All
| TITLE | Supreme Court Decision 2019Do9601 Decided April 29, 2020 【Violation of the Copyright Act】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
|
[1] The meaning of “creativity” of the requirements for a “work” stipulated in Article 2 Subparagraph 1 of the Copyright Act A case where the creativity of architectural works including buildings can be admitted [2] The requirements to admit the infringement of copyright Standard of determining whether there is a substantive similarity between two architectural works so as to determine whether to correspond to the infringement of copyright [3] In a case where the Defendant, a qualified architect, was commissioned construction by Party A, and designed and constructed Party A’s caf? building in imitation of the design of a caf? building that Party B designed and constructed, and, as a consequence, was charged with Party B’s copyright infringement, the case holding that the judgment of the lower court viewed that the creativity of Party B’s caf? building is admitted, and the substantive similarity between the building designed and constructed by the Defendant and Party B’s caf? building is also admitted in the same regard on the grounds that it constitutes a work which is protected by the Copyright Act in that the caf? building of Party B shows creative individuality of the creator as well as function in accordance with common expression methods or practical ideas |
|
