RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
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
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      구 저작권법상 음반의 저작자 결정 기준 - 대법원 2016. 4. 28. 선고 2013다56167 판결 - = On the Criteria of Determining the Author of Phonogram under the Korean Copyright Act of 1957 (Supreme Court of Korea Decision 2013DA56167 Decided on 28 APR 2016)

      한글로보기

      https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A102167697

      • 0

        상세조회
      • 0

        다운로드
      서지정보 열기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

      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.
      번역하기

      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 referr...

      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.

      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