복식 (Journal of the Korean Society of Costume)

  • 제66권5호
  • /
  • Pages.33-48
  • /
  • 2016
  • /
  • 1229-6880(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2287-7827(eISSN)
한국복식학회 (The Korean Society of Costume)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

캐릭터 도안(圖案)의 창작성 판단 기준 - 저작권침해소송 판례를 중심으로 -

Judiciary Elements of Originality in 2D Character Design - Focused on the Precedents of Copyright Infringement -

  • 조경숙 (성균관대학교 예술대학 의상학과)
  • 투고 : 2016.02.29
  • 심사 : 2016.07.04
  • 발행 : 2016.08.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Upon the needs to draw the judicial elements of creativity in the copyrighted character designs, this paper aims to draw and categorize the elements based on the analysis of preceding court decisions. The results are as follows: the form of body, the features in its face and its composition, the overall image, the degree of personification, and aesthetic sensation. These elements reflect formative skills required to portray the intrinsic quality of a character. This paper is of significant interest in that it suggested the legal basis and elements of creativity in character design to professionals in both areas of design and judicial decisions.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Ahn, H. & Park, Y. (2003). A study on the formative characters of visual communication. Journal of Korea Illustrators Association, 6(0), pp. 87-100.
  2. Character. (n.d.). In Standard Korean Dictionary online. Retrieved from http://stdweb2.korean.go.kr/search/List_dic.jsp
  3. Cho, Y. S. (2001). Creativity of the copyrighted works revealed in judiciary decisions: Focusing on the categorization of denied cases. Korean Lawyers Association Journal, 543, pp. 196-238.
  4. Choi, Y. O. (2006). Design protection and laws on design: Focusing on characters. Korean Journal of Design Trend, 14, pp. 427-439.
  5. Chu, S. (2004). The legal nature of characters: Focusing on copyrightability. The Journal of Law, GSNU, 12(0), pp. 147-162.
  6. Do, D. H. (2008). Conflict between copyright on merchandise character and trademark right. Korean Business Review, 1(1), pp. 165-179.
  7. Kim, H. K. (2006). A study of character for a design identity establishment of a fashion brand: A focused on a woman clothes brand. Journal of Digital Design, 6(2), pp. 291-300.
  8. Kim, J. (2010). Considerations on plasticity of character design: Focusing on eye design of highly recognized characters. Journal of Digital Design, 10(3), pp. 74-81.
  9. Kim, J. H. (2006). A study on the key elements for facial expression in animation character. Korean Society of Design Science Conference Proceedings, pp. 138-139.
  10. Kim, K. & Park, S. (2014). Millennial generation and the relationship between the character design:Character design sensibility as consumption. Korean Journal of Design Forum, 45(0), pp. 377-386.
  11. Korea Creative Content Agency (2015). Character industry white paper 2014. Retrieved from http://www.kocca.kr/cop/bbs/view/B0000146/1824878.do?searchCnd=&searchWrd=&cateTp1=&cateTp2=&useAt=&menuNo=201826&categorys=0&subcate=0&cateCode=&type=&instNo=0&questionTp=&uf_Setting=&recovery=&option1=&option2=&pageIndex=4
  12. Lee, H. W. (2016). Copyright Law (3rd ed.), Seoul, Republic of Korea: Pakyoungsa.
  13. Oh, S. J. (2012). Copyright law (2nd ed.), Seoul, Republic of Korea: Pakyoungsa.
  14. Park, J. K. (2007). The legal protection of sports character. Sports and Law, 10(3), pp. 255-283.
  15. Park, J. O. (2012). A study on the success factors of the business of the Disney characters from a business strategy perspective. Journal Packaging Culture Design Research, 31, pp. 95-110.
  16. Peng, L. & Kim N. (2009). Systemizing the Design components of hybrid character in digital contents. Journal of Digital Design, 9(1), pp. 333-341. https://doi.org/10.17280/jdd.2009.9.1.033
  17. Seoul Central District Court Decision, 1997 September 5 (96 gahap 36949) [서울지방법원 1997. 9. 5. 선고96가합36949(본소), 97가합 13608(반소) 판결]
  18. Seoul Central District Court Decision, 1998 April 3 (96 gahap 56868) [서울지방법원 1998. 4. 3. 선고 96가합56868(본소), 96가합80106(반소) 판결]
  19. Seoul Central District Court Decision, 2007 April 11 (2005 gahap 102770) [서울중앙지방법원 2007. 4. 11. 선고 2005가합102770 판결]
  20. Seoul Central District Court Decision, 2009 October 10 (2008 gahap 117810) [서울중앙지방법원 2009. 10. 10. 선고 2008가합117810]
  21. Seoul Central District Court Decision, 2009 September 2 (2008 Gahap 87186) [서울중앙지방법원 2009. 9. 2. 선고 2008가합87186]
  22. Seoul Central District Court Decision, 2011 August 10 (2011 gahap 12120) [서울중앙지방법원 2011. 8. 10. 선고 2011가합12120 판결]
  23. Seoul Central District Court Decision, 2012 August 28 (2012 kahap 330) [서울중앙지방법원 2012. 8. 28. 자 2012카합330 결정]
  24. Seoul High Court Decision, 2010 August 26 (2009 na 122304) [서울고등법원 2010. 8. 26. 판결 2009나 122304]
  25. Seoul High Court Decision, 2012 July 25 (2011 na 70802) [서울고등법원 2012. 7. 25. 선고 2011나70802 판결]
  26. Supreme Court Decision, 1996 September 6 (96 do 139) [대법원 1996. 9. 6. 선고 96도139 판결]
  27. Supreme Court Decision, 1999 May 14 (99 do 115) [대법원 1999. 5. 14. 선고 99도115 판결]
  28. Supreme Court Decision, 2003 October 23 (2002 do 446) [대법원 2003. 10. 23. 선고 2002도446 판결]
  29. Supreme Court Decision, 2005 April 29 (2005 do 70) [대법원 2005. 4. 29. 선고 2005도70 판결]
  30. Supreme Court Decision, 2009 June 25 (2008 do 11985) [대법원 2009. 6. 25. 선고 2008도11985 판결]
  31. Supreme Court Decision, 2010 February 11 (2007 da 63409) [대법원 2010. 2. 11. 선고 2007다63409 판결]
  32. Supreme Court Decision, 2011 February 10 (2009 do 291) [대법원 2011. 2. 10. 선고 2009도291 판결]
  33. Supreme Court Decision, 2011 May 26 (2010 hu 3462) [대법원 2011. 5. 26. 선고 2010후3462]
  34. Supreme Court Decision, 2014 December 11 (2011 da 76829) [대법원 2014. 12. 11. 선고 2012다76829 판결]
  35. Supreme Court Decision, 2015 December 10 (2015 do 11550) [대법원 2015. 12. 10. 선고 2015도11550 판결]
  36. Youk Shim Won concerns similar products released by it s rivals. [유사제품 골머리 앓는 육심원..中소비자 신뢰도 '타격'] (2016, January 21). edaily, Retrieved from http://www.edaily.co.kr/news/NewsRead.edy?newsid=01413686612520016&SCD=JC21&DCD=A00302