[1] The case holding that a photographic photo posted on an Internet website for the purpose of publicity is a work protected under the Copyright Act

[2] The case holding that a copyright infringement is committed in case where a copy of 13 copies of a photoloy's flock, posted on the Internet site for the purpose of public relations, is reproduced and stored within a disch Rexroth "in storage box"

[3] The case holding that a notice of the amount of damages due to an infringement of copyright by reproducing a scenic photo posted on an Internet site is calculated differently from the use price of the photograph presented on the Internet site

[1] The case holding that the photographer's identity and creativity are clearly reflected in the course of photographer's selection of body, establishment of Gu road, adjustment of light direction and quantity, establishment of Kamerasia, method of photographing, such as stackr's speed and the capture of air conditioners, etc., and that the photographer's identity and creativity are recognized as artistic creativity, and thus, they constitute a work protected under the Copyright Act.

[2] The case holding that it constitutes copyright infringement in a case where a copy of 13 copies among the franchis and photographs posted on the Internet site for the purpose of publicity is reproduced and stored within a disch Rexroth "in storage box"

[3] The case where the notice of the amount of damages caused by the infringement of copyright by reproducing a scenic photo posted on the Internet site is calculated differently from the use price of the photograph presented on the Internet site

[1] Articles 2 and 3 of the Copyright Act / [2] Articles 2, 3, and 98 of the Copyright Act / [3] Articles 93 and 94 of the Copyright Act

Song Ho-ho

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2004Gaso159707 Decided January 6, 2005

June 24, 2005

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 20 million won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of the complaint of this case to the day of rendering a judgment, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the part ordering additional payment shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 18.7 million won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment (the plaintiff has reduced part of the claim for damages for delay in this case).

1. Basic facts

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, evidence No. 1-8, evidence No. 2-1 through 13, purport of whole pleadings]

A. The plaintiff taken a photograph of the domestic scenic natural scenic view by a photographer and published it on the Internet website for the purpose of publicity, while advertising. The above Internet website contains the phrase "I prohibit unauthorized reproduction of the image (shot) of the site (shots)" (shots) of this site.

B. The photographs posted by the Plaintiff on the Internet website clearly reflects the Plaintiff’s identity and creativity in the process of shooting methods, such as the selection of the body of body, the determination of the Gu road, the adjustment of light direction and quantity, the establishment of a camera-do, the speed of the exhauster, and the capture of air conditioners, etc.

C. On the other hand, the Defendant, who served in Korea Investment Securities Co., Ltd., had access to the Internet site where the Plaintiff posted shot photographs taken by himself for the purpose of publicity by introducing the same on August 2003 to September 2003.

D. The Defendant, while admitting the shot photographs posted by the Plaintiff, stored only the photographs required for his mind in the last time, stored separately, and then reproduced 13 copies of the above shot photographs, and stored the above reproduced photographs within the shottory called “in-house storage box” (hereinafter referred to as “the instant pictures”).

E. After that, the Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against the Defendant in violation of the Copyright Act with the knowledge that the Defendant’s reproduction of his pictures posted on the website without permission. Accordingly, the Defendant was indicted for a violation of the Copyright Act and paid the said fine after being sentenced to a fine of KRW 200,000 at the Seoul Central District Court.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

According to the above facts, the pictures of this case are recognized as artistic creativity and protected under the Copyright Act. The defendant violated the plaintiff's copyright of the above photographic work by reproducing the plaintiff's pictures posted on the Internet site without the plaintiff's consent. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the infringement of copyright.

3. Scope of damages.

A. Part of property damage

Under the premise that the Plaintiff can receive a fee of KRW 1.5 million per photograph, the Plaintiff alleged that the Plaintiff sustained a total of KRW 19.5 million per photograph ( KRW 1.5 million per photograph x 13) due to the Defendant’s copyright infringement as above, and thus, according to each description of the evidence Nos. 4 and 5, the Plaintiff posted the Plaintiff’s Internet homepage as KRW 1.5 million, and the Plaintiff lent a copy of his photograph to the company of the same 1.5 million on June 24, 2004. However, the above recognition alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff can obtain a fee of KRW 1.5 million per photograph 1.5 million per photograph by exercising the copyright of the instant photograph, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff could receive a fee of KRW 1.5 million per photograph 1.5 million per photograph 1.5 million is rejected.

However, Article 94 of the Copyright Act provides that "the court may recognize a reasonable amount of damages in consideration of the purport of pleadings and the result of the examination of evidence when it is difficult to present the amount of damages pursuant to the provisions of Article 93 even though the damage occurred." The above basic facts are acknowledged as follows: ① not for commercial purposes, but for commercial purposes, the defendant separately offers the plaintiff's pictures with the intent of disclosing them to others; ② the defendant's photographs required for the defendant's mind; ② the defendant again 13 copies of the plaintiff's pictures posted on the Internet site; ③ the plaintiff's pictures posted on the Internet site; ③ the defendant's criminal complaint was filed against the defendant in violation of the Copyright Act; ④ the defendant's immediate copying of the plaintiff's pictures without permission; ④ the defendant's unlawful copying of the plaintiff's pictures; and ④ the plaintiff's efforts to bring the plaintiff's lawsuit against the infringement of the plaintiff's copyright 】 130 billion won prior to the filing of the lawsuit of this case 】 the plaintiff's infringement of the plaintiff's copyright (the plaintiff's photograph).

B. Parts of mental damage

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is obliged to pay consolation money to the plaintiff, but in general, it should be deemed that mental suffering is recovered from the compensation for property damage in the event that the author's property right was infringed due to other person's copyright infringement act, and only if the compensation for property damage was caused by the irrecoverable mental damage, the consolation money can be claimed. However, there is no evidence to prove that the above compensation for property damage caused the irrecoverable mental damage. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1.3 million won and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from August 20, 2004 to January 6, 2005, which is the day following the delivery day of the complaint of this case, to the day after the delivery day of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from January 7, 2005, which is the day after the next day to the day after the completion of payment, as the plaintiff seeks. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case of this case is justified within the above recognition scope, and it is dismissed as the remaining claims are groundless, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)