패러디와 저작권에 관한 연구

이훈종(Lee, HunJong),이세경(Lee, seiKyung) 한양법학회 2009 漢陽法學 Vol.27 No.-

Parody can contribute to development of culture and related industries, stimulating people to make use of existing works. However, it can also create conflicts over copyright infringement. The issue of concern is whether the copyright law permits a parodist to change original works without the permission of an author. The U.S. courts have adjudicated upon cases of copyright infringement for parody by invoking the fair use principle that permits people to use existing works freely without permission of the copyright owners. In Korea, copyright infringement for parody has been related to the right of integrity of authorship and the legal principle of quotation. However, a case of copyright infringement for parody had been adjudicated by using legal standards similar to the U.S. fair use principle. In terms of the facts and the legal principles, the judgment of the Korean court on the case of Seo Tai-Ji, a Korean musician, is similar to the judgment of the U.S. federal court on the Campbell case. Various theories about copyright infringement for parody have been proposed. One of them is that the newly created works using parody may not avoid disputes related to copyright infringement under the current copyright law. A different opinion holds that it may be possible to interpret the copyright law with reference to the U.S. fair use principle. Parody has been used as a critical expression technique in almost all areas including literature, movies, plays, advertisement and politics. It is necessary to protect parody under the copyright law when it contributes to improvement of cultural industries. However, we also need to contemplate the legal protection of parody, because very extensive latitude could weaken motivation for creation. If parodists completely newly interpret or critically adapt original works with their own values, parody can be considered a new creative work separated from the original work. Parody can contribute to the improvement of cultural industries when a parodied work has its own values as a newly created work and is fairly used by people. The Korean copyright act sets a provision related to the fair use of copyrighted works, and there is a precedent established by which to consider various facts and judge whether to permit a parody. So it is possible to protect parody under the interpretation of Korean law with reference to the U.S. fair use principle. Ultimately, it is necessary to establish legislative measures to protect parody which is acknowledged a creative work.

저작권법상 패러디의 공정이용 항변에 관한 고찰

김정완 제주대학교 법과정책연구원 2017 法과 政策 Vol.23 No.3

The primary goal of this paper is to show how the Korean judiciary defines parody and how parody is being protected by the copyright law through an analysis of a variety of precedents in developed country. Also, this paper talks about the limitations of the current copyright law in protecting parody and suggest some solutions to this issues. Parody is considered ‘fair use’ under the copyright law and is therefore considered lawful. The risk of infringement arises when the parodist extracts certain copyrighted elements of the original work. Thus, it has to keep in mind that parody is a form of limited criticism, may supply a part of demand for the original work, and does not always ridicule or criticize the original work. Accordingly, the fair use analysis for parody purpose must be taken into account in order to determine which act in terms of parody falls within a scheme of fairness. Parody is recognized as a form of criticism and commentary. In light of the four factors used to determine fair use for the purpose of parody as follows: Purpose and character; commercial or educational: noncommercial parodies are generally given more protection as fare use under this first factor. This criterion analyzes the degree of transformation accomplished by the new work by determining whether the new work has a different purpose or different character than that of the original copyrighted work. In Campbell case, the US Supreme Court held that the parody’s “transformative” character is more important than its commercial purpose. Nature of the work copyrighted - this factor has been said to carry little weight in parody situations, “since parodies almost invariably copy publicly known, expressive works”. Amount and substantiality – with parodies, a fairly extensive use of the work is permitted. Copying is considered in relation to parodic purpose – a parodist can copy as much as is needed to “conjure up” the original. Potential effect on the market – it is understood that an effective parody “may be so good that the public can never take the original work seriously again”. Thus, with parodies, the possibility of destroying the market for the original work is not measured. Instead, what is analyzed is the potential of the parody to fulfill the market demand of the original work. Parodies are transformative works; they are new works, which are not market substitutes for the original work. A valid parody is a defense against liability; however, unauthorized copying is still copyright infringement. Therefore when making and marketing a parody work, users should always be mindful of who may take offense. 본고에서는 패러디가 저작권법상 왜 특별취급을 받아야 하는지를 검토하였다. 패러디의 본래 목적은 원작에 대한 새로운 시각을 통한 재해석이라는 점에서 패러디의 법적 개념은 일반 문예론의 그것과 거의 일치한다. 한편 패러디는 수용자에게 원작을 상기시켜야 하지만 그 비평적 특성으로 인해 저작자의 이용허락을 얻기 어려운데다 원작의 변형적 이용 및 출처표시의 곤란성으로 인해 저작권과의 충돌이 불가피하다. 저작권법의 입장에서는 저작자와 패러디스트에게 각각 부여된 헌법상의 표현의 자유를 균등하게 조정할 필요성이 있으며, 보호대상과 관련하여 직접패러디에 한정하지 않고 매개패러디까지 포함할지도 쟁점이 되고 있다. 패러디 보호동향과 관련해서는 국제적으로 다양한 방식과 그 정도의 차이를 보여주고 있으며, 본고에서는 미국, 독일, 프랑스, 영국, 일본의 입법례와 판례 및 학설을 중심으로 이를 살펴보았다. 특히 패러디의 공정이용에 관한 선례가 축적되어 있는 미국을 중심으로 공정이용의 판단기준과 이 기준의 패러디에의 적용에 관해 검토하였다. 결국 패러디의 공정이용 항변 허용 여부는 과연 법적 개념의 패러디에 해당하는지, 그리고 충분히 변형적인지에 달려있으며 법원판결의 의의는 이 점을 어떻게 판단하느냐에 달려있다고 본다.

Cyberspace의 문화적 특징과 연계해 살펴본 Parody 양상 연구

황민선(Hwang Min Sun),남석순(Nam Seok Soon) 한국디지털디자인학회 2007 디지털디자인학연구 Vol.7 No.3

본연구에서는 사이버스페이스의 문화적 특징과 연계하여 사이버스페이스에서 보여지는 패러디 양상에 대해 살펴보았다. 사이버스페이스에서 보여지는 문화적 특징은 개인의 정체성을 숨길 수 있는 익명성 사용자들의 주체적 정보 생산과 소비성 사용자들의 정보에 대한 개입 가능성과 참여성을 들 수 있다. 이와 같은 사이버스페이스의 문화적 특성은 패러디물의 생산과 소비가 기하급수적으로 확장되는 토양을 마련해주고 있다. 원작을 변형해 새로운 이미지를 만들어내는 패러디 개념도 시대에 따라 변화되어 왔는데 현대에 이르러 패러디는 예술 전반 뿐만 아니라 사이버스페이스 공간에서 많이 창작 소비되고 있다. 패러디의 기본 조건은 원작의 이미지를 노출하여야 하고 최소한 원작의 이미지를 추론할 수 있어야 한다. 이와 같은 연유로 이성보다는 재미와 감성이 대두되는 사이버스 페이스 공간에서는 영화포스터와 같은 대중에게 잘 알려진 소재를 택하여 패러디화하는 것으로 생각된다. 사이버스페이스에서 대중이 스스로 만들어내는 패러디 이미지는 크게 두 개의 양상으로 전개된다. 즉 정치·시사참여 패러디와 유희 패러디로 나눌 수 있다. 이와 같은 정치·시사 참여 패러디는 단지 보는 사람에게 웃음을 준다는 것을 넘어서 우리의 삶과는 요원하게만 느껴졌던 정치권의 인사나 사회적 문제를 적나라하게 비판하는 통쾌함을 제공하는 순기능이 있다. 두 번째 양상으로는 유희 또는 놀이로서의 패러디가 존재하게 된다. 이와 같은 패러디물은 만드는 사람이 재미로 만들고 보는 사람들도 재미를 느끼게 하고자하는데 목적이 있고 동시에 본인의 패러디 실력을 과시하고자 하는 의도에서 만들어진다고 볼 수 있다. 이와 같은 사이버스페이스에서의 패러디물의 범람은 대중 스스로 이미지의 창작자가 된다는 점에서 또 대중 스스로 비평가가 된다는 점에서 긍정적인 측면도 있으나 그 질적인 측면에서는 아직 미흡하고 조잡한 점이 많이 보이고 있다는데 아쉬움이 남는다. This study examines parody types in cyberspace in connection with characteristics of cyberspace. Cultural features displayed in cyberspace include anonymity making it possible for users to hide their identity and involve and participate in information. These cultural features of cyberspace have paved the way for exponential increase of production and consumption of parody. Parody which generates a new image by modifying the original is being created and consumed extensively in cyberspace as well as across the arts at large theses days. A fundamental condition of parody is that it has to allow inference of the original image at least. Therefore in cyberspace where fun and emotion are important rather than reasoning parody is made by means of the items familiar with the public like movie posters. Parody images directly created by the public in cyberspace take two forms in general; parody about political and current issues and parody for fun. The former has a positive function to provide thrilling feelings by criticizing political and social problems without reserve. The second type of parody is for fun as play. This type of parody aims to give pleasure both to the creator and the audience. The growth of parody in cyberspace raises questions in that it is still lacking and coarse in quality despite its positive aspect that the general public become a creator of an image and a critic at the same time as stated above.

상호텍스트성을 통한 현대시의 패러디 양상

이혜경 ( Hye Kyoung Lee ) 영주어문학회 2013 영주어문 Vol.26 No.-

Parody works are generally started from imitation impulse for original text, but the fetter of imitation sometimes makes a limitation for raising poet`s internal awareness to the surface. On the other hand, the problem of ``depth`` showing characteristic of parody, surface, is sometimes used for disparaging poetic value by acting as a flaw or difficulty of parody. This research intends to consider careful attitude to discuss mutual effect relationship and possibility to create poems deriving from it intensively by getting out of the fragmentary attitude to divide the boundary if it`s plagiarism of text or not. First, it examined external appearance of stimulation, given to poet, and the aspect of parody adopted as its method. It treats even the level of actual experience by expanding the range of similarity which has been discussed. Second, it examined the aspect that poet confesses his abyss discovering leisure from the suppression of parody through the parody. It focused on contradictory characteristics of parody, that inner side is hidden to appear inner side, external side is appeared and secret is kept in abyss. Meta text called by text must receive qualification of original text as it is, so the possibility of parody can be enhanced to the prospect of creation when others promote another meta text and its circulation is continued. To achieve it, first, the discussion about the original text of parody must be done more minutely. This research must be considered by examining theoretical level again and applying the experimental possibility to even recent work. Second, the origin must be examined by focusing on the second parody of parody work or his parody works. The experimental discussion must be continued by widening the range of application to even recent texts. For this research, it`s regretable to just examine new works experimentally rather than clear distinction and confirm the possibility of parody. This research is significant to parody stopping at superficial discussion and plagiarism discussion expand the prospect of creation and treat the subject of discussion experimentally. In the future, this research should be continued and expanded for the creation of poem.

문학 교과 패러디 활동의 문제점과 개선 방향 : 2009개정 교육과정에 따른 문학 교과서를 중심으로

조광국(Jo Gwang-guk) 국어교육학회 2012 국어교육연구 Vol.50 No.-

In this paper, complementary directions are proposed in practice, to solve the problems in learning activities. That learning activities had been devised, according to the commentary book on Korean high school education course which was revised in 2009 year. Especially problems in learning activities are focused on critically and creatively rewriting and rebuilding the original work. Complementary directions are three. First, the parody-practice in high school literature-textbooks inclines toward imitation parody. The parody has an inclination of both imitation and criticism(or ridicule). To balance the parody-practice in high school literature-text, Papers in the field of literature education were accepted. Second, the parody-practice in high school literature-texbooks inclines has the risk to breed plagiarism inadvertently because high school literature textbook did not provid the learning activities of identifying plagiarism and parody. In order to improve the problem, learning activities are designed for plagiarism. In addition, the legal firing incident with parody was dealt, for the purpose of strengthening parody activities. Third, all high school literature-texbooks has not practice to understand mutual relationship between the original and the parody text, and to understand creativity of parody. In order to improve that problem, I suggested to strengthen parody-practice to understand mutual relationship and creativity of parody.

패러디의 허용 범위와 표현의 자유 - 대법원 2020. 6. 25. 선고 2017도5797 판결을 참고하여 -

최상필 한국지식재산학회 2022 産業財産權 Vol.- No.72

A 'parody' refers to an original that is generally well-known to people, criticized the original itself, or copied or modified the original for satire on society. This concept of parody is not definitive because it can be defined broadly or narrowly depending on the scope of recognition of parody. In addition, the requirements or limits for acknowledging parody are also not clearly stipulated in the law, so they may be set differently according to theories and precedents. Whether parody should be limited to criticism or satire on the original work or expanded to criticism or satire on society ultimately boils down to the question of where to find the reason for the parody's existence. It is not necessary to limit the critique or satire of the original to parody only if the basis for recognition of parody is found in the public interest that contributes to society by guaranteeing the freedom of expression of users through concessions to the economic and spiritual interests of the copyright holder. However, since it is not considered appropriate adjustment of interests for a user to obtain profit through a parody allowed at the expense of the copyright holder, it is necessary to divide the cases and apply the fair use rule in order to present specific requirements for the establishment of a parody. In the case of criticizing or satirizing society using the original work, the degree of transformation will generally be very small because the object depicted in the original is placed together with other backgrounds or elements to play the role of a parody. Therefore, it is desirable not to allow fair use as much as possible in the case of parody for commercial purposes, as the infringement on the mental and economic interests of the original author may be greatly increased by putting one's work in an unexpected place. However, if it is used for non-commercial purposes, especially criticism and satire for the public good, the original author only suffers a small loss of mentality. Therefore, it is reasonable to affirm the establishment of fair use in the sense that freedom of expression is guaranteed even if the original work is used as a parody of society along with other elements. ‘패러디’란 일반적으로 사람들에게 잘 알려진 원작을 이용해 원작 자체를 비판하거나 사회에 대한 풍자를 위해 원작을 따라하거나 변형시킨 것을 말한다. 이러한 패러디의 개념은 패러디의 인정범위에 따라 넓게 혹은 좁게 정의할 수 있으므로 확정적인 것은 아니다. 또한 패러디를 인정하기 위한 요건이나 한계 역시 법에서 명확히 규정하고 있는 것이 아니므로, 학설과 판례에 따라 각기 다르게 설정될 수 있다. 패러디를 원작에 대한 비평이나 풍자에 한정할 것인지, 사회에 대한 비평이나 풍자로 확대할 것인지는 결국 패러디의 존재이유를 어디에서 찾을 것인가 하는 문제로 귀결된다. 저작권자의 경제적·정신적 이익에 대한 양보를 통해 이용자의 표현의 자유를 보장함으로써 사회에 대하여 기여하는 공익적 측면에서 패러디의 인정근거를 찾는다면, 굳이 원작에 대한 비평이나 풍자만을 저작권법상 허용되는 패러디로 한정할 필요는 없을 것이다. 그러나 저작권자의 손실을 감수하면서 허용된 패러디를 통해 이용자가 영리를 취득하는 것은 적절한 이해관계의 조절이라고 볼 수 없으므로, 구체적인 패러디의 성립요건을 제시하기 위해서는 경우를 나누어 공정이용규정을 적용할 필요가 있다. 원작을 이용하여 사회에 대한 비판이나 풍자를 하는 경우에는 원작에 묘사된 객체가 다른 배경이나 요소들과 함께 배치되어 패러디의 역할을 수행하므로 일반적으로 변형의 정도가 매우 적을 것이다. 따라서 예상하지 못한 곳에 자신의 작품이 투입됨으로써 원저작자의 정신적·경제적 이익에 대한 침해가 매우 커질 수 있으므로 상업적 목적의 패러디인 경우에는 가급적 공정이용을 인정하지 않는 것이 바람직하다. 그러나 비상업적 목적, 그 중에서도 특히 공익적 목적의 비평과 풍자에 사용되는 경우라면 원작자는 약간의 정신적 손실만 감수하면 되므로, 원작이 다른 요소들과 함께 사회에 대한 패러디로 활용되더라도 표현의 자유를 보장한다는 취지에서 공정이용의 성립을 긍정하는 것이 타당하다.

일본에서의 패러디 상표의 사용과 등록

오오이시 마나 서울대학교 기술과법센터 2022 Law & technology Vol.18 No.3

A trademark parody is a ridicule, criticism, or satire of an idea related to a registered trademark or indication of goods or services. Traditionally, parody issues have been discussed more in the context of copyright than trademark, and there have been frequent lawsuits regarding trademark parodies around the world. A few countries have recognized the social significance of trademark parodies and, therefore, have sought protection for their use via legislation or judicial precedents. However, it is debatable whether a parody of a well-known trademark —one that has become famous through years of trademark management and capital investment— results in its dilution. Moreover, some users of trademark parodies in Japan file trademark applications to the Japan Patent Office (JPO) in order to distinguish their goods and/or services from the competition. Therefore, it is equally important to discuss whether the use of trademark parody and grant of exclusive rights through trademark registration are acceptable. As there is no legal precedent for trademark parody use in Japan, the legal systems and cases related to trademark parody use in the United States, Germany, France, and Korea were examined. When the laws, regulations, and case studies of each country are organized, the following common points are observed: (1) in the case of a successful trademark parody —that is, even when associated with the original trademark, the trademark parody, which intentionally shows that it is not a good or service related to the original trademark, and adds a new form of message of satire, ridicule, joke, etc.— there is no possibility of confusion between the parody and the original, well-known trademark; (2) infringement is likely to be affirmed if the trademark parody causes dilution due to tarnishment or pollution; and (3) infringement is likely to be denied for non-commercial parodies. However, each country has different judgments regarding the acceptability of dilution due to blurring or commercial parodies. Recently, in the United States and Europe, not only copyright parodies but also trademark parodies have been allowed. The study examined the admissibility of trademark parody under Japanese law and found that the use of a successful trademark parody is allowed in the country. In other words, according to the current Japanese Trademark Law and Unfair Competition Prevention Law, in the case of a successful trademark parody, the similarity of marks and the likelihood of confusion with the original, well-known trademark is likely to be denied and does not correspond to infringement. Additionally, even when it is considered an act of unfair competition under Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Law because of the dilution of a well-known trademark, it should be permitted in order to protect the freedom of expression. Furthermore, in Japan, the use of the trademark parody itself sometimes does not correspond to its use as a trademark or an indication of goods or services, which is a precondition for infringement. On the other hand, regarding the registration of trademark parody, the study organized trial decisions and judicial precedents contesting the possibility of registration of trademark parody, which has been increasing in Japan, and examined the acceptability of registration of trademark parodies in Japan. Unlike the situation of use, the study concluded that it is appropriate to refuse trademark registration, even for successful trademark parodies. The reasons are as follows: (1) the registration of the trademark parody is not permitted in other countries; (2) the need to protect the freedom of expression is not crucial, but the disadvantages for the right holder of a well-known trademark are immense; (3) it is possible for parody trademark users to secure their own use and prevent the third party’s use even without registration; and (4) the Japan Patent Office has difficulty performing a uniform examination of parody trademarks. Furthermore, as for the grounds to refuse the registration of a trademark parody, it was proposed to prevent registration by applying the existing public order or morality provisions of Article 4, Paragraph 1, Item 7 of the Japanese Trademark Law, instead of legislative measures. Parody has long been popular for adding humor and satire using another person’s work. With the recent development of the Internet and social networks, the importance and frequency of parody is increasing. To respect the cultural values of parodies and achieve the purpose of trademark laws and unfair competition prevention laws—that is, industrial development and sound economic development—continuous research is required on the most appropriate methods for the use and registration of trademark parody.

패러디의 法理的 근거와 허용범위

李起勇(Ki-Yong Lee),李知倫(Ji-Yoon Lee) 한국비교사법학회 2007 比較私法 Vol.14 No.1

  A parody is an imitation of a serious piece of literature, music, or composition for humorous or satirical effect. Parody, by its very nature, make use of another"s work, sometimes extensively, and because the purpose of this use is satire and ridicule, there is a tension between the parodist and copyright owner. As a result, some copyright owners are less than eager to see their work ridiculed and will not license their work for this purpose. Consequently, the parodist must rely on the defense of fair use in U.S.<BR>  Fair use has defined as ‘a privilege in others than the owner of the copyright to use the copyrighted material in a reasonable manner without his consent, notwithstanding the monopoly granted to the owner of the copyright". One of justifications for treating parody as a fair use is that parody serves an important social purpose and is a use that a copyright owner is very likely unwilling to authorize.<BR>  In Campbell case, the Supreme Court held that a commercial parody may qualify as a fair use. To decide the question of fair use, the court must subject the parody to an overall balancing process in which the parody"s “transformative" character is more important than its commercial purpose. The focus should be on whether the work alters the original with new expression, meaning, and message.<BR>  In Suntrust Bank case, the court held that parody must do more than merely achieve comic effect but must make some critical comment or statement about the original work.<BR>  Therefore, in parody cases, judges must weigh the legitimate property interests of the copyright owner to control reproductions and derivative uses of his own works against parodist"s right to engage in freedom of speech and promote his art and the public benefit derived from parody.<BR>  The distinctive feature of modern American copyright law is expanded both in scope and in duration. Many scholars argue that this twenty-year extension exceed the constitutional command that Congress provide copyrights for “limited times". The basic goal of copyright law is the growth of culture and exclusive rights are recognized to provide the incentive to create works protected by the copyright scheme. But if the exclusive rights are too strong, too broad, or too long, they inhibit more cultural growth than they encourage by chilling the creation of new works. If fair use is one of copyright"s key “safety valves", it should expand as copyright expands. The harmonization of public interests and the author"s rights is required in modern copyright law. Especially the well-known literature re-writing cases, the court should consider denying infringement where the new work broadens in any meaningful way the qualitative cultural choices available to readers.<BR>  In Korea, a parody has been treated as a derivative work or a quotation, but a p parody is not compatible with the theory of quotation or derivative work in some point. Therefore, I suggest in this paper that the incorporation of mandatory fair use provision, rather than a definitive provision of parody, should be provided into Korean copyright law.

패션 브랜드 광고 캠페인에 표현된 패러디에 관한 연구

조윤수 한국기초조형학회 2020 기초조형학연구 Vol.21 No.5

This study aims to lay a foundation for information system research to apply efficient brand design tools by analyzing various parodies expressed in fashion brand advertising campaigns, and their characteristics. The subjects of study are fashion campaigns which apply parody. Specific parody cases in fashion campaigns, which are the center of research, were selected based on brand recognition and the distribution and background of related research. The method of research is as follows: first, the concept of parody and the background of its creation were studied; second, the types of parody were classified; and, lastly, the characteristics of parodies expressed in fashion campaigns were analyzed. This study classified the types of parody based on the concept of parody and theoretical consideration and case analysis on the relevant concept, and analyzed the characteristics of parodies expressed in fashion campaigns. The analysis results include: first, parody, as an important form of self-reflection, can be defined as repetition containing differences, and it does not sacrifice the parodied original work but rather implies tribute, irony, and satire to the original work; second, based on the targets of parody, the types of parody can be divided into a parody using paintings, a parody using movies, plays, and musicals, a parody using advertising campaigns, and a parody using social phenomena; Third, recreation, irony, visual pun, and satire can be identified from the results of analyzing the characteristics of parodies. The fashion brand advertising campaign using parody not only aroused interest in the relevant product, but also contained social meanings through its satirical characteristics including artistry of the original work. It is expected that future fashion brand campaigns will also use parodies due to the phenomenon of cultural recurrence. As a result, this study is expected to be a precedent of detailed research on fashion brand campaigns and, thus, to be used as baseline data in developing campaigns which are appropriate for brand identity.

저작권법상 패러디의 보호

김정완 전남대학교 법학연구소 2017 법학논총 Vol.37 No.3

오늘날 문학 외에 다양한 분야에서 인간의 비판적 시각을 표현하기 위한 하나의 표현기법으로서 활용되고 있는 패러디에 관해 이를 법적으로 어떻게 취급해야 할 것인지, 특히 국제적인 패러디 보호 추세 하에서 왜 저작권법상 패러디가 특별취급 받는지를 검토하였다. 패러디의 법적 개념은 문예론의 그것과 거의 일치하며, 패러디의 본질적인 목적은 원작에 대한 새로운 시각에서의 재해석에 다름 아니다. 결국 패러디란 원작을 모방하여 이를 비평・논평하되 표면적이지 않고 새로운 표현이나 의미 또는 주장을 부가한 것을 말한다. ‘모방’, ‘변형’, ‘풍자’는 패러디를 구성하는 핵심요소이다. 또한 패러디는 수용자에게 원작을 상기시켜야 하지만 그 비평적 특징 때문에 저작권자로부터 이용허락을 얻기 어렵다는 점, 통상적으로 원작이 널리 알려져 있어야 하지만 원작의 출처표시를 하기 어렵다는 특성을 지니고 있다. 패러디 인정의 법적 근거로서는 저작권자와 패러디스트 모두에게 부여된 헌법상의 기본권으로서의 표현의 자유를 조정할 필요성에 있다고 보는 것이 각국 판례・학설의 입장이다. 또한 패러디는 원작에 대한 비판을 목적으로 하므로 저작권법상 보호되는 패러디는 직접 패러디에 한하고 원작이 아닌 사회현상을 대상으로 하는 매개 패러디는 원칙적으로 보호대상에 해당되지 않는다. 패러디 보호에 관한 국제적 동향과 관련하여, ⅰ) 미국의 경우, 권리제한의 일반조항인 ‘공정이용(fair use)’ 규정(제107조)에 의해 저작권침해의 책임이 면제될 수 있으며, ⅱ) 독일에서는, 패러디를 허용하는 저작권법상의 규정은 존재하지 않지만, 저작권법 제24조(자유이용)를 통해 패러디 허용론이 광범위하게 지지받고 있다. ⅲ) 프랑스의 경우, 다른 나라와 달리 명문의 패러디 예외규정을 두고 있으며 저작권법 제122-5조 제1항이 그것이다. ⅳ) 특히 영국의 경우, 패러디에 대한 엄격한 법적용, 공정이용(fair dealing)조항에 의한 패러디 보호, 오랜 논의 끝에 최근 별도의 패러디 예외조항을 신설한 점 등은 우리나라에 시사하는 바가 크다. 패러디의 저작권 보호와 관련된 쟁점과 관련해서 패러디의 2차적저작물성 여부, 동일성유지권 침해문제, 인용조항의 적용문제 등이 쟁점이 될 수 있는데, ⅰ) 2차적저작물성 여부와 관련해서는, 패러디는 원작에 대한 창의적인 비평 내지 풍자의 전달이라고 하는 특성과 원작과 대체적 경쟁관계에 있지 않다는 점에서 2차적저작물과 구별되며, ⅱ) 동일성유지권과 관련하여 침해를 주장 수 있는 경우는 실패한 패러디에 한하며, 성공한 패러디의 경우 저작권법 제13조 제2항 제5호에 규정된 동일성유지권의 제한사유에 의해 그 침해가 부인된다. ⅲ) 인용조항의 적용문제와 관련해서는 인용의 저작권법적 개념, 제28조의 적용요건 및 기타 패러디 자체의 특성에 비추어 저작권법상의 인용에 관한 규정이 패러디에 적용하기에는 한계가 있다. 결국 패러디 보호와 관련하여 향후 저작권침해소송에서는 인용조항(제28조) 보다 공정이용조항(제35조의3)이 주도적인 형태로 운용될 것이며, 그런 점에서 이 규정의 모델인 미국저작권법상의 공정이용에 관한 규정(제107조)에 대한 법해석 및 Campbell판결 및 이후의 패러디관련 판결의 동향에 관한 분석작업이 중요하지만, 한편으로는 보다 명확한 입법안 마련을 통한 패러디의 보호방안을 강구하는 것도 하나의 대안... With the rise of Postmodernism, which is characterized by appropriation and remix, parody has become a key phenomenon of contemporary arts. Parody is an imitation of a serious piece of literature, music, or composition for humorous or satirical effect. Parody can be recognized as a kind of creative works, but parodies, by its very nature, necessarily utilizes copyrighted works of others, and because the purpose for this use is satire and ridicule, there is tension between the parodist and copyright owner. As a result, some copyright owners are less than eager to see their work ridiculed and will not license their work for this purpose. Consequently, the parodist must rely on the defense of fair use in Copyright Law. The primary goal of this paper is to show how the Korean judiciary defines the meaning of parody and how parody is being protected by the copyright law through an analysis of a variety of precedents in developed country. Also, this paper talks about the limitations of the current copyright law in protecting parody and suggest some solutions to this issues. The finding show parody is loosely defined under the Copyright Law of Korea, making it more relevant to invoke the Article 28 of the copyright law on quotations and citations and the Article 22 that governs secondary works. For this reason, Korea’s judiciary system has a strong tendency to rely on the four factor ‘fair use’ test, which is widely used in the US legal system, to determine whether the use of a copyrighted work is fair. The findings also show the Korean judiciary system, which often applies the fair use principles too strictly to copyright cases, discourages parodists from creative works, hampering the advancement of human culture and knowledge. For instance, the judging panel has ruled “Combacom”, a song that changed the lyrics of Seo Tae-Ji’s popular song “Come Back Home”, violated the copyright law in that the new song just made fun of the original and failed to covey a new message. However, industry experts say the “parodied” song added creativity that the original had lacked and also carried a message of social criticism. If the expert’s views were fully taken into account according to the US Campbell decision, Combacom could have been regarded as a legitimate parody. In Campbell case, the US Supreme Court held that a commercial parody may quality as a fair use. To decide the question of fair use, the court must subject the parody to an overall balancing process in which the parody’s “transformative” character is more important than its commercial purpose. The focus should be on whether the work alters the original with new expression, meaning, and message. Therefore, in parody cases, judges must weigh the legitimate property interests of the copyright owner to control reproductions and derivative uses of his own work’s against parodist’s right to engage in freedom of speech and promote his art and the public benefit derived from parody. In Korea, a parody has been treated as a derivative work or a quotation, but a parody is not compatible with the theory of quotation or derivative work in some point. As a result of the above studies, this paper asserts to use the fair use principle as a way of resolving the infringement within the Korean Copyright Law regarding the parody. Fortunately, According to the Korean Copyright Act that was revised in 2011, parody is anticipated to be subject to the Fair Use Clause that has recently added.