야구장 응원가와 저작권

A cheering song at a baseball stadium and Copyright: Focusing the Seoul High Court’s verdict 2019Na2016985 on October 21, 2021

야구장에서 응원가를 부른 프로야구단에 대해 저작권 소송이 제기되었다. 야구단은KOMCA를 통해 이용허락을 받은 상태였지만, 원고들은 성명표시권·동일성유지권과 2차적저작물작성권 침해 등을 주장하였다. 이는 ‘인별포괄신탁’을 고수하는KOMCA 규정에서도 여전히 저작자들에게 남아있는 권리였기 때문이다. 1심법원은 원고의 청구를 모두 기각하였다. 먼저 악곡과 가사의 관계를 결합저작물로 보면서 양자를 별도로 검토하였는데, 악곡은 응원가로 사용되는 과정에서 수반될수 있는 통상적인 변경에 해당하고 가사는 원곡과 전혀 유사하지 않아 동일성유지권침해가 되지 않는다고 판시하였다. 더불어 2차적저작물작성권 침해와 관련해서도 악곡은 실질적 개변이 인정되지 않고 가사는 원곡과의 실질적 유사성이 없다고 보았다. 하지만 고등법원에서는 성명표시권 침해를 인정하였는데, 전광판이나 홈페이지ㆍ유튜브채널 등에 성명을 표시할 수 있으므로, 부득이한 사유가 없다는 것이다. 대상 판결은 악곡과 가사를 결합저작물로 보았던 기존의 입장을 확인하면서 동일성유지권ㆍ2차적저작물작성권 침해를 부정하였고, 전광판이나 홈페이지 등 구체적인성명표시의 방법도 예시하는 등 그간의 우려를 상당부분 해소해주었다는 점에서 의미가 크다. 다만 성명표시권에 대해서는 다소간의 의문과 새로운 과제를 남겼다. 저작인격권은 존중받아 마땅하고 성명표시권은 특히 그러하다. 하지만 남용과 시장실패는 경계해야 한다. 많은 사람들의 사랑을 받던 응원가를 야구장에서 내쫓은 이 사건의 결말은 저작권법이 의도한 바가 아니다.

A copyright lawsuit has been filed against a professional baseball team that sang cheering songs at the baseball stadium. Though the baseball team had already obtained a license through KOMCA, plaintiffs filed a lawsuit alleging the infringement of the Author’s Moral Rights-the right of Paternity and the right of Integrity-and the Right of Production of Derivative Works. The court of first instance dismissed all of the plaintiff’s claims. First, music and lyrics was considered as a combined work and they were reviewed respectively. Consequently it was judged that the music was a usual change that could be accompanied in the process of being used as a cheering song, and the lyrics were so different from the original song that the right to the integrity was not infringed. The infringement of the right of Production of Derivative Works was also not sustained: substantial changes of the music was not acknowledged, and the infringement of the lyrics was not sustained in default of the substantial similarity with the original song. In spite that this was a controversial issue, there is not much new in terms of the law; it was pointed out the some songs had a possibility of infringement, and regrettably the detailed review of each songs was not judged. The High Court acknowledged the violation of the right to indicate a author’s name, but this judgement still had some incomprehensible aspects. According to the court’s opinion, there was no unavoidable reason as composers could be displayed on the electronic display board, homepage, YouTube channel, etc. However, the copyright law stipulates that they can be displayed “in the copy or the publication medium of the work”, so the part of ‘homepage and YouTube channel’ was rather questionable. Supermarket and hotels have websites and YouTube channels, and big department stores have electronic display boards. In the time of the World Cup, songs such as ‘Oh Pil-seung Korea’ and ‘GoWest’ are heard everywhere. A solid standard should be presented to draw a boundary between legality and illegality.