골프코스의 저작권

Abstract

While there are much more golf courses in the US and Europe, lawsuits surrounding their copyrights are very rare, nor have there been any case of copyright infringement due to imitation or reproduction of golf courses. In Korea, a lower court have already ruled that golf courses are architectural works and that filming and utilizing videos of golf courses constitute copyright infringement. It is time for an in-depth analysis of what architectural works are, what the criteria for determining the copyrightability and creativity of architectural works are, and whether filming and utilizing images or videos of architectural works can be permitted under the freedom of panorama. In a lawsuit filed by golf course designers against Golfzon, the Seoul Central District Court recognized the originality of the golf course designs and ruled that Golfzon’s use of golf course images constituted copyright infringement. By contrast, the Seoul High Court denied the originality of the golf course designs. The Supreme Court partially accepted the golf course’s claim in a lawsuit filed by companies that own and operate golf courses against Golfzon, stating that although the golf course cannot be considered the copyright owner, the act of using the golf course’s image constitutes an act of unfair competition. Yet, the Supreme Court did not have a good chance to consider or decide whether the golf course is a work of architecture or not. Over the course of various lawsuits regarding golf course copyright, there have been raised many issues regarding architectural copyright. However, this paper is limited to discussing whether golf courses are architectural works, whether architectural works are broadly artistic works, and whether golf courses as architectural works have aesthetic shapes that can be considered artistic works, how to treat the functional elements when judging the originality of golf courses and their blueprints if they are functional works created to realize the functions of golf games, whether golf course blueprints can be protected as graphic works even if they are considered to lack artistic qualities or originality as architectural works, and how the scope of protection changes if golf course blueprints are not architectural works but merely graphic works.