초록 열기/닫기 버튼
본고에서는 패러디가 저작권법상 왜 특별취급을 받아야 하는지를 검토하였다. 패러디의 본래 목적은 원작에 대한 새로운 시각을 통한 재해석이라는 점에서 패러디의 법적 개념은 일반 문예론의 그것과 거의 일치한다. 한편 패러디는 수용자에게 원작을 상기시켜야 하지만 그 비평적 특성으로 인해 저작자의 이용허락을 얻기 어려운데다 원작의 변형적 이용 및 출처표시의 곤란성으로 인해 저작권과의 충돌이 불가피하다. 저작권법의 입장에서는 저작자와 패러디스트에게 각각 부여된 헌법상의 표현의 자유를 균등하게 조정할 필요성이 있으며, 보호대상과 관련하여 직접패러디에 한정하지 않고 매개패러디까지 포함할지도 쟁점이 되고 있다. 패러디 보호동향과 관련해서는 국제적으로 다양한 방식과 그 정도의 차이를 보여주고 있으며, 본고에서는 미국, 독일, 프랑스, 영국, 일본의 입법례와 판례 및 학설을 중심으로 이를 살펴보았다. 특히 패러디의 공정이용에 관한 선례가 축적되어 있는 미국을 중심으로 공정이용의 판단기준과 이 기준의 패러디에의 적용에 관해 검토하였다. 결국 패러디의 공정이용 항변 허용 여부는 과연 법적 개념의 패러디에 해당하는지, 그리고 충분히 변형적인지에 달려있으며 법원판결의 의의는 이 점을 어떻게 판단하느냐에 달려있다고 본다.
The primary goal of this paper is to show how the Korean judiciary defines parody and how parody is being protected by the copyright law through an analysis of a variety of precedents in developed country. Also, this paper talks about the limitations of the current copyright law in protecting parody and suggest some solutions to this issues. Parody is considered ‘fair use’ under the copyright law and is therefore considered lawful. The risk of infringement arises when the parodist extracts certain copyrighted elements of the original work. Thus, it has to keep in mind that parody is a form of limited criticism, may supply a part of demand for the original work, and does not always ridicule or criticize the original work. Accordingly, the fair use analysis for parody purpose must be taken into account in order to determine which act in terms of parody falls within a scheme of fairness. Parody is recognized as a form of criticism and commentary. In light of the four factors used to determine fair use for the purpose of parody as follows: Purpose and character; commercial or educational: noncommercial parodies are generally given more protection as fare use under this first factor. This criterion analyzes the degree of transformation accomplished by the new work by determining whether the new work has a different purpose or different character than that of the original copyrighted work. In Campbell case, the US Supreme Court held that the parody’s “transformative” character is more important than its commercial purpose. Nature of the work copyrighted - this factor has been said to carry little weight in parody situations, “since parodies almost invariably copy publicly known, expressive works”. Amount and substantiality – with parodies, a fairly extensive use of the work is permitted. Copying is considered in relation to parodic purpose – a parodist can copy as much as is needed to “conjure up” the original. Potential effect on the market – it is understood that an effective parody “may be so good that the public can never take the original work seriously again”. Thus, with parodies, the possibility of destroying the market for the original work is not measured. Instead, what is analyzed is the potential of the parody to fulfill the market demand of the original work. Parodies are transformative works; they are new works, which are not market substitutes for the original work. A valid parody is a defense against liability; however, unauthorized copying is still copyright infringement. Therefore when making and marketing a parody work, users should always be mindful of who may take offense.
키워드열기/닫기 버튼
parody, Campbell decision, freedom of speech, fair use defense, transformative use, satire
