확대된 저작권 집중관리 제도의 도입에 관한 연구

이해완 성균관대학교 법학연구원 2009 성균관법학 Vol.21 No.3

In recent years, the extended collective licensing(ECL) system for copyright has been drawing extensive attention from scholars, officials and legislators of Korea from the viewpoint that its introduction can promote the effective use of copyrightable works. After examining the necessity of its introduction, the compatibility with the international treaties including Berne convention and WPPT, and the various concerns that people against this system raise, this article explores the specific areas where ECL system can be introduced. It is based on a positive perspective toward ECL system. The introduction of ECL system is necessary for following four reasons. Firstly, it will make significant contribution to solving the problem that people can not use enough works to meet the needs that has increased exponentially through digital revolution, due to too high transaction cost related to the exclusivity of copyright. Secondly, it will help users use almost all the works of certain genre under the contract with a representative collecting society without concern for being illegal. Thirdly, it can benefit copyright holders in substance while it does not harm the economic and moral rights of them. Lastly, it can contribute to revitalizing the copyright collective system. And, the conclusion of this article is that ECL system does not conflict with the copyright treaties including Berne Convention and WPPT because it can be regarded as a kind of copyright management system that respect the exclusivity of copyright holders by giving them veto rights and benefit them by decreasing the transaction cost. Also in my view, the conclusion above has been being approved generally in international society after the adoption of EU copyright directive of the year 2001. Finally this article suggests that the applicable areas of ECL should include i) photocopying literary works(including illustration) with public copier for private use, ii) the mechanical reproduction and public performance or communication of musical works, iii) digitalization and public transmission of academic theses for the purpose of education and research iv) digital reproduction or public communication of performance and phonogram of musical works when the system is introduced in a new legislation.

저작권법상 징벌적 손해배상제도의 도입에 관한 소고

이해완 한국지식재산학회 2019 産業財産權 Vol.- No.58

At present, the situation of copyright infringement relief in Korea shows a tendency to rely too much on criminal remedies, which leads to various harms caused by the abuse of criminal complaint. One of the reasons for this phenomenon is that the civil remedies under current copyright act, in particular the damages provisions, do not play a sufficient role in deterring copyright infringement. The statutory damages system, which is the only system that can play the role of deterring copyright infringement under current act, is not able to exert much power in most cases due to the registration requirements. In this situation, the recent introduction of the triple damages system, which is a type of punitive damages, into Patent Act and Unfair Competition Prevention Act, is highly suggestive. In view of foreign legislative cases, there are many cases in which the punitive damages system including the double or triple damages or additional damages have been introduced into the copyright act. In some jurisdictions, both the statutory damages and the other punitive damages system have been stipulated together. In Korea also, there are several other acts where both the statutory damages and the triple damages have been provided simultaneously. On the other hand, the direction of revitalizing the statutory damages is likely to cause big problems under the current situation where the upper limit of total damages does not exist. In view of these circumstances, I think that the desirable direction of improvement of the infringement remedy system in our copyright act is to introduce the punitive damages system which is almost same as the one included in the recent revision of Patent Act and Unfair Competition Prevention Act on the premise of paralleling legislation that limits the abuse of criminal remedies. 현재 우리나라의 저작권 침해 구제의 상황을 보면, 형사적 구제수단에 지나치게 의존하는 양상을 보이고 있으며, 그것은 남고소로 인한 여러 가지 폐해로 이어지고 있다. 이러한 현상에는 여러 가지 원인이 있지만, 현행 저작권법상의 민사적 구제수단, 특히 손해배상제도가 저작권침해의 억지를 위해 충분한 역할을 못 하는 데 기인하는 면도 적지 않다. 침해억지적 기능을 가지는 유일한 현행법상의 제도인 법정손해배상 제도는 등록 요건 등으로 인해 대다수 사건에는 큰 힘을 발휘하지 못 하고 있다. 이러한 상황에서 최근 특허법 및 부정경쟁방지법에서 징벌적 손해배상의 한 유형이라고 할 수 있는 3배배상 제도를 도입한 것은 시사하는 바가 크다. 외국의 입법사례를 보면, 저작권법에 2배 또는 3배의 배수 배상 제도 또는 부가적 배상제도를 포함하여 징벌적 손해배상 제도를 도입한 예가 상당히 많다. 그리고 일부 나라에서는 법정손해배상 제도와 징벌적 손해배상 제도를 함께 규정하고 있기도 하며, 우리나라에서도 기존의 법률에서 법정손해배상제도와 3배배상 제도를 동시에 규정한 예들이 있다. 한편으로 법정손해배상제도를 활성화하는 방향은 손해배상 총액의 상한이 규정되어 있지 않은 상태에서 자칫 남용될 경우 큰 문제를 야기할 소지가 없지 않다. 이러한 사정들을 고려할 때, 우리 저작권법상의 침해 구제 제도에 대한 바람직한 개선방향은 형사적 구제수단의 남용을 제한하는 입법과의 병행추진을 전제로, 저작권법에 최근의 특허법 및 부정경쟁방지법 개정에 포함된 것과 거의 같은 징벌적 손해배상 제도를 추가로 도입하는 것이라 생각한다.

대중매체의 발전과 대중예술 정의의 문제

이해완 한국미학회 2003 美學 Vol.35 No.-

It is all too well known that there is a group of artworks-by some people, though, their "art" stat us is denied-called "popular art," which typically includes movies like Matrix, novels of pulp fiction variety, music of Beatles, Michael Jackson and Nirvana, etc. We coustomarily distinguish them from, for example, a painting by Picasso, a sy mphony composed by Beethoven, and a novel written by James Joyce. These are ca lled "high art." Then, what is, if any, a justification for this distinction? Is this dis tinction based on any aesthetically and philosophically legitimate reason? Is it a co nceptual distinction? This paper deals with the issue of high vs. popular art disti nction and subsequently, how to define popular art. As for the plausible criteria for this distinction, I first consider some seemingly obvious characterization of popu lar art; popular art's characteristics such as being consumed by mass audien ce, or being commercialized. However, it turns out that these characteristics, altho ugh they can explain a good deal of phenomena concerning popular art, fall shor t for providing a philosophical justification for this distinction. The same goes for other possible characteristics of popular art such as not being autonomous, not be ing an art for art's sake, not being pure and not being avant-garde. Failing to f ind help from our ordinary ways of talking about popular art, I the move on to find any purely aesthetic or structural difference between artworks of high art and those of popular art. If we can find any difference in aesthetic properties, tha t could be used in the definition of popular art. Here, I first review Abraham Kaplan 's famous study, in which popular art is defined as artworks that pursue aesthe tic disvalue. He names, among others, stereotyping, superficiality, passivit y in appreciation, sentimentalism and escapism as the examples of disvalue fou nd in popular art. However, depending on Noel Carroll's study as well as R ichard Shusterman's defense of popular art, I reject Kaplan's view as not a viable characterization of the true and general nature of popular art. Kaplan's p osition, although interesting, informative and enlightening, faces the difficulty of using evaluative concept in a definition. I also consider the possibility of defini ng popular art on the basis of purely social factors. Again, using an argument bo rrowed from Carroll, I point out some difficulties of this position. Finally, I criti cally review Carroll's position, showing that he, too has several problems in his the ory. There is no doubt that Carroll's approach is new and insightful. I acknowledge the need of a value-neutral(or a classificatory) definition, and for this, I think tha t his approach, rejecting the term "popular art" and rather focusing on "mass art," has some merit. In his view, mass art is defined in terms of its very sp ecial ontological characteristic(namely, being a multiple instance artwork), wh ich is due to mass technology by which mass art is produced and distributed. Moreo ver, the claims the easy accessibility is the key feature of mass art. Howeve r, my critical point concerns whether mass art if it cuts variety of artworks (an d "popular artworks") as Carroll suggests. I discuss some of possible counter e xamples that may cause some difficulties in Carroll's theory. I further suggest that being based on the evidence and arguments considered so far, it might be reas onable to conclude that, in a classificatory sense, the distinction betwee n high and popular art is unsupported. However, the term popular ant might still be used in a significant way because if car positively identify a group of artworks in terms of evaluation rather than classification.

포르노그라피와 재현의 문제

이해완 한국미학회 2002 美學 Vol.33 No.-

This paper is about the controversial issue of pornography. Usually, it is understood as a debate between those who ask for government's involvement in this issue by means of censorship and those who oppose the censorship. However, it is not my primary concern to settle whose position in this controversy should prevail. Rather, it is to investigate some basic assumptions that most people who are involved in the pornography debate seem to take for granted Although. pornography is generally considered as an ethical issue, one assumption is keenly relevant to aesthetics; pornography constitutes a case of representation. Thus, at the bottom of the issue, there lies an assumption concerning representation and what is represented. More specifically, it presupposes the distinction between a point of view and the content of the representation. This paper mainly pursues the implications of such a distinction. I hope the consequences of this investigation, which would eventually reveal some theoretical difficulties of the currently popular version of the anti-pornography argument, contribute to understanding the scope of the issue of pornography and our future approach of how to deal with it from the philosophical perspective. I begin by considering the moral status of pornography because, if our attitude that pornography may be morally blameworthy is justifiable, it would provide a great reason for advocating censorship, although moral culpability and advocating censorship are not necessarily rely on each other. I first examine whether the traditional strategy utilizing the concept of obscenity could be effective in determining the moral status of pornography. It turns out that this criterion is unsatisfactory. Then I consider the so-called feminist approach vehemently held by Catherine Mackinnon. I also consider the argument made by Helen Longino, which I think is a further refinement of the feminist approach, yet a slightly different version from Mackinnon's. I admit that the basic idea of the feminist position, which directs our attention to the fact that pornography is related with the invasion of civil rights (spreading sexism, endorsing oppression of women, or being defamatory at least), provides a legitimate ground for accusing pornography morally. However, it is doubtful whether this ethically sound position can be maintained. According to Mackinnon, an image that represents oppression is an oppressive image. Therefore, censorship on the material that contains a morally problematic content, such as violence to women, would be justified. However, if Longino's distinction of the content and the point of view is plausible and thus pornography should be morally blamed only when it has a morally problematic point of view, then Mackinnon's position, which intentionally denies such a distinction in pornography, would not be viable. The difficulty of maintaining Mackinnon's position can be further criticized by considering the well-known analysis of representation by Nelson Goodman. However, Longino's position too has its own weakness from a different aspect. According to Longino, pornography is an endorsement of sexism in terms of its point of view. However, it would be notoriously hard to determine whether any given material has a certain point of view or not. The difficulties that are found in Makinnon's position and in Longino's position lead to the conclusion that the anti-pornography arguments, as they are presented, need to be reconsidered not because of their ethical standpoint but because of aesthetic consideration.

인터넷송신과 저2작권법: 저작권법 개정안의 디지털동시송신 개념을 중심으로

이해완 한국정보법학회 2021 한국정보법학회 정기세미나 발표자료 Vol.2021 No.-

언론과 저작권의 이해

이해완 한국조사기자협회 2014 조사연구 Vol.26 No.-

창작자의 권익 향상을 위한 저작권법 개정 방안 연구

이해완 한국지식재산학회 2020 産業財産權 Vol.- No.65

Currently, the government is pushing for complete revision of the copyright law in about 14 years. One of the things that should be included in this full revision is the revision to improve the rights and interests of individual creators. It can be divided into two major divisions: the revision of the regulations about works for hire and the introduction of the provisions about copyright contracts as mandatory regulations. If these two revisions are made this time, it can be said that it is the emergence of a new paradigm that has not been in the history of copyright law revision until now, and it is thought that it will be a new milestone in protecting the rights and interests of creators. The purpose of this thesis is to establish a basic direction based on a detailed analysis of the relevant legislative cases and further to derive a specific regulation on the above two revision issues to improve creator rights and interests. In conclusion, even when all the requirements as works for hire are met, in accordance with “creator principle”, the status of the author must be given to the individual creator while all the copyrights of the author, including the right to create derivative works, are presumed to have been transferred to employers such as corporations. It should be provided that the moral rights of authors are also partially limited in consideration of the interests of employers such as corporations. Next, regarding the copyright contract law, in the case of "Cloud Bread" case, which has been a social concern, the author has been bound by the original contract and has been completely alienated from the ongoing profits from his work, even if the work he created became a world known bestseller. To ensure that there is no such problem, the author can exercise the right to claim additional compensation if there is a significant imbalance between the profits from the work after the contract and the compensation received through the contract. But when the contract was made by applying the principle of proportional compensation from the beginning It should be treated exceptionally. If these revisions are made, it is expected that the rights and interests of the creators will be greatly enhanced, and the development of the cultural industry will be further driven by the increased motivation of individual creators. 현재 정부는 약 14년 만에 저작권법의 전부 개정을 추진하고 있다. 이번 전부개정에 꼭 포함되어야 할 것 중의 하나가 자연인 창작자의 권익을 향상하기 위한 개정이다. 그것은 업무상저작물 규정의 개정과 강행규정으로서의 저작권계약법 조항 도입의 두 가지로 크게 구분해 볼 수 있다. 이번에 만약 이 두 가지의 개정이 이루어지게 되면, 지금까지의 저작권법 개정의 역사에 없었던 새로운 패러다임의 출현이라고 할 수 있고 창작자 권익 보호의 새로운 이정표가 될 것으로 생각된다. 이 논문의 목적은 창작자 권익의 향상을 위한 위 두 가지의 개정 이슈에 대하여 관련 입법례 등의 상세한 분석을 토대로 기본적인 방향성을 정립하고, 나아가 구체적인 규정안을 도출하는 데 있다. 결론적으로, 업무상저작물의 관한 규정은 창작자원칙에 따라 업무상저작물로서의 요건을 모두 같은 경우에도 자연인 창작자에게 저작자의 지위를 인정하고, 그 대신 법인등 사용자에게 2차적저작물작성권을 포함한 모든 저작재산권이 양도된 것으로 추정하며, 저작인격권에 대하여도 법인등 사용자의 이익을 고려하여 일부 제한하는 규정을 두는 것을 기본적인 개정방향으로 설정하는 것이 타당하다. 다음으로 저작권계약법과 관련하여서는, 무엇보다 그 동안 문제가 되어 온 구름빵 사건과 같은 경우에 저작자가 자신이 창작한 저작물이 베스트셀러가 된 경우에도 원래의 계약에 얽매여 자신의 저작물로부터 나오는 수익에서 완전히 소외되는 일이 없도록, 계약 이후 저작물로 인한 수익과 계약을 통해 저작자가 받은 보상 사이에 현저한 불균형이 발생하였을 경우에 저작자가 추가보상청구권을 행사할 수 있도록 하는 규정을 도입할 필요가 있다. 다만 처음부터 비례보상의 원칙을 적용하여 계약한 경우는 예외사유로 규정하는 것이 타당하다. 위와 같은 개정이 이루어지면, 창작자들의 권익이 크게 신장될 뿐만 아니라, 그들의 창작의욕을 높임으로써 문화산업의 발전도 더욱 가속화할 수 있을 것으로 기대된다.

현대 영미 인식론의 흐름 - 김도식

이해완 한국분석철학회 2004 철학적 분석 Vol.0 No.9

예술로서의 녹음의 존재론적 지위에 관하여

이해완 서울대학교 예술문화연구소 2001 예술문화연구 Vol.11 No.-

창의성과 가치 — 결과에서 덕성으로

이해완 서울대학교 인문학연구원 2021 人文論叢 Vol.78 No.4

Creativity is often defined as ability to produce novel and valuable outcomes. It is also claimed that the product, not the process, should be the focus when analyzing this concept. One flaw that has been identified in these positions is that the concept of creativity cannot be properly analyzed without including conditions concerning the agent. However, it is my contention that we also need to rethink the value condition for creativity. Surely our intuition supports that creativity is related with value, but despite the general acknowledgment, what we should be considering as the conceptual element of creativity may not be the value of what it produces. I argue for showing that the consequentialist view concerning the value of creativity generates counter-intuitive results. As an alternative, I show my support for a kind of virtue theoretic understanding on creativity. I think this is a right perspective to accommodate both the agency requirement and our intuitive beliefs of how the nature of value in creativity should be understood. 창의성은 새롭고 가치 있는 것을 생산하는 능력이며, 창의성의 설명을 위해 우선 고려해야 할 것은 과정이 아니라 산물이라는 입장이있다. 하지만 창의성 개념에 대한 이러한 이해는 결함이 있는 것으로, 어떤 식이건 산물의 생산에 관련된 행위자의 내적 과정을 분석에포함함으로써 보완될 필요가 있다. 그러나 내적 과정을 추가적으로고려한다고 해도 가치 조건이 ‘창의적 과정의 결과물이 가지는 가치’로 이해되는 한(이것을 결과주의로 부를 수 있다) 반직관적이고작위적인 귀결을 피하기 어렵다는 것이 이 글의 논변이다. 결과물의가치가 창의성의 정의적 요소라는 견해는 비록 일반적인 듯 보여도과학적 창의성의 실용적 측면에 경도된 시각에서 비롯되었다는 것이 필자의 의심이다. 따라서 필자는 몇 가지 방식으로 창의성에 관한우리의 직관이 결과주의를 지지하지 않음을 보이려 한다. 나아가 대안으로 필자는 창의성을 인간이 가진 좋은 품성(덕성)으로 보자는 제안을 소개한다. 이는 행위자 조건을 추가하는 것과 같은 정신에서비롯된 것이지만, 덕성이 가진 도구적이거나 본유적인 가치를 창의성의 가치로 볼 수 있다면 창의성의 개념에 가치 있음이 포함된다는우리의 직관을 존중하면서도 결과주의의 난점을 극복할 수 있는 이해 방식이 아닐까 한다.