RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색

인기 검색어

    다국어 입력

    http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

    변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

    예시)
    • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
    • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
    닫기
    KCI등재

    골프코스의 창작성과 가상공간에서의 이용-서울고등법원 2024.2.1 선고 2022나2000485 판결을 참고하여- = Creativity of Golf Course and Use in Virtual Space

    한글로보기

    https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A109056730

    • 0

      상세조회
    • 0

      다운로드
    서지정보 열기
    • 내보내기
    • 내책장담기
    • 공유하기
      • URL 복사
    • 오류접수
    인용문이 복사되었습니다.

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    Art works such as literature, music, and art rely heavily on the author's personality, so there is a lot of room for creativity to be recognized, while functional works such as figures and design drawings must be judged for creativity except for areas that are bound to be expressed in that way, so there will be less room for the author's personality to be exercised. However, although the difference in characteristics related to the individuality of artistic and functional works may lead to a difference in the part that judges creativity, it does not act as a criterion for judging creativity. The creativity of all works should be recognized if they have their own individuality without copying others, and even functional works, it is reasonable to apply the same standards to areas where human thoughts and emotions are expressed independently. In the case of the golf course covered in this case, creativity cannot be recognized if it consists of only parts that anyone can express, but if creativity is denied even if its own characteristics distinct from other golf courses are embodied through the creator's individual expression, all real-world golf courses will lose their protectability as works. In this context, this paper critically analyzes the court's judgment and presents its own opinion on the criteria for judging the creativity and substantial similarity of the golf course.
    번역하기

    Art works such as literature, music, and art rely heavily on the author's personality, so there is a lot of room for creativity to be recognized, while functional works such as figures and design drawings must be judged for creativity except for areas...

    Art works such as literature, music, and art rely heavily on the author's personality, so there is a lot of room for creativity to be recognized, while functional works such as figures and design drawings must be judged for creativity except for areas that are bound to be expressed in that way, so there will be less room for the author's personality to be exercised. However, although the difference in characteristics related to the individuality of artistic and functional works may lead to a difference in the part that judges creativity, it does not act as a criterion for judging creativity. The creativity of all works should be recognized if they have their own individuality without copying others, and even functional works, it is reasonable to apply the same standards to areas where human thoughts and emotions are expressed independently. In the case of the golf course covered in this case, creativity cannot be recognized if it consists of only parts that anyone can express, but if creativity is denied even if its own characteristics distinct from other golf courses are embodied through the creator's individual expression, all real-world golf courses will lose their protectability as works. In this context, this paper critically analyzes the court's judgment and presents its own opinion on the criteria for judging the creativity and substantial similarity of the golf course.

    더보기

    참고문헌 (Reference)

    1 계승균, "중·고등학교시험문제와 저작권" 24 (24): 2007

    2 박성호, "저작권법" 박영사 2020

    3 오승종, "저작권법" 박영사 2020

    4 "건축저작물의 가상공간에서의 쟁점" 한국저작권위원회 2022

    5 문화관광부, "개정저작권법 해설"

    6 Fromm, "Urheberrecht-Kommentar, 9. Aufl" 1998

    7 Rehbinder, "Urheberrecht, 13. Aufl" 2004

    8 Schack, "Urheber-und Urhebervertragsrecht, 2. Aufl" 2001

    9 Koch, "Urheber- und kartellrechtliche Aspekte der Nutzung von Open-Souce-Software (I)" 2000

    10 Dreier, "UrhG-Kommentar" 2004

    1 계승균, "중·고등학교시험문제와 저작권" 24 (24): 2007

    2 박성호, "저작권법" 박영사 2020

    3 오승종, "저작권법" 박영사 2020

    4 "건축저작물의 가상공간에서의 쟁점" 한국저작권위원회 2022

    5 문화관광부, "개정저작권법 해설"

    6 Fromm, "Urheberrecht-Kommentar, 9. Aufl" 1998

    7 Rehbinder, "Urheberrecht, 13. Aufl" 2004

    8 Schack, "Urheber-und Urhebervertragsrecht, 2. Aufl" 2001

    9 Koch, "Urheber- und kartellrechtliche Aspekte der Nutzung von Open-Souce-Software (I)" 2000

    10 Dreier, "UrhG-Kommentar" 2004

    11 우지숙, "UCC 창작물에 대한 저작권법 적용의 쟁점 및 미국 패러디 관련 판례의 시사점" 한국저작권위원회 22 (22): 2008

    12 Patterson, "The Nature of Copyright" 1991

    13 Buchner, "Rechtsschutz und Verwertung von Computerprogrammen, 2. Aufl" 1993

    14 Madison, "Intellectual Property and Information Wealth" 2007

    15 Ullmann, "Das urheberrechtlich geschützte Arbeitsergebnis – Ver wertungsrecht und Vergütungspflicht" 1987

    16 Junker, "Computerrecht, 2. Aufl" Baden-Baden 2000

    더보기

    동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

    동일학술지 더보기

    더보기

    분석정보

    View

    상세정보조회

    0

    Usage

    원문다운로드

    0

    대출신청

    0

    복사신청

    0

    EDDS신청

    0

    동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

    더보기

    주제

    연도별 연구동향

    연도별 활용동향

    연관논문

    연구자 네트워크맵

    공동연구자 (7)

    유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼