DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on the Extents of Controversial 'Architectural Plans' within Architectural Works in Korean Copyright Law

국내 저작권법에 규정된 건축저작물 중 '설계도서'의 문제점 및 인정 범위에 관한 연구

  • Received : 2013.09.23
  • Published : 2013.12.25

Abstract

The definition and extents of architectural works vary from country to country. For instance, Korea, Japan and the US regard architectural works as an independent category of copyright while the UK, Australia, Canada and most European countries do as a sub-category of artistic works. Besides, architectural works include a building and its plans in the US; a building and a building model in the UK; a building only in Japan; and a building, plans and a model in Korea. Moreover, not a single country clearly codifies the definition and extents of architectural works in its copyright legislation. Therefore legal disputes concerning architectural copyright are proceeded without norms and their results are volatile depending upon judges to a great extent. This specific problem is more severe in Korea, where the definition of architectural works is overly brief and vague as it is stated as "a building, models, plans and similar architectural works." In this study, the definition and extents of architectural plans in terms of copyright are analyzed to set their copyrightable norms. In doing so, a prevailing design process was examined and worldwide legal cases concerning architectural copyright were scrutinized. Finally, it is proposed to limit architectural works only to architectural plans (including design sketches) which show the overall form and internal layout. By contrast, construction documents including technical drawings, plans and specifications, with their functional and illustrative nature, should be treated as graphic or literary works rather than architectural works.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Supported by : 숭실대학교

References

  1. 국토해양부, "공공발주사업에 대한 건축사의 업무범위와 대가 기준", 국토해양부 행정규칙 제2009-129호, 2009
  2. 권영준, 저작권침해 판단론 - 실질적 유사성을 중심으로, 박영사, 2007
  3. 송영식, 이상정, 황종환, 지적소유권법(하), 육법사, 2005
  4. 손흥수, 설계도면의 저작물성, 저스티스, 통권 제84호, 한국법학원, 2005. 4
  5. 오승종, 이해완, 저작권법, 박영사, 2005
  6. 윤선희 편역, 中山信弘저, 저작권법, 법문사, 2008
  7. 윤춘섭, "건축저작권 4회 연재에 관한 소고", 공간, 2013. 4
  8. 이기수 외 6인, 지적재산권법, 한빛지적소유권센터, 1996
  9. 이해완, 저작권법, 박영사, 2012
  10. 이호흥, 사진저작물 상담 답변, 저작권 자동상담서비스, 저작 권위원회, 2007
  11. 저작권위원회, 한국저작권 50년사, 저작권위원회, 2007
  12. 정태호, 지적재산권강의, 진원사, 2012
  13. 한승헌, 정보화시대의 저작권, 나남출판, 1996
  14. 日向野弘毅, 建築家の著作權, 成文堂, 1997
  15. AIA Knowledge Resources Unit, Copyright in Architectural Works, AIA, Jan 2007
  16. AIA, Recommended Guidelines for Accord Policy on Intellectual Property and Copyright, AIA, Nov. 2001
  17. Allyn, Burton C., The Architectural Works Act of 1990, Practice Notes IV, Vol.5, No.2, Published by a/e ProNet, Nov. 1992
  18. Bampton, Michael, Architects and Intellectual Property: Protecting Your Building Plans and Designs, Michael Bampton, Partner (NSW), 2012 (출처: www. architects. nsw.gov.au-download-Architects%20and%20Intellectual%20 Property%20Article%20Board%20advice%20April%2020121.pdf)
  19. Costigan, Paul & Ryan, Michael, Moral Rights, Practice Note 5, Australian Institute of Landscape Architects, October 2004
  20. Hancks, Greg, Copyright or Copy Wrong? (Part 4), Vol. 16, AIA, Sept 25, 2009
  21. Shipley, David, The Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act at Twenty: Has Full Protection Made a Difference?, Scholarly Works Paper 711, Univ. of Georgia School of Law, 2010
  22. US Copyright Office, Circular 40 (Copyright Registration for Works of the Visual Arts), US Copyright Office, 2004
  23. US Copyright Office, Circular 41 (Copyright Claims in Architectural Works, US Copyright Office, 2004
  24. US Copyright Office, Form VA (For a Work of the Visual Arts), US Copyright Office, 2012
  25. Winick, Raphael, Copyright Protection for Architecture after Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act of 1990, 41 Duke Law Journal, 1992