http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : 정지석 ( Chung Jee-seok ) (검색결과 3 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
구 저작권법상 음반의 저작자 결정 기준 - 대법원 2016. 4. 28. 선고 2013다56167 판결 -
정지석 ( Chung Jee-seok ) 법조협회 2016 최신판례분석 Vol.65 No.8
대법원은 최근 구 저작권법(1986. 12. 31. 법률 제3916호로 전부 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다)상 음반의 저작자를 어떻게 결정할 것인가에 관하여, 현행 저작권법상 음반제작자의 결정 기준을 통일적으로 적용할 필요가 있다는 판결을 선고하였다(대법원2016. 4. 28. 선고 2013다56167 판결). 구 저작권법 하에서 음반은 악곡, 가창, 연주 등과 함께 저작물로 보호하고 있었고, 1987년 전면 개정된 저작권법은 저작권 이외에 저작인접권 제도를 도입하여, 실연, 방송과 함께 음반을 저작물이 아니라 저작인접권으로 보호하게 되었는데, 1987년 저작권법이 음반제작자에 관한 정의규정을 두어 누가 음반제작자인지에 관하여 비교적 명확한 기준을 갖고 있었던 데 비해, 구 저작권법에는 ‘음반의 저작자`에 관한 규정이 없어, 과연 누구를 저작자로 할 것인지에 관한 분쟁이 빈발하였다. 게다가 구 저작권법이 시행되던 시기는 음반뿐만 아니라 저작권 전반에 대해서 권리의식이 미약했을 뿐만아니라, 계약내용도 분명치 않은 경우가 많았고, 심지어 계약서조차 없는 경우도 적지않았으므로, 계약의 내용을 어떻게 확정할 것인가에 관한 의사표시 해석의 문제도 분쟁의 해결을 어렵게 하는 측면이 있었다. 이와 같은 배경 하에서 대상판결은 구 저작권법상 음반의 저작자 결정 기준에 관하여 현행 저작권법상 음반제작자의 결정 기준을 통일적으로 적용할 필요가 있다는 비교적 명확한 기준을 제시함으로써, 향후 유사 분쟁의 해결에 있어서 유용한 지침으로 작용할 것으로 보인다. 다만, 구 저작권법이 음반뿐만 아니라 악곡, 가창, 연주에 대해서도 마찬가지로 저작물로 보호하고 있었음에도, 대상판결에서는 음반 제작과정에서 악곡, 가창, 연주 등으로 참여한 원고의 기여를 단순한 사실적ㆍ기능적 기여에 불과한것으로 파악한 점, 그리고 음반에 대한 권리의 양도가 1987년 저작권법 시행 이후에 이루어졌음에도 불구하고 양도의 효력에 관하여 구 저작권법을 적용한 점은 아쉬움이 남는다. The Supreme Court of Korea recently ruled that the criteria of determining the phonogram producers under the current Korean Copyright Act should be applied to determine the author of phonogram under the Korean Copyright Act of 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1957 Act`). Under the 1957 Act phonogram was to be protected as one of the copyrighted works along with music, singing or performance. But Korean Copyright Act was comprehensively revised in 1987 and the neighboring right system was introduced for the public performance, phonogram and broadcasting. Therefore, phonogram was to be protected as one of the neighboring rights along with public performance and broadcasting under the Korean Copyright Act of 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1987 Act`). However, the disputes frequently arose about how to determine the author of phonogram under the 1957 Act, because it didn`t have the definition clause of the author of phonogram, in contrast, the 1987 Act had that of the producer of phonogram and so the latter had the relatively clear criteria of determining the producer of phonogram. In addition, in those days of the 1957 Act, the right consciousness was very weak not only on the phonogram but on the copyrights in general, so the contents of contract were not clear, and even the cases were not uncommon there was no written contract, it made worse to solve the disputes about the interpretation of the meaning of the contract. Under these circumstances, the Decision has presented relatively clear criteria that, to determine the author of phonogram under 1957 Act, the criteria of determining the phonogram producers under the current Korean Copyright Act should be applied, and it seems to act as one of the useful guidelines to resolve further similar disputes in this country.
-
정지석(Jee-seok Chung) 세창출판사 2005 창작과 권리 Vol.- No.40
This paper is to review Patent Court Decision 2004 Heo3317 delivered on December 24, 2004 concerning the application of Article 6 Paragraph 1 Item 7 and the relationship with Article 6 Paragraph 2 of Trademark Act. Even though a trademark is seemed not to have distinctiveness considering objectively the concept itself or the relationship with the designated services, without considering the situation of use, in case where the trademark is remarkably recognized among consumers or traders, as a result the applier has broadly used the mark before the application, to denote the services related with someone's business, the trademark does not fall under Article 6 Paragraph 1 Item 7, and thus could be registered notwith- standing Paragraph 2 does not refer to Paragraph 1 Item 7 of Article 6 of Trademark Act.
-
최신판례분석 : 구 저작권법상 음반의 저작자 결정 기준 - 대법원 2016. 4. 28. 선고 2013다56167 판결 -
정지석 ( Chung Jee-seok ) 법조협회 2016 法曹 Vol.65 No.8
The Supreme Court of Korea recently ruled that the criteria of determining the phonogram producers under the current Korean Copyright Act should be applied to determine the author of phonogram under the Korean Copyright Act of 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1957 Act`). Under the 1957 Act phonogram was to be protected as one of the copyrighted works along with music, singing or performance. But Korean Copyright Act was comprehensively revised in 1987 and the neighboring right system was introduced for the public performance, phonogram and broadcasting. Therefore, phonogram was to be protected as one of the neighboring rights along with public performance and broadcasting under the Korean Copyright Act of 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1987 Act`). However, the disputes frequently arose about how to determine the author of phonogram under the 1957 Act, because it didn`t have the definition clause of the author of phonogram, in contrast, the 1987 Act had that of the producer of phonogram and so the latter had the relatively clear criteria of determining the producer of phonogram. In addition, in those days of the 1957 Act, the right consciousness was very weak not only on the phonogram but on the copyrights in general, so the contents of contract were not clear, and even the cases were not uncommon there was no written contract, it made worse to solve the disputes about the interpretation of the meaning of the contract. Under these circumstances, the Decision has presented relatively clear criteria that, to determine the author of phonogram under 1957 Act, the criteria of determining the phonogram producers under the current Korean Copyright Act should be applied, and it seems to act as one of the useful guidelines to resolve further similar disputes in this country.
KCI연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
