• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.370-381
• /
• 2016

This study was designed to examine the Trends and Characteristics of Infringement of right to likeness by the Press in Korea. We did an analysis of 81 cases of the court's rulings related to Infringement of right to likeness by the Press from 1990 to 2014. As a result, it shows that the first court's ruling of portrait rights violations by the press was made in 1990. The results showed that there were the increasing number of disputing cases over Infringement of right to likeness against Broadcasting media in the 2000s compared to monthly magazines in the 1990s, which were regarded as gonzo journalism. Since the 2000s, 71% of lawsuits regarding Infringement of right to likeness has been against the Broadcasting Media due to increasing the influence of the broadcasting and possibility of Infringement of right to likeness by visual images. Especially, the number of lawsuits on infringement of rights to likeness has increased rapidly by the Broadcasting Media. Only 23 cases(28.4%) of total 81 cases were decided in favor of the press. the press shows the low success in disputing the rights of likeness. this study shows the korean courts put more weight on the right to likeness and the breaking a balance between freedom of the press and right of person's character. However, 52.9% of the cases was decided in favor of The press against the plaintiff of public figures compared to 22% against the public. It can be difficult for public figures to win lawsuit against the press causing the Infringement of right to likeness. Judging from this fact, it seemed that the court recognized media watchdog for public figures.

• Korean journal of communication and information
• /
• v.34
• /
• pp.161-195
• /
• 2006

Standing to sue has become one of the most important and controversial issues in suits between the press and the victims injured by the press reports. Even thought Korean law was patterned after the European legal system, there is no denying that the Korean Constitution was influenced by that of the United States. The judicial system was also influenced by its counterpart in the United States. The doctrine of standing to sue has plagued the U.S. Supreme Court for several decades. The traditional test of standing in the federal courts was, at the beginning of the century, whether the interest asserted by the plaintiff amounted to a 'legal right', entitled to the protection of the common law. In recent years, the Supreme Court seems to have settled on a two-tiered method for determining whether a plaintiff has standing to sue in federal court. The first level of inquiry is the constitutional core, and the second is the judicially imposed prudential limitations. The purpose of this study is to find out the doctrine of standing in the legal proceedings caused by the press reports. The press needs to internally transform as well to prevent legal dispute, enforcing confirmation when collecting news materials and building up the device for pre-examining the news. The press is also requested to help sincerely the victim recover, realizing that they waste their reputation and credit not to mention a lot of time and monet during the legal dispute.

• Korean journal of communication and information
• /
• v.21
• /
• pp.147-175
• /
• 2003

This study is primarily concerned with the criteria for choosing a legitimate state plaintiff in cases involving a states request to media for a right of reply. Interpretation of the right of reply itself is different from country to country because of different constitutional views and systems in each state. Unlike the United States, the constitution of the Republic of Korea does not expressly prohibit the making of laws adversely affecting freedom of the press. Accordingly, in Korea freedom of the press may be restricted through legislation within certain limits and the right of reply is not incompatible with the spirit of the constitution. An analysis of relevant law makes it clear that the particular agency aggrieved should initiate the suit rather than the Justice Minister. The idea that the Justice Minister should assume the role of plaintiff in all state cases seems to stem from flawed interpretations of provisions in the Law Governing Registration of Periodicals and the Law Governing Litigation Involving the State. Even though each state agency has the right of reply, it should be cautioned not to abuse it as the states frequent involvement in litigation may bring on unnecessary misunderstanding and have a chilling effect on the media. The right of reply does not always imply that a certain media report in question is wrong and the media should be sanctioned for it. The right of reply is basically intended to help the general public make an informed judgment on issues presented in the media and insure fairness and balance.

• Korean journal of communication and information
• /
• v.38
• /
• pp.211-244
• /
• 2007

Article 17 and 18 of the Korean Constitution respectively prescribe the violation of individual's right to privacy and the secrecy of wire communication. Meanwhile, Article 20 of the Criminal Code provides that an act which is conducted within the ambit of laws or pursuant to accepted business practices or which does not violate the social norms shall not be punishable. In 1999, the Constitutional Court held that media reports on public matters of public figures must be given strong constitutional protection, and treated differently from reports on private matters of private figures. In accordance with the decision, the Supreme Court has expanded the scope of constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression since 2002. This study analyzes the issue of media liability for publication of illegally intercepted wire communication by a third person. Particularly, it reviews Seoul High Court's ruling on 'X-file scandal' which disclosed intercepted wire communications between notable public figures regarding a slush fund for a presidential candidate. In the light of this analysis, the study concludes that the media reporting of the intercepted communication does not violate social norms of Article 20, and therefore it is entitled to a constitutional privilege.

• Korean journal of communication and information
• /
• v.29
• /
• pp.233-269
• /
• 2005

The purpose of the study is to explore the characteristics of lawsuits against investigative reporting programs of the broadcast media. This study proposed three research questions: (1) what were the characteristics of court derisions on the investigative reporting programs? (2) what were the reasonings on which judges rely in the lawsuits for a right of reply? (3) what were the critical issues and how the libel laws were applied in balancing between the freedom of the press and the protection of individual rights. To answer these questions, the study employed quantitative and qualitative methods analysing 35 related cases. This study revealed that investigative reporting programs must deal with the Issues of 'public figures' and 'matters of public concern' to be protected under the freedom of the press. The study also found that the broadcast media must prove legitimate public interests and the truth of the facts to prevail in a case. In 1999, the Constitutional Court of Korea held that pubic figures in libel cases must be regarded differently from private figures. In accordance with the decision, the Supreme Court has applied differing criteria for public figures in libel cases. However, courts have not set a clear definition of the public figure yet. To advocate the freedom of the press, as the results of this study indicate, TV producers and journalists should behave lawfully in the course of newsgathering and provide the opportunities of reply for their news sources.

• Korean journal of communication and information
• /
• v.40
• /
• pp.150-191
• /
• 2007

Defamation lawsuits of public figures against media have been an issue since Roh government set in. Dissension between the government and media has probably acted as the key factor on this problem. Accordingly, arguments on the defamation lawsuits of public figures occurred the political issues such as opposition between the Progressive and the Conservative Parties or between the ins and the outs and showed the limits to suggest an appropriate judgment or solution. This study will analyze how the court makes its judgement on their rights and the limits by understanding the characteristic and the problem of defamation lawsuits made by senior government officials including a politician, the government, the president, and etc. As results, the defamation lawsuits of politicians and senior government officials showed specially noteworthy matters in salvation (damage suits), the amount claimed, court costs, ratio of winning lawsuits, and etc. The result on the tendency of the court decision showed the following matters in confusion: it holds the media responsible for the burden of proof by applying the inappropriate criterion; The applied laws, especially in the inferior court decision, do not show the consistency of the burden of proof between the misconception/ intention (malice)/ accident/ purpose of slander on the legal principles of public figures. Therefore, this study suggests the court to apply an appropriate law, let alone regulating the Anti-SLAPP law, so that it curtails the rights of public figures; limits the salvation of damage suit; and protects the right only in the case of false accusation by applying the existing law of "the Protection of the Deceased's Defamation Law." In order to dissolve the confusion when applying the laws on the public figures, the study insists the court to positively apply the Constitutional Court made criterion on "people" and "content." The study also insists to distinguish "intention(malice)," "accident," and "purpose of slander" and variant sorts of the burden of proof should be applied to each.

• Korean journal of communication and information
• /
• v.81
• /
• pp.189-224
• /
• 2017

The case of 'Paik Jong-moon's Taped Conversation,' has presented "an important and serious challenge to the freedom of the press and democracy" in South Korea. Nevertheless, this case has not been reported by the mainstream news media. It has also been forgotten without a proper fact-finding or investigation by regulatory agencies, like The Foundation for Broadcast Culture, The Korea Communications Commission, or The National Assembly. This study aims to examine why the above has happened through in-depth interviews of reporters and TV producers, senior journalists, former and incumbent commissioners of the broadcasting regulatory agencies, and experts of the industry, as well as literature research. Here, I present three answers. First, I found two reasons the mainstream press has ignored this incident. 1) It serves for political interests instead of reporting truth. 2) Public broadcasters' watchdog role has been neutralized. Second, regulatory agencies like The Foundation for Broadcast Culture, The Korea Communications Commission and The National Assembly are ruled by political tribalism. The ruling party's members of the National Assembly and these agencies were reluctant to investigate allegations surrounding Paik Jong-moon, such as illegal dismissals, illegal intervention in programming or production, illegal recruitment and illegal business deals. That's because they considered CEO Paik an ally. Using their majority power, they have rejected the request from opposition-affiliated commissioners or from opposition lawmakers to investigate the allegations. Third, there were no alternative forces within the public broadcasters to unveil the truth. In conclusion, the legal and institutional shake-up of corporate governance is urgently needed for public broadcasters and broadcasting regulatory agencies.

• The Safety technology
• /
• no.36
• /
• pp.8-11
• /
• 2000

최근(2000. 11월)미국에서는 근골격계 장애(MSDs ; Musculoskeletal disorfers)를 방지하기 위해 직업안전보건청 (OSHA : Occupational Safety and Health Administration)에서는 인간공학 프로그램표준(Ergonomis program standard)을 규정화하기 위해 관보(Federal Register)에 게시하는 등 법제화 추진이 이루어지고 있으며, 또한 이것이 기업체 단체에서는 규정화 무효를 위한 연방법정 소송이 전개되고 있으며 노동단체에서는 우호적 입장을 보이고 있는 등의 내용이 미국 언론 및 해외 통신(NY Times, LA Times, Washington Times, Wall ST Journal, AFP)에 보도되고 있다. 이미 미국의 반도체 기업에서는 반도체 제조설비의 인간공학을 위한 안전 지침을 정하고 있는 등 인간공학 표준화가 이루어지고 있어 그에 대한 동향을 살펴보고, 이러한 인간공학 프로그램 표준에 대해 자세한 내용을 게제할 계획이다. 금번 호에서는 그 동향과 인간공학 프로그램 표준의 필요성과 그 목적 등의 개요를 싣고 계속해서 구체적인 내용을 소개해 나갈 계획이다.

• Korean journal of communication and information
• /
• v.20
• /
• pp.141-176
• /
• 2003

This paper examined how Korean courts conceptualized and applied public interest defense of Penal Code to the libel cases raised by socially influential persons. For this, this paper analyzed a total of 58 libel cases in which 'public interest' was mentioned by Korean courts between 1981 and 2000. It was found that whereas truth or believed-to-be-true defense is emphasized In libel cases by politicians or public officials, public interest defense was emphasized in the cases by private figures. It was also found that Korean courts tended to think of matters related with 1) national security and social order, 2) prevention of asocial crime, 3) enlightening of public, and 4) protection of consumers' interest as public interest. Conclusively, 'public interest' is not simply applied as an independent legal defense, because Korean courts insistently concentrated on the truth of a story and did not even specifically define what is public interest. Constitution Court recently maintained that the slope of legal defense should be broadened when a story is about public matters. However, Korean courts will not be likely to accept public interest defense as an independent one for the time being.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.343-373
• /
• 2006

지적재산권의 속지주의 원칙에 따라 전통적으로 지적재산권의 침해에 있어서 결과의 발생이 없는 행위지를 침해지로 인정하지 않았다. 어문과 예술작품을 보호하기 위해 1886년 체결된 베른협약(Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works) 제5조 제1항은 저작자가 베른협약에 따라 보호되는 저작물에 관하여 본국 이외의 동맹국에서 각 법률이 현재 또는 장래에 자국민에게 부여하는 권리 및 이 협약이 특별히 부여하는 권리를 향유한다고 규정하여 내국민대우원칙을 천명하고 있다. 또한 베른협약 제5조 제2항은 저작권의 보호와 향유는 저작물의 본국에서 보호가 존재하는 여부와 관계가 없이, 보호의 범위와 저작자의 권리를 보호하기 위하여 주어지는 구제의 방법은 오로지 보호가 주장되는 국가의 법률의 지배를 받는다라고 규정하여 저작권 침해가 발행한 국가의 법률의 적용을 명시하고 있다. 인터넷과 무선통신 기술의 발달은 저작물을 디지탈 형식으로 실시간에 전세계에 배포하는 것을 가능하게 하였다. 특히 저작물의 인터넷상에서의 배포는 다국적 저작권 침해행위를 야기하여, 저작권자가 다수의 국가에서 저작권 침해소송을 제기하여 판결을 집행하는 것이 필요하게 되었다. 헤이그국제사법회의(Hague Conference on Private International Law)에서 1992년부터 논의되어 온 민사 및 상사사건의 국제재판관할과 외국판결에 관한 협약(Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgment in Civil and Commercial Matters)에서 채택된1999년의 예비초안(preliminary draft) 및 2001년 외교회의에서 수정된 잠정초안(Interim text) (이하 헤이그 협약 )은 저작권자가 저작권침해행위가 발생한 각 국가에서 저작권 침해행위를 금지하는 소송을 제기할 필요없이, 동 협약의 한 가맹국가의 법원의 저작권침해금지판결을 다른 가맹국가에서도 집행할 수 있는 가능성을 제시해 주는데 의미가 있다. 헤이그 협약 제10조는 불법행위(torts)에 관한 일반적인 재판관할에 관한 규정을 두고 있으며, 저작권침해에 관한 분쟁은 동 조항의 적용을 받는다. 제10조에 의해 당사자는 가해행위지 국가의 법원 또는 결과발생지 국가의 법원에서 소송을 제기할 수 있다. 결과발생지의 경우 제10조 1항 (b)는 피고가 자신의 행위가 본국의 법규에 비추어 동일한 성격의 손해를 초래할 수 있다라고 합리적으로 예견할 수 없었던 경우에 본 조항의 적용을 배제하고 있다. 인터넷을 통한 저작권침해의 경우, 피고가 자신의 국가의 법규하에서 합법적으로 저작물을 웹사이트에 게시하였으나, 그 행위가 다운로딩이 행해진 국가에서 불법인 경우, 피고는 저작권침해를 예견할 수 없었으므로 이에 문제가 제기된다. iCrave TV사건에서, 피고인 캐나다회사가 미국 및 캐나다에서 방송되는 텔레비젼 방송 프로그램을 자신의 웹사이트에 게시하여 이용자들로 하여금 컴퓨터를 통하여 방송을 재시청 할 수 있도록 하였는데 이는 캐나다에서 합법인 반면에 미국에서는 저작권 침해에 해당한다. 피고는 방송 프로그램을 인터넷상에서 재방송하는 것은 캐나다법상 합법이므로 저작권침해를 예견할 수 없었다고 주장하면서, 해당 사이트에 오직 캐나다 거주자만의 접속을 허용하고 미국 거주자의 접속을 제한하는 일련의 Click-Wrap 계약과 스크린 장치를 제공하였다고 주장하였다. 본 사건 피고의 주장을 받아들인다고 가정할 때, 제10조 1항(b)에 의해 원고는 결과발생지인 미국법원의 재판관할을 강제할 수 없을 것이다. 지적재산권을 둘러싼 분쟁에 관한 재판관할과 국제법상의 판결의 승인 및 집행의 통일성을 기하기 위하여 2001년 1월 세계지적재산권기구(World Intellectual Property Organization)가 제안한 WIPO 협약초안(Draft Convention on Jurisdiction and Recognition of Judgments in Intellectual Property Matters)은 헤이그 협약이 재판관할과 판결의 승인 및 집행에 대한 일반적인 접근을 하고 있는 점에 반하여 지적재산권자의 보호라는 측면을 고려하여 지적재산권침해소송에 국제재판관할권을 규정하고 있다. WIPO 협약초안 제6조는 저작권자가 저작권 침해를 막기 위한 합리적인 조치를 취한 국가에서 저작권 침해소송을 피할 수 있다고 규정하고 있다. 따라서 본 조항에 의할 경우, iCrave TV사건의 피고는 미국에서의 저작권 침해소송을 회피할 수 있을 것이다. 이상과 같이 헤이그 협약이 외국판결의 승인 및 집행을 가능하게 하고 있음에도 불구하고, 외국법원의 판결이 다수의 가맹국가에서 집행되지 못하는 가장 큰 장애는 대다수의 국가들이 외국법원의 판결이 공서양속(Public Policy)에 반하는 경우 판결을 승인하지 않는 예외규정을 두고 있기 때문이다. 미국의 경우, Uniform Recognition Act와 Restatement(Third) of Foreign Relations에 따른 공서양속의 예외규정(Public Policy exception)은 외국법원의 판결의 승인을 부인하는 근거가 된다. Yahoo! 사건에서 Yahoo! Inc.의 옥션 사이트를 통해 독일 나치 소장물의 판매가 이루어졌는데, 프랑스 형법상 이는 범죄행위에 해당하므로, 프랑스 법원은Yahoo! Inc.에게 프랑스 이용자가 당해 옥션 사이트에 접속할 수 없도록 모든 가능한 조치를 취할 것을 명하였다. 이에 미국 법원은 프랑스 법원의 판결은 Yahoo! Inc.의 미국헌법 제1 수정(First Amendment)의 언론의 자유(freedom of speech)에 반하므로 판결의 집행을 거부하였는데 이는 공서양속의 예외규정을 보여주는 예이다. 헤이그 협약 제28조와 WIPO 협약초안 제25조 또한 공서양속의 예외규정을 두고 있다. 본 논문은 인터넷과 통신기술의 발달로 야기되는 다국적 저작권 침해사건에서 한 국가의 법원의 저작권 침해금지판결이 다수의 국가에서 승인 및 집행될 수 있는 능성을 헤이그 협약과 WIPO 협약초안 및 미국판결을 중심으로 살펴보았다. 국제적으로 통일된 저작권법이 존재하지 않고 외국 판결의 승인을 부인하는 예외조항과 외국판결의 집행에 관한 각국의 이해관계와 준거법의 해석이 다른 현시점에서 지적재산권의 속지주의를 뛰어넘어 외국법원의 판결을 국제적으로 집행하는 것은 다소 어려움이 있어 보이나 국제적인 집행가능성의 열쇠를 제시하는 헤이그 협약과 장래의 국제조약에 그 기대를 걸어볼 수 있겠다.