텍스트·데이터 마이닝(TDM) 관련 저작권법상 쟁점 검토 - 저작물과 데이터베이스의 차별적 취급을 중심으로 -

Although the introduction of TDM exemption regulations for copyrighted works and databases is being pursued, the contents of the regulations differ slightly from country to country in terms of permitting commercial use, premising on legitimate access, and recognizing compensation. In addition, there are differences in the bills being promoted in Korea and the opinions of scholars.
In this study, I tried to find a solution to these issues, and the results of the study are summarized as follows.
First of all, the TDM exemption revision (draft) for copyrighted works under discussion in the National Assembly stipulates the same for database rights. However, while copyrighted works protect ‘creative expression’, databases protect ‘investment’, so the difference needs to be reflected. Second, in the case of TDM for commercial purposes, it does not seem to directly conflict with the normal use method (licensing or transfer, etc.) of the copyrighted work, but additional consideration is needed as to whether it unfairly infringes on the legitimate interests of the author. Third, in the case of databases, TDM for commercial purposes may conflict with the normal use of databases. This is because allowing TDM exemption for commercial purposes for databases would deprive database producers of their main source of revenue and result in violating their economic core. Nevertheless, it is unrealistic to conclude a prior license for data collection activities such as crawling and scraping. Therefore, if the TDM exemption regulation is unavoidably introduced for databases, it is necessary to seek a balance of legal interests through financial compensation or opt-out to prevent infringement of legitimate interests of database producers. Fourth, restrictions on author's property rights are not a system that presupposes the 'permission' of the right holder, but allows the use of copyrighted works without the permission of the right holder in order to balance the public interest. In light of this purport, the requirement for “legitimate access” in the TDM immunity provision should be reconsidered.