패러디와 著作權

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

A parody, in contemporary usage, is a work created to mock, comment on,or poke fun at an original work, its subject, author, style, or some other target, by means of humorous, satiric or ironic imitation. Parody gives us a new way to look at the original work and the world. We look at the many parodies in every day life. But there contains many copyright issues. Especially in Korean Copyright system there is no express exception for parody like French, Spanish, Belgian Law, and no general fair use clause like U.S. copyright law. This gives us many troubles to accept the parody within copyright system and to make it a legitimate work. And there are economic rights and moral rights in the Korean copyright system, so-called dual system unlike german copyright system. This also gives us trouble. In Korea many scholars consider that parody is a derivative work. But some consider it as a independent work, even though depending on the underlying work. This paper researches some copyright cases: Walt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates case, Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. case, Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Miffin Co. case, ‘Alcolix’ case, Photo-montage distortion case,etc. Until now in Korea we can manage the parody copyright isssue with the application of the citation clause(§28: It shall be permissible to make quotations from a work already being made public provided that they are within a reasonable limit for news reporting, criticism, education and research, etc. and compatible with fair practice). In a sense it has the same effect as the fair use clause of U.S.A. But it has a limitation. It restricts only the economic right and can't solve the moral right issue. And when cited the other's work, we must indicate the part of quotation. In parody it's nearly impossible to indicate the part of quotation. So this paper proposes that as a general clause we introduce the fair use clause into Copyright Act and the amendment of the Article 5 of Copyright Act. That's as follows: The parodic work is not regarded as the derivative work. The reason is as follows : A parody is almost always quasi-revolutionary in concept. So in the view of such a parodic nature, we regard the parodic work as a independent work even though parodist use the underlying work.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서설
• 1. 의의
• 2. 패러디의 종류
• 3. 저작권침해 예외로서 패러디를 인정하려는 이유
• 4. 패러디에 관한 각국의 태도
• 5. 본고의 내용
• Ⅱ. 패러디 事件의 例
• 1. 우리나라 사례
• 2. 미국 사례
• 3. 독일 사례
• 4. 일본 사례
• Ⅲ. 패러디와 저작권
• 1. 적법한 패러디로 인정되기 위한 요건
• 2. 2차적 저작물인지 여부
• Ⅳ. 맺음말
• 참고문헌

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 박성호, "포스트모던시대의 예술과 저작권(하)" 저작권심의조정위원회 (22) : 1993

2 박성호, "포스트모던시대의 예술과 저작권(상)" 저작권심의조정위원회 (21) : 1993

3 김양수, "패러디의 지적재산권법상 문제에 관한 연구" 서울대학교 기술과 법센터 3 (3): 2007

4 李起勇, "패러디의 法理的 근거와 허용범위" 한국비교사법학회 14 (14): 381-416, 2007

5 엄동섭, "패러디와 저작물의 자유이용" 세창출판사 1998

6 허희성, "패러디와 저작권" (봄) : 1998

7 함석천, "패러디, 지적재산권과 표현의 자유" 한국법학원 (91) : 63-90, 2006

8 김원호, "패러디 항변을 둘러싼 저작권법상 쟁점과 과제" 저작권심의조정위원회 (56) : 2001

9 오명균, "저작권법상 패러디(parody)항변에 관한 고찰" 경희대학교 국제법무대학원 2010

10 송영식, "저작권법(제5판)" 세창출판사 2009

11 이해완, "저작권법" 박영사 2007

12 오승종, "저작권법" 박영사 2007

13 이상정, "미술과 법" 세창출판사 2009

14 강신하, "미국저작권법상 공정사용의 법리 : 패러디에 관한 논의를 중심으로" 대한변호사협회 387 (387): 48-68, 2008

15 美作太郞, "著作權과 出版權" 日本エヂイタースクール出版部 1981

16 作花文雄, "著作權法講座" 著作權情報センター 2003

17 정상조, "著作權法 注解" 박영사 2007

18 コピライト, "著作權情報センター" 1988

19 中山信弘, "著作權判例百選(제4판)" 有斐閣 2009

20 齊藤博, "著作權判例百選(제3판)" 有斐閣 2001

21 齊藤博, "著作權判例百選(제2판)" 有斐閣 1994

22 池原季雄, "著作權判例百選" 有斐閣 1987

23 牧山嘉道, "米國エンタテインメント法入門 [2]" 26 (26): 1998

24 岡邦俊, "パロヂイ寫眞の文化史的背景. in: 知的財産法の系譜" 靑林書院 2002

25 加藤一郞, "パロヂイと著作權. in: 知的財産の潮流" 信山社 1995

26 Andrė FRANḈON, "The Copyright Aspects of Parodies and Similar Works"

27 Lisa Moloff Kaplan, "Parody and the Fair Use Defense to Copyright Infringement: Appropriate Purpose and Object of Humor" 26 : 1994

28 Geri J. Yonover, "Moral rights, Parody, and Fair Use" 14 : 1996

29 Robert A. Gorman, "Copyright" Foundation Press 2002

30 Melville B. Nimmer, "Cases and Materials on COPYRIGHT(2nd ed.)" West Pub. Co 1979

31 Sherri L. Burr, "Artistic Parody: A Theoretical Construct" 14 : 1996

32 Simon Stokes, "Art & Copyright" Hart 2001

33 허희성, "2000 新著作權法逐條槪說(上)" 저작권아카데미 2000