The Moral Rights Regime in the United Kingdom
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Moral rights are traditionally thought to have stemmed from the personhood theory originating from the philosophies of Kant and Hegel. Indeed, moral rights are considered to be the single biggest difference between the copyright regimes of common law countries and civil law countries. Korea as a civil law country has had from the very beginning of its copyright law history a strong set of moral rights protecting the author. However, what is becoming more evident is the potential for conflict between the existing moral rights regime under the Korean copyright law and the more recently transplanted features of what could be characterised as common law copyright legal provisions. These include a new set of rules for dealing with the ownership of copyright in works made for hire that are stipulated to belong to the employer and not the employee, and the introduction of a fair use exception a la United States copyright law. This problem does not arise to the same extent because of the very limited way in which moral rights are protected in the US. England, however, has enacted a broader moral rights regime and at the same time have limited their application according to subject matter and the type of work. The English model has been widely adopted in many other common law countries including Australia and New Zealand. This article examines the history and the current regime of moral rights in the United Kingdom and engages in a brief comparative analysis of the respective moral rights regime in the United Kingdom and Korea in order to glean ways in which the potential for conflict between the civil law traditions of the existing Korean moral rights regime may be resolved with the common law provisions recently adopted by Korean copyright law.
Abstract
Moral rights are traditionally thought to have stemmed from the personhood theory originating from the philosophies of Kant and Hegel. Indeed, moral rights are considered to be the single biggest difference between the copyright regimes of common law countries and civil law countries. Korea as a civil law country has had from the very beginning of its copyright law history a strong set of moral rights protecting the author. However, what is becoming more evident is the potential for conflict between the existing moral rights regime under the Korean copyright law and the more recently transplanted features of what could be characterised as common law copyright legal provisions. These include a new set of rules for dealing with the ownership of copyright in works made for hire that are stipulated to belong to the employer and not the employee, and the introduction of a fair use exception a la United States copyright law. This problem does not arise to the same extent because of the very limited way in which moral rights are protected in the US. England, however, has enacted a broader moral rights regime and at the same time have limited their application according to subject matter and the type of work. The English model has been widely adopted in many other common law countries including Australia and New Zealand. This article examines the history and the current regime of moral rights in the United Kingdom and engages in a brief comparative analysis of the respective moral rights regime in the United Kingdom and Korea in order to glean ways in which the potential for conflict between the civil law traditions of the existing Korean moral rights regime may be resolved with the common law provisions recently adopted by Korean copyright law.
참고문헌 (21)
- Otto Friedrich von Gierke, "DeutschesPrivatrecht", pp.702~705 (1895)
- Oh Seung Jong, "Copyright Law" (2017), Bak Young Sa
- Alberto Alesina, "Politics and Economics in the Eighties" (1991), Univ of Chicago Press
- William W. Fisher, "New Essays in the Legal and Political Theory of Property", pp.168~ (2001)
- Sam Ricketson, "The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works: 1886-1986" (1987)
- "Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) (UK) (All revisions up to and including 31 May 2018)", ~
- "Korean Copyright Law, (Act no.14634, partially revised on 21 March 2017, in effect on 2017.3.21.)", ~
- Robert C. Bird, "Protecting Moral Rights in the United States and the United Kingdom: Challenges and Opportunities under the U.K.’s New Performances Regulations", Boston U. Int’l L.J, 24, pp.213~ (2006)
- Edward J. Damich, "Moral Rights Protection and Resale Royalties for Visual Art in the United States: Development and Current Status", Cardozo Arts Ent.L.J, 12, pp.387~
- P.R. Handford, "Moral Damages in Germany", Int’l &Comp.L.Q, 27, pp.849~ (1978)
- Charles A. Marvin, "The Author’s Status in the United Kingdom and France: Common Law and the Moral Right Doctrine", Int’l &Comp.L.Q, 20, pp.675~700 (1971)
- Sheila J. McCartney, "Moral Rights Under the United Kingdom’s Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988", COLUM.-VLA J.L. & ARTS, 15, pp.205~ (1991)
- Cyril Rigamonti, "The Conceptual Transformation of Moral Rights", Am.J. Comp.L, 55, pp.67~
- David Vaver, "Moral Rights Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow", Int’l J.L. & Info. Tech, 7, pp.270~ (1990)
- "Campbell v Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994)", ~ (1994)
- Ch. 667, , 1926
- "Seoul District Court 2001.11.1. Decision 2001KaHap1837", ~ (2001)
- "Reigniting of the Pro Baseball Cheers Song Controversy: Infringement of Moral Rights or Infringement of Fans Welfare?", JoongangIlbo, ~ (2018)
- "Moral Right in France: Towards a Pragmatic Approach?"[URL]