Continue the discussion on the understanding of intellectual property by examining copyright precedents.
Seoul District Court Sentenced on May 11, 1988 87가합6175 Judgment
1. Reasons
The dependant infringed the plaintiff's right to portrait by using the portrait without obtaining the plaintiff's consent in the advertisement, despite the fact that the advertisement was an advertisement for a product in a specific department store. claim that he is liable to compensate for the mental and property damage suffered.
The right to portrait is a part of the right to personality that protects the personal value of a portrait by preventing it from being photographed and published or used without permission in advertisements with respect to the physical characteristics that can be identified as a specific person according to social norms. It is protected regardless of whether the depiction method is illustration or photography, but the right to portrait is the object of protection for the external appearance of a human being, so the portrayed portrait must be recognizable by ordinary people in society. It will be said that infringement of portrait rights can be recognized only in certain cases.
Comparing the image of the picture the plaintiff has modeled with the picture shown in the defendants' advertisements, although the contents and structure of the picture are consistent with the picture of the plaintiff, the face of the picture is the same as the face of the plaintiff in the picture, or the external area It cannot be concluded that the defendants have infringed the plaintiff's right to portrait, as it cannot be seen that the characteristics are expressed as it is, and the picture in the advertisement is not seen to be immediately identifiable as the plaintiff.
2 Summary of decision
The right to portrait refers to a part of the right to personality that protects the personal value of a portrait by preventing it from being photographed and published without permission or used in advertisements, etc. can Therefore, regardless of the method of depicting the portrait, whether it is illustration or photography, it will be protected, but infringement of portrait rights can be recognized only when the portrayed portrait is portrayed enough to be recognized by ordinary people in society. Apart from the fact that the defendants infringed the copyright of the photo by making and distributing the illustration based on the photo taken as a model, it cannot be concluded that the plaintiff's right to portrait has been infringed because the general public cannot recognize that the illustration is the plaintiff. there is no
Adpick Paid Ads
*I am a student learning IP, not an IP expert. I hope it will be helpful for those who do not have the relevant knowledge or who want to learn about IP.
*The above is what I learned from a book by author Ocica O'Kim (Korean, Chinese, Japanese, and English Chinese Character Center) called Core Cases of Intellectual Property Rights.
댓글