차용미술의 저작권법상 허용범위에 관한 연구

Abstract

본 연구의 목적은 타인의 저작물을 사용함으로써 저작권 침해 가능성을 필연적으로 포함하고 있는 차용미술이 현행 저작권법과의 관계에서 야기하는 충돌과 해결방안을 논의하고자 한다. 복제와 차용이 미술계에서 비단 어제 오늘의 일은 아니지만 원본성과 매체순수성의 신화에 정면으로 도전했던 포스트모더니즘의 도래와 함께 차용은 미술의 주된 표현 방법으로 전면에 부상하였다. 이러한 차용미술은 저작권법의 측면에서 복제권과 2차적저작물작성권, 저작인격권 침해에 해당할 가능성을 필연적으로 내포하고 있다. 이와 관련하여 본 연구는 차용이 타인의 저작권 침해에 해당하지 않는 창작 활동으로서 보호받을 수 있는지, 설사 저작권 침해에 해당하더라도 이러한 저작권 제한 사유에 해당하여 허용되는지 여부, 허용된다면 허용되는 범위에 관하여 현행 저작권법의 체제 내에서 해석론적 접근을 하고자 하며 양자의 이익이 충돌 시 해결방안을 모색하고 이를 위한 비교법적 검토를 하였다. 이를 위하여 우선 본 연구는 차용미술의 미술사적 배경, 특히 차용이 전면에 등장한 포스트모더니즘 이후의 주요 차용 양태와 방식을 살펴보고 이러한 차용미술이 저작권 침해에 해당하는지 여부 및 현행 저작권법상 해석을 통한 차용의 허용 가능성을 판단하기 위하여 저작권법상 저작권 침해 요건, 저작재산권 제한 사유인 인용조항과 공정이용조항을 검토하였다. 특히 본 연구는 차용미술과 관련하여 실질적 유사성, 공정이용 판단시 변형성 여부, 이용된 부분이 저작물 전체에서 중요성 등을 판단할 때 미적 판단이 완전히 배제될 수는 없으며 동일성유지권과 관련해서도 본질적 내용의 변경 여부를 판단하기 위해서는 미적 판단이 필연적으로 수반된다는 점을 감안하여 합리적인 결과 도출을 위해 기존의 미학이론들을 통해 정립된 미적 판단 기준의 도입 필요성과 현행법상 구체적인 적용 방안을 제언하였다.;The purpose of the study is to addresses an inevitable conflict of appropriation art embracing other’s copyrighted works and copyright law and offers potential mechanisms for solving this conflict. Although there has been a time-honored tradition of copying and appropriation in art community for centuries, appropriation has come to the fore with the advent of postmodernism that directly challenged the concept of originality and the purity of medium. However appropriation art borrowing or even directly copying other artists’ copyrighted works or other cultural materials is more likely to infringe economic rights and moral rights under the current Copyright Law of Korea. Considering this possibility of conflicts, the study examines whether appropriation art constitute copyright infringement under the current copyright law, otherwise can be permitted as limitations to copyright and furthermore potential mechanisms for solving conflicting interests between appropriation artists and author or copyright owners through comparative legal review . Firstly, appropriation art embracing part or whole of other’s copyrighted works will most likely infringe right of reproduction and right of the production of derivative works. Additionally omitting or removing the author’s name of the original work would constitute an author's right of attribution, and modifying the content or form of the original work is contrary to an author’s right of integrity. However the Copyright Law restricts the economic rights of copyright holders under certain circumstances, while the Copyright Law grants a copyright holder exclusive rights. Accordingly the study examines Article 28 and Article 35bis as regards the permissible scope of appropriation art the current Copyright Law of Korea. As regards Article 28 permitting making quotations from a work already being made public, provided that they are within a reasonable limit for news reporting, criticism, education and research, etc. and compatible with fair practice, the study examines the formation and development process of so-called “the principal-subordinate test” and the genealogy and systematic formation of so-called “the comprehensive considering test”, and then discuss an appropriate application of this Article into appropriation art. Subsequently, as to Article 35bis, so-called fair use clause, the study examines four factors that must be considered in determining whether if not a particular use is fair, in the context of appropriation. The current Copyright Law of Korea provides that Article 28 and Article 35bis should not be interpreted as affecting the protection of author's moral rights and thus appropriation art meeting the requirements under Article 28 or Article 35bis is still open to the possibility of infringements of a right of attribution and a right of integrity. However a right of attribution will be limited, when failure to indicate an original author’s name is deemed unavoidable in light of the nature of a work and the purpose and manner of its use etc. In this regards, the study argues that there is no need to strictly interpret the limit on a right of attribution under Article 12, considering that the Article contains considerably abstract and general meaning in contrary to the limit on a right of disclosure. Similarly a right of integrity will be limited, if modifications of the contents or forms of an original work are deemed unavoidable in light of the nature of a work and the purpose and manner of its use etc., unless such modifications fall under the modifications of substantial contents. The study argues that there is need for broad interpretation on an “unavoidable” use, considering whether the modification is necessary for effective uses as regards the purpose and manner of its use, whether there is no modification of part or whole of a work, etc.. Furthermore the study notes that it is appropriate that ‘substantial’ contents mean honor and reputation, and thus a right of integrity could be restricted if appropriation art at issue causes no harm to an author’s honor or reputation. In cases related to appropriation art, courts inevitably cannot avoid making aesthetic reasoning as well as legal reasoning, and thus engagement in aesthetic discourse would reduce the mismatch of legal and artistic developments. In this regards, the study does not advocate a specific aesthetic theory, but proposes “art community standard”, focusing on the procedure of application of varying aesthetic viewpoints and mechanisms available under current Korean legal systems, including appraisal system and expert commissioner system.