(A case seeking an injunction and damages on the grounds of copyright infringement)
◆ The meaning of “creativity,” which is a requirement for a “work” under Article 2(1) of the Copyright Act ◆
Article 2(1) of the Copyright Act defines a “work” as “a creative production expressing human thoughts or emotions,” thereby requiring creativity. Here, creativity does not require originality in the strict or absolute sense. However, in order for creativity to be recognized, the work must at least not merely imitate another person’s work and must contain the creator’s own independent expression of thoughts or emotions (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da49180, Nov. 9, 2017; Supreme Court Decision 2016Da227625, May 15, 2018, etc.).
So-called functional works, whose primary purpose is to express functional or practical ideas rather than artistic expression, often have their forms of expression restricted by factors such as commonly used methods of expression in the relevant field, the function or purpose of the work itself, and the convenience of use for users. Therefore, if a functional work merely expresses functional or practical ideas in accordance with such general methods of expression, it is difficult to recognize creativity. However, if it contains the creator’s own independent expression of certain ideas or emotions and reflects the creator’s creative individuality, creativity may be recognized and the work may be protected under copyright law (see Supreme Court Decision 2019Do9601, Apr. 29, 2020; Supreme Court Decision 2017Da261981, Jun. 24, 2021; Supreme Court Decision 2023Da297400, Sept. 4, 2025, etc.).
☞ In this case, the defendants, a company producing screen-golf simulation systems, used videos reproducing the golf courses at issue as part of their screen-golf simulation system. The plaintiffs, who had designed those golf courses, filed a claim seeking damages or unjust enrichment for copyright infringement, as well as an injunction against the infringing acts and the destruction of items produced through such infringement.
☞ The appellate court held that the golf courses designed by the plaintiffs did not contain creative expression beyond functional elements and therefore concluded that the defendants’ acts did not constitute copyright infringement.
☞ The Supreme Court, while setting out the above legal principles, held that:
A golf course designer can design a golf course by exercising creative individuality, such as by selecting, arranging, and combining various elements that constitute the golf course, thereby distinguishing it from other golf courses or individual holes.
In the golf courses at issue, the overall form and layout of the facilities and individual holes, as well as the location, shape, and number of the basic components that make up each hole, were selected and arranged according to a certain design intention, forming an organic combination.
Unless the selection, arrangement, and combination of these elements merely imitate another’s work or are something that anyone would create in the same or similar manner, the golf courses at issue may be regarded as containing the creator’s independent expression and as having creative individuality distinguishing them from existing golf courses.
On this basis, the Supreme Court found that there was room to recognize creativity in the golf courses and reversed and remanded the appellate court’s decision, which had held otherwise.
