Recently, Mr. Wonil Chung, a partner at Chung & Partners, has successfully represented NHS, Inc., an internationally renowned U.S. company which sells skateboards, apparel under various trademarked brand worldwide, in policing their trademark in South Korea. NHS, Inc. and its Korean distributor had found that counterfeits of SantaCruz, one of the NHS, Inc.’s premium brand, had been made and sold in numerous online shopping mall sites in Korea. They requested Mr. Wonil Chung to stop them from selling the counterfeits. Mr. Wonil Chung sent cease and desist letters to the online shopping sites which sold the counterfeits, notifying (more…)
The legal concept of right of publicity is relatively new one in South Korea. About 25 years ago, affected by the U.S. entertainment law cases, the Korean legal society began to theorize the concept of right of publicity, and finally the lower courts of Korea approved the right of publicity, although there is no ruling from the Supreme Court and no express statute provisions are established.
According to the Korean lower court’s rulings, the right of publicity is an exclusive property right independent from the traditional right of privacy. It is a property right to use the name, portrait or any other identity of a person for commercial purpose and to control the use thereof. The courts have ruled that the right of publicity can be transferred and inherited. Not only a living person but also a dead person has the right of publicity, which is protected during 50 years from the date of death.
In Korea, there have been many cases where celebrities and sports stars claim their rights of publicity against various types of unauthorized commercial exploitation of their identity. For example, in 2006, in a case where a Korean game company used pro baseball player’s name and personal record in their mobile baseball game, the Seoul Central District Court held that pro baseball players have the rights of publicity as to their names and personal game records so the game company which had used the player’s name and personal record without player’s permission (more…)
A few days ago, Seoul Central Court ruled in favor of Starbucks Korea in a copyright lawsuit filed by the Korea Music Copyright Association alleging the Starbucks Korea should pay royalties in playing copyrighted music in its outlets. I wrote some posts regarding this issue here and here. The legal issue was whether playing copyrighted music substitutes a mail business of Starbucks Korea. That is because (more…)
South Korean popstar RAIN (Chung, Ji-hoon) and his ex-agency JYP Entertainment had lost their lawsuit in Hawaiian District Court brought by a local promoter, Click Entertainment, alleging Rain’s last-minute cancellation of Honolulu concert in 2007 cost them $1.5 million and caused damage to the company’s reputation.
A couple of days ago, the court found in Click’s favour, ruling that Rain and JYP were guilty of both breach of contract and fraud. Nearly $5 million of the damages payment are punitive, with Rain himself and JYP ordered to pay half each.
It is reported that Rain has testified he didn’t know why the concert had been cancelled and the cancellation was out of his control.
I think many people, especially outside of Korea, wonder how the singer, the performer himself, couldn’t know the reason of the cancellation and how he could say it was “out of his control”. In this regard, I think people should know more about Korean music business to understand Rain’s comment.
In Korea, almost every singers and bands are under exclusive contracts with certain entertainment entrepreneurs, called “Ghi-Hoek-Sa”, which is the mixture of agencies and management companies, yes, they’re doing both of jobs in Korea. The problem is the contract between the singers and the entrepreneur is being criticized as very unfavorable to the singers. For example, the term of the contract is very long, (more…)
Last December 23, the Seoul Central Prosecutors’ Office prosecuted NHN corporation, the operator of Naver (the largest Internet portal in Korea) and Daum Communications Co., the operatot of Daum for copyright infringement.
The prosecutors said two Internet portals have been aiding copyright infringement of their users by ignoring copyright holders(The Korea Music Copyright Association and the Korea Association of Phonogram Producers) request for removing illegal music files on their sites and taking no actions. The prosecutors found 10 millions of uploaded music files (more…)
It is reported that Chosun Ilbo, one of the most prestigious newspaper company in South Korea, had filed a lawsuit against Daum Communication, an Internet portal company, for copyright infringement worth of KRW 1 billion loss.
Chosun Ilbo is alleging that Daum illegally posted Chosun Ilbo’s 57,910 news stories, 48,485 photos & illustrations on-line even after expiry of the three-month storage period set in a contract signed with Chosun Ilbo, which allegedly consists of copyright infringement.
Daum is denying all the allegations.
© 2008 Wonil Chung, a Korean Media Lawyer/Chung & Partners, a Korean Media Law Firm. All rights reserved. Some copyrights, photos, icons, trademarks, trade dress, or other commercial symbols that appear on this post are the property of the respective owners.
A while ago, I posted an article, titled “Starbucks Korea Sued for Music Copyright Infringement“. Under Copyright Act of Korea, “it is permitted to play any commercial phonograms or cinematographic works in public if no benefit in turn for the relevant public performance is received from the audience or spectators”. However this shall not be applied to all the business place. The Copyright Act does not apply this clause to certain areas of business, such as department stores, shopping malls, airplanes, golf courses and “any places of business regulated under Food Sanitation Act(FSA) where a part of its main contents of business is the appreciation of musical or cinematographic works, being equipped with special facilities to appreciate the musical or cinematographic works”.
The Starbucks coffee shop is regulated under FSA. The party alleging copyright infringement is arguing “‘appreciation of musical works’ is a part of main (more…)
It was reported on May 15 that Starbucks Coffee Korea was sued by the Korea Music Copyright Association for music copyright infringement. The KMCA alleged the Starbucks played copyrighted music in its outlets without paying royalties. The KMCA pointed out most Starbucks branches in other countries are paying copyright fees. Starbucks Coffee Korea said the copyright issue is dealt with by headquarters in Seattle.
Here is the news article.
© 2008 Wonil Chung, a Korean Entertainment Lawyer/Chung & Partners, a Korean Entertainment Law Firm. All rights reserved. Some copyrights, photos, icons, trademarks, trade dress, or other commercial symbols that appear on this post are the property of the respective owners.
What do you think the retirement age of a female fashion model is? Judges of Seoul Central District Court answered, “it is 35 years old”, reported on April 16.
It was the case where a female fashion model, who was 17 then, was died by an accident during shooting illustrated magazine. It is reported that the model slipped into the sea while trying to pose barefoot at the tip of a dock on an Island.
The model’s parents filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the photographer and the magazine for their negligence for failing to prepare safety measures, claiming monetary compensation of 180 million won(180 thousand U.S. dollars). This amount was based on plaintiffs’ allegation that the model could work until the age of 60.
The court, however, rejected plaintiffs’ allegation and ordered (more…)
On April 3, Seoul Central District Court ruled that Pandora TV infringed copyright of Japanese animation by letting its members upload unauthorized animation clips onto Pandora TV’s channel(shared folder). Pandora TV is a famous Korean internet UCC service provider, something like YouTube. Its members can upload any files they want, so bunch of copyrighted movies, animations, dramas have been uploaded without permission and anyone who visits its web page can view the copyrighted materials, even though he or she is not logged in.
The court addressed that the Pandora TV has recognized copyright infringements of its members and facilitated and induced it by giving “cyber money or coin” to the members who uploaded much more items. Also the court pointed that Pandora TV has had an advertising revenues from any views.
Also the court ruled that the individual members are held liable for simply making copyrighted materials (more…)