Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/South Korea

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Threshold of originality[edit]

... is not addressed on the associated page, causing ambiguity e.g. in COM:GL/I#Samsung Health logo. Please address it.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added a section, but it does not say much. As usual, we need some case law so we can see the kinds of image that were/were not considered eligible for protection. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Aymatth2: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buildings[edit]

I moved my earlier post to Commons_talk:Threshold_of_originality#Buildings because I think it may be of relevante to all countries with no FOP. --MGA73 (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MGA73: Doubtful, at least in many Muslim countries (or I should say Islamic countries?), simple buildings are eventually copyrighted. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Liuxinyu970226: Thank you. Do you know how it is enforced? Do they actually go around and check if 2 houses look alike and tell the owner to break it down if it looks too much like an existing house? --MGA73 (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MGA73: I think the consensus as it stands today is correct: no acceptable SoKor FOP. Even very simple houses are copyrighted, and one such simple UV house caused much legal trouble to a TV ad production company. Explicit has gave this example (see the next thread below), which I eventually added to the main CRT/SoKor page. So unfortunately, we cannot accept CC/PD-licensed images, until Seoul amends/reforms their copyright law to remove noncommercial restriction for good. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add example of FOP?[edit]

I was thinking that it may be worth adding an example to COM:FOP SK to show just how stringent FOP is in South Korea and how low the threshold of originality is for structures. In a 2008 case, architect Min Gyu-am sued production company Pomato Company for using an exterior wall of his UV House in the background of a KB Kookmin Bank commercial (screenshot). The owner of the building received a payment for its use. However, they did not receive permission from the architect for its commercial use. A lower court initially ruled against Min, but that verdict was thrown out by the Seoul Central District Court—the highest court in South Korea—in an appeals case. The judge ruled that the architect must be compensated for copyright infringement (Korean news article). The FOP section here should demonstrate this accordingly. Unfortunately, this leaves little room for photos of contemporary buildings in South Korea, notwithstanding de minimis. Thoughts? ƏXPLICIT 03:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Explicit: hello. Feel free to do so. The restrictions should be indicated as much as possible (see also one example of a "counter-FOP" case in COM:FOP China) so that all of us the uploaders and even the South Korean general public are aware that there is really such copyright restrictions on almost all architecture in the country (also hopefully, this might help voice out the need for a more new media-friendly FOP in the country). Of course, this should be accompanied by cited references or sources. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, I browsed this Reddit post concerning South Korean FOP, and it seems the user and the commentators of their post don't believe such copyright restrictions, using depictions of buildings in K-dramas as a reason for their disbelief on the lack of freedom of panorama in the country. Perhaps it's time to add examples. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for my hasteful edit. I forgot that enough discuss was needed before editing. But what I done is reasonable.
The explanation that I removed included some wrong facts. UV House case began when an architect sued ad-makers and their advertiser. Some exterior of the building appeared in ad, and the architect said they used the architectural work without his permission, so he claims for damages. A district court judged that the appearance of the building used in the ad is small compared to the whole, so it cannot be seen as a copyright infringement (Seoul Central District Court, Decision of 12 September 2007, 2006GaDan208142). So the plaintiff was defeated.
But former explanation says The judge ruled that the architect must be compensated for copyright infringement. This is completely false. --Nuevo Paso (talk) 03:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nuevo Paso: it was actually stated at this article of Chosun (which is in Korean). I actually used it as a source for the section en:Freedom of panorama#South Korea, with the aid of Google Translate. Curiously though, it claims that architects' permissions and remuneration to them is required even in KDrama production, as said by the Court. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Chosun Ilbo's article was a mistake made by a reporter because he had lack of legal knowledge. I would recommend another article's section No. 2 by the Lawtimes(Beomnyul Sinmun). It is legally analytical. --Nuevo Paso (talk) 03:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nuevo Paso: thanks for the link. However, feel free to edit the section at enwiki article (replacing Chosun Ilbo with that of the source you provided), since I can't read Korean personally (unfortunately), and as per your user page you have native understanding of Korean. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) @Nuevo Paso: Thanks for the Law Times link. If I'm reading this correctly, it seems that the news articles published at the time (like The Chosun Ilbo) arrived to the wrong conclusion. The Seoul Central District Court never had the opportunity to decide if the building's architect should receive compensation for use of his building in a commercial because the matter was settled out of court. Is this correct?
Our legal understanding of FOP in South Korea does not appear to have changed, but it does introduce a gray area regarding de minimis when 2D/3D works are involved. ✗plicit 04:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: Thank you for understanding. Is this section (Freedom of panorama#South Korea) what you said right? I'll try to get the facts straight.
@Explicit: You are exactly right. As I mentioned, as a result of the first trial, copyright infringement was not recognized. And during the second trial, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed and the second trial ended without a ruling. --Nuevo Paso (talk) 04:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nuevo Paso: no worries. As I said earlier, feel free to edit the SoKor section of enwiki article if the Chosun Ilbo article is inappropriate (replace the reference and edit the section in line with the new reference you introduced), since you can understand Korean language than me. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nuevo Paso: by the way (pardon for late reply), since the judge ruled that the architect's copyright was not infringed because only a small portion of the house was used, perhaps can it become an example at COM:DM South Korea, as a good example of de minimis case from SoKor with regards to permanent works installed in public spaces? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: I think it might be a little different. First of all, I'm careful to say this because my opinion may be wrong.
As far as I know, de minimis is related to when a copyrighted work is "incidentally" included to another creative work. But in UV House case, the architecture was intentionally used as a background. You can watch the TV commercial that was problematic (please check from 0:06 to 0:11). And check out the pictures of the architecture from here. Yeah, right. Obviously, only a small part of the building was used, but that used part took up more than half of the screen in the ad. So I don't think that's a kind of incidental inclusion. --Nuevo Paso (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FOP: 35 (2),3[edit]

English is not my mother tongue, and there is no German translation of the FOP section in this project.

I have a question regarding the interpretation of Copyright Act, Art. 35 (2),3, where it is stated the FOP does not apply

Where the reproduction is made in order to exhibit permanently at an open place under the proviso to paragraph (1)

Is Wikipedia an ”open place“ according to ROK law, or is this sub-paragraph insignificant for photos uploaded to Wikipedia?

--Helmut w.k. (talk) 09:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More detail from this source[edit]

This source is written in English, is pretty comprehensive, and more up-to-date than parts of the article. Is someone willing to flesh this page out?

https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_mobile/viewer.do?hseq=55542&type=sogan&key=8 104.232.119.107 00:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@104.232.119.107: just looking at the South Korean Freedom of Panorama provision, makes me think that there are no improvements to the law of South Korea that are advantageous for Wikimedia Commons. The restrictive and not Wikimedia-friendly FoP provision of South Korea is the same as it is written here. To quote, with emphases:

Article 35 (Exhibition or Reproduction of Works of Art)
(1) The holder of the original of a work of art, etc., or a person who has obtained the holder’s consent, may exhibit the work in its original form: Provided, That where the work of art is to be permanently exhibited on the street, in the park, on the exterior of a building, or other places open to the public, the same shall not apply.
(2) Works of art, etc. exhibited at all times at an open place under the proviso of paragraph (1) may be reproduced and used by any means: Provided, That in any of the following cases, the same shall not apply:
1. Where a building is reproduced into another building;
2. Where a sculpture or painting is reproduced into another sculpture or painting;
3. Where the reproduction is made in order to exhibit permanently at an open place under the proviso of paragraph (1);
4.Where the reproduction is made for the purpose of selling its copies.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed... SK's copyright laws are frustrating, and I doubt they'll change in the near future given the strength of parties that benefit from them.
I'm interested in some details about threshold of originality in SK. Do you have a sense of whether SK considers restored photographs or films (just reproducing the original appearance of the photo/film) to pass the threshold of originality? 104.232.119.107 15:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Copyright_rules_by_territory/South_Korea&oldid=871226652"