영상저작물 저작자 보상금청구권에 대한 검토

Article 100(1) of the Copyright Act (Rights in Visual Works) provides that "In the absence of any other agreement, the rights necessary for the utilization of the visual work shall be presumed to have been transferred to the creator of the visual work." The reason why the Copyright Act of 1986 stipulated special rules for audiovisual works, which were not stipulated in the Copyright Act of 1957, was to facilitate the use and distribution of audiovisual works and to ensure a quick return of profits in consideration of the special nature of audiovisual works that require large capital investments and involve multiple authors. However, with the advancement of digital technology and new media platforms, unlike the existing theater-centered revenue model, there is the potential for additional revenue generation through the creation of video works that cannot be predicted at the time of the initial contract, and this can be seen in domestic video contents such as 'Squid Game'. Therefore, a policy foundation should be established to ensure that authors can be fairly compensated according to the changed revenue structure in the era of new media platforms. In this study, we will explore not only a one-size-fits-all approach to legal improvements, but also a flexible solution that considers the positions of various stakeholders. This is because authors of video works may have various contractual forms depending on their public recognition and social reputation, and it is difficult to accurately measure the contribution of a particular profession to determine who is entitled to additional compensation when a work is completed by creators of various professions and released to the public and becomes successful. Therefore, in order to ensure fair copyright compensation in the changed digital new media era, this study proposes not only a one-size-fits-all legal solution but also a rational solution through relevant ministries and organizations as follows. First, we have explored ways to activate the 'special agreement' of Article 100 of the Copyright Act. The Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, the Korean Copyright Office, and the Korean Copyright Committee, which are responsible for copyright, proposed to issue a guideline that includes examples and recommendations from various fields regarding the 'special agreement' of Article 100 of the Copyright Act, which cannot be realized due to the imbalance in contractual status. Based on the guidelines, the industry can expect the revitalization of the 'special arrangement' of Article 100 of the Copyright Act, which has been unable to be realized due to the structural imbalance in the author's additional compensation contract. Next, if the first measure is not effective enough, the law should be amended to clarify the principle of contractual change of circumstances. Article 100(1) of the Copyright Act should be revised to a license agreement rather than a presumption of transfer, but it may be possible to consider adding a provision for payment of compensation due to a change in circumstances. In conclusion, it is hoped that government organizations, associations, and unions representing stakeholders in the video content industry, as well as the relevant businesses, will find a fair and correct direction in the market based on mutually beneficial and amicable agreements between authors and video producers, so that authors and video producers can win-win and the industry can develop.