All
| TITLE | Supreme Court Decision 2017Da212095 Decided June 27, 2019 【Claim for Prohibition of Copyright Infringement】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
|
[1] Meaning of “creativity,” the requirement for “work” prescribed in Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Copyright Act, and matters to be considered in determining the creativity of game copyrighted works [2] Subject of copyright protection, and standard of determining whether there exists substantial similarity between two copyrighted works [3] In the case where Foreign Company A (“Company A”) that launched a match-3 mobile game filed a claim for prohibition of copyright infringement against Limited Company B (“Company B”) on the grounds that the mobile game produced by Company B infringed upon Company A’s copyright, the case holding as follows: (a) Company A’s game works are entitled to copyright protection, for it has a creative identity that differentiates the said works from prior game works; (b) Company B’s game works had a semblance of creative expression with Company A’s game works, rendering the two substantially similar; (c) nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise, and in so determining, it misapprehended the relevant legal doctrines |
|


