected as independent works.” Thus, there is no room for doubt that the last script of the instant case constitutes “second-class works” created independently in relation to “○○○○○,” in which the original works are written in a series of copies, and in relation to “second-class works” created independently.

Furthermore, as to whether the final script of this case constitutes “the derivative work” as an independent work in the relationship with the primary scripts, the author examined whether it constitutes the “the primary work.” ① In the case of the drama scripts premised on the stage performances, it is not completed by the theater writers’ work, but rather by the theater writers’ work simultaneously or in succession, and there is a characteristic of completing various revisions and supplementary work according to the intention of the tobacco withdrawal, the identity of the performers actually performing, and the specific stage. ② In this case, it is reasonable to view the primary scripts prepared by the defendant as an independent work of the dives and supplementary work of the dives and supplementary work of the dives and supplementary work of the dives of the dives and supplementary work of the dives and supplementary work of the dives and the dives and supplementary work of the dives and supplementary work of the dives and the dives of the dives and supplementary work of the defendant who participated in the work of the dives and supplementary work of the d works.

(2) The issue of determining the author of the last script of the instant case

(A) As the author of the instant final script, the Defendant who prepared most of the appearing figures, ambassadors, and cases in coloring the “○○○○○○○” as the author of the instant final scripts. This can also be clearly confirmed through the fact that (a) the author’s agreement entered into with Nonindicted Co. 1 Company was maintained until the stage performance, and the complainant entered into a contract with the Nonindicted Co. 1 Company, and that the complainant was also a “dive Defendant” in the final scripts directly prepared by the principal.

(B) As to whether the complainant, who performed the correction and supplementation work of the primary script written by the defendant, becomes the author of the final script of this case together with the defendant, or is merely the person who assisted the defendant's primary works, the health room is as to whether the complainant's correction and supplementation work was conducted under a certain prior or ex post facto control of the defendant, and the contents of e-mail sent by the complainant to the defendant along with the result of the correction and supplementation work, the present drama reality and practice, and the difference in career between the defendant and the complainant, etc., it is not deemed that the complainant participated in the primary work in the same position as the defendant.

① However, even if the defendant controlled the correction and supplementation work of the complainant, the complainant appears to have been given considerable freedom of creation or discretion in the specific revision and supplementation work because the method was deleted from the inappropriate part of the overall direction presented or revised, etc. ② The contents corrected and supplemented by the complainant, such as the three-dimensional composition by cross-compicing with the past and the new character creation of the new man’s emulation, “Mai emulation”, constitute an ordinary color work. ③ The complainant entered into each color contract with the non-indicted corporation 1, and was paid royalties by the drama performance as well as the color, and the above royalties are expected to be recontractd on a certain period (five years) as well as the copyright fee, and the author’s right to use the new work is not the author’s right to use the original work as the result of the non-indicted corporation 2’s correction and supplementation (the author’s right to use the original work as the result of the non-indicted corporation 1’s correction and correction).

(3) Whether a copyright infringement was established between joint authors

Authors’ property rights in a joint work may not be exercised without the agreement of all the authors’ property rights holders pursuant to Article 48(1) of the former Copyright Act. If the defendant uses the final script of this case, which is a joint work, as recorded in the facts charged, as a musical substitute without the consent of the complainant who is the joint author, as described in the facts charged, the defendant may be liable for damages under civil law and tort liability as an unlawful act.

Furthermore, as to whether the above defendant's act constitutes an infringement of copyright under Article 136 (1) of the former Copyright Act, which provides for criminal punishment, the following facts: ① the defendant also holds copyright to the whole last part of the joint work of this case, as well as the complainants; ② the method of allocating profits from the use of a joint work is prescribed under Article 48 (2) of the former Copyright Act; ② even if a joint copyright owner independently uses a joint work, the profits can be distributed pursuant to the above provision and the mutual interests of the joint copyright owner may be adjusted; ③ if a joint copyright owner objects to one of the joint copyright owners, if criminal punishment is imposed as an act of infringement of copyright without considering the degree of creation contribution of the opposing party, it is excessively limited to the use of the joint work of this case, ④ If multiple authors such as dramas or cinemas are involved in the joint work of this case or related parties in the joint work of this case, it is not easy to interpret the provisions of the former Copyright Act to determine the scope of the copyright owner's right to use the joint work of this case.

C. Conclusion

Therefore, in order to be convicted of the facts charged of this case, the complainant should be recognized as the only copyright holder of the final script of this case. However, even if all evidence submitted by the prosecutor were collected, it is insufficient to reverse the judgment and to acknowledge the above facts. There is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the facts charged of this case constitutes a case where there is no proof of facts constituting a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment against the defendant pursuant to Article 58(2) of the Criminal

Judges Yellow Module