초록 열기/닫기 버튼

근래에 커피숍, 백화점 등 매장에서 틀어주는 배경음악과 관련한 법적 분쟁이 잇달아 일어나고 있다. 지난 5월에는 대형 프랜차이즈 커피전문점인 ‘스타벅스’에서 판매용이 아닌 편집 음반을 사용하여 매장내 배경음악 서비스를 제공하는 것은 저작권법 제29조 제2항의 저작재산권제한사유에 해당하지 않아 저작권침해로 보아야 한다는 대법원판결이 선고되었다. 이는 매장 사업자와 저작권자 사이의 분쟁이었다. 이어 최근에는 백화점 등 매장에서 온라인 매장배경음악서비스 사업자로부터 전송 또는 디지털음성송신의 방법으로 음원을 수신하거나 방송사로부터 오디오채널을 수신하여 음악을 틀어주는 것이 저작권법 제76조의2 및 제83조의2에 규정된 실연자 및 음반제작자의 공연보상청구권의 대상이 되는지와 관련하여 매장 사업자와 실연자 또는 음반제작자 간에 다툼이 있다. 이 논문은 그 중 후자의 문제에 대하여 현행법, 국제조약 및 외국의 입법례 등을 참고하여 필자 나름의 해석기준을 연구·제시함을 그 목적으로 하고 있다. 온라인 매장배경음악서비스 사업자로부터 전송(스트리밍·다운로드 등) 또는 디지털음성송신의 방법으로 판매용 음반에 수록된 음원을 수신하여 공연하거나 방송사로부터 판매용 음반이 사용된 라디오 또는 오디오채널을 수신하여 공연하는 것은 이른바 ‘간접 사용’으로서 저작권법 제76조의2의 ‘판매용 음반의 사용’에 해당한다. 따라서 위의 매장음악서비스나 방송을 수신하여 백화점 등에서 공연하는 경우 그 공연자는 실연자에게 상당한 보상금을 지급하여야 한다. 저작권법 제29조 제2항의 적용과 관련하여, 동 조항의 ‘판매용 음반의 재생’을 직접 사용으로만 한정한다면, 방송 또는 디지털음성송신의 수신을 통하여 음반을 간접 사용하는 경우 동 조항이 전혀 적용되지 않고, 실연자는 저작권법 제76조의2에 따라 보상금을 청구할 수 있다. 만일 제29조 제2항의 ‘판매용 음반의 재생’을 간접 사용도 포함하는 것으로 해석하게 된다면, 실연자는 동 조항 단서 및 저작권법시행령 제11조에 따라 보상금을 청구할 수 있다. 실연이 수록된 음반을 (플랜티넷, KT뮤직, 방송사업자 등이) 전송, 디지털음성송신, 방송하는 행위와 이를 수신하여 (백화점 등 사업자가) 공중에게 공개하는 행위는 전자는 공중송신권의 대상이고, 후자는 공연권의 대상으로 양자는 저작권법상 구분되는 이용행위이다. 따라서 각각의 사업자로부터 보상금을 징수하는 행위는 이중징수에 해당하지 않는다. 실연자의 보상청구권과 관련한 독일 저작권법 제78조의 내용을 보면, (ⅰ) 통상의 음반·녹화물이나 디지털 음반·녹화물을 사용하여 방송하는 경우, (ⅱ) 음반·녹화물을 사용하여 공연하는 경우, (ⅲ) 방송 또는 전송에 의하여 수신한 실연을 공연하는 경우에 모두 보상청구권을 갖는다고 규정하고 있다. 매체가 녹화물(뮤직비디오 등)도 포함하고 있고, 디지털 매체를 명시하고 있으며, 방송 등을 수신하여 공연하는 것(간접 사용)도 명시하고 있으며, 음반이 상업적일 것을 요건으로 하고 있지 않다는 점에서 우리 법 제75 및 제76조의2보다 실연자의 보상청구권을 넓게 인정하고 있고, 보상청구 가능한 경우를 구체적으로 명시함으로써 해석상 논란의 여지를 남기지 않고 있다. 우리나라도 향후 법개정을 통하여 이와 같이 보상청구권의 대상을 구체적이고 폭넓게 규정하는 것이 바람직하다고 판단된다.


A merchant who plays the background music for a shop using the sound source which is included in a music disk for sale is ‘indirectly using’ the copyrighted sound regardless of whether the merchant receives the music through the network (streaming or download) or through the air (digital broadcasting). If the merchant plays the music from a radio or audio channel where the sound included in a music disk for sale is played, that would also amount to an ‘indirect use’ of copyrighted sound. In either of these instances, the merchant is “using a music disk for sale” within meaning of Article 76-2 of the Copyright Act. Since the merchant is publicly playing copyright protected music, appropriate compensation must be made to the performer who recorded the music. If “playing a music disk for sale” under Article 29, Paragraph 2 of the Copyright Act is narrowly interpreted to mean only the direct use of the disk, then the clause would be wholly inapplicable to ‘indirect’ use of the disk where the music is received through broadcast or digital music transmission. The performer who recorded the music would then be unable to claim remuneration under Article 76-2 of the Copyright Act. If, on the other hand, “playing a music disk for sale” is interpreted to include indirect use of music as well, the performer who initially recorded the disk would be entitled to remuneration by virtue of a proviso to Article 29, Paragraph 2 and the Copyright Act Enforcement Decree, Paragraph 11. To transmit (as is the case with Plentynet, KT music or other broadcasting service providers) or to digitally broadcast music is an act of public transmission. On the other hand, to receive such music and (for the shop owner or for a department store) to play it to its customers is an act of playing in public. These two are thus separate and distinct acts under the Copyright Act. To collect remuneration from each of these two does not amount to double compensation. Article 78 of the Copyright Act of Germany provides the right to remuneration for those who recorded the music in the following cases: i) when the music is broadcast using conventional music disk or recordings or digital music disk or recordings, ii) when the music is played in public using the music disk or recordings, iii) when the music received through broadcast or transmission is played in public. The provision stipulates the medium broadly to include recordings (such as music video) as well as digital medium of music. It also has an explicit provision regarding playing the music received from broadcast (‘indirect use’ of music disk). The German provision does not require that the music disk be “for sale”. Considering these points, the German provision allows the right to remuneration in a broader manner than the Korean Copyright Act, Articles 75 and 76-2. The German provision has the additional merit of spelling out the concrete cases where the performers can claim remuneration, thus avoiding the controversies surrounding the interpretation of the direct and indirect use of music disk. It would be desirable that the Korean Copyright Act should be revised in a similar manner so that the right to remuneration is more comprehensively and more concretely defined.


A merchant who plays the background music for a shop using the sound source which is included in a music disk for sale is ‘indirectly using’ the copyrighted sound regardless of whether the merchant receives the music through the network (streaming or download) or through the air (digital broadcasting). If the merchant plays the music from a radio or audio channel where the sound included in a music disk for sale is played, that would also amount to an ‘indirect use’ of copyrighted sound. In either of these instances, the merchant is “using a music disk for sale” within meaning of Article 76-2 of the Copyright Act. Since the merchant is publicly playing copyright protected music, appropriate compensation must be made to the performer who recorded the music. If “playing a music disk for sale” under Article 29, Paragraph 2 of the Copyright Act is narrowly interpreted to mean only the direct use of the disk, then the clause would be wholly inapplicable to ‘indirect’ use of the disk where the music is received through broadcast or digital music transmission. The performer who recorded the music would then be unable to claim remuneration under Article 76-2 of the Copyright Act. If, on the other hand, “playing a music disk for sale” is interpreted to include indirect use of music as well, the performer who initially recorded the disk would be entitled to remuneration by virtue of a proviso to Article 29, Paragraph 2 and the Copyright Act Enforcement Decree, Paragraph 11. To transmit (as is the case with Plentynet, KT music or other broadcasting service providers) or to digitally broadcast music is an act of public transmission. On the other hand, to receive such music and (for the shop owner or for a department store) to play it to its customers is an act of playing in public. These two are thus separate and distinct acts under the Copyright Act. To collect remuneration from each of these two does not amount to double compensation. Article 78 of the Copyright Act of Germany provides the right to remuneration for those who recorded the music in the following cases: i) when the music is broadcast using conventional music disk or recordings or digital music disk or recordings, ii) when the music is played in public using the music disk or recordings, iii) when the music received through broadcast or transmission is played in public. The provision stipulates the medium broadly to include recordings (such as music video) as well as digital medium of music. It also has an explicit provision regarding playing the music received from broadcast (‘indirect use’ of music disk). The German provision does not require that the music disk be “for sale”. Considering these points, the German provision allows the right to remuneration in a broader manner than the Korean Copyright Act, Articles 75 and 76-2. The German provision has the additional merit of spelling out the concrete cases where the performers can claim remuneration, thus avoiding the controversies surrounding the interpretation of the direct and indirect use of music disk. It would be desirable that the Korean Copyright Act should be revised in a similar manner so that the right to remuneration is more comprehensively and more concretely defined.