Intellectual Property Rights Class for Future Generations-
From the era of seeing to the era of making,
How to protect what's mine and use what's yours properly in a content-sharing society without time lag

How will copyright be applied to ChatGPT? Who owns the copyright to AI-generated images? Can BTS Chicken be used as a store name? Do characters have copyrights? Can free images be used freely? What about using celebrity photos or recipes? These days, knowing one thing makes you curious about more than one.
As algorithms and big data bring in a torrent of information and knowledge, new questions also increase.


The important thing here is that knowing one, knowing two, knowing three doesn't mean that it's all 'mine.'
As the amount of information increases, issues that arise are those of ‘intellectual property rights’ such as ‘copyrights,’ ‘trademarks,’ and ‘patents.’
The words or images I post on my social media can be 'information' that helps someone.
Sometimes, without my knowledge, someone infringes on my copyright without my permission.
Or the opposite can also happen.
Character designs or photo images taken for fun, cover dances or movie edits you made because you liked them, or links shared with friends can easily be copyright infringements.
Anyone can be a victim of copyright infringement, and sometimes even cause harm to others.


Author Kim Mi-ju, known as Coupang's first in-house lawyer and the legal representative for Pengsoo, Catch! Teeny Ping, Titleist, and PXG, has been practicing law for over a decade, focusing on intellectual property rights protection.
As countless cases have come to him asking questions and seeking advice on issues such as how copyright applies under legal protection, whether there are exceptions, and whether trademarks are illegal, the author has compiled many of the cases and domestic and international cases that have occurred in the past into this book in an easy-to-understand and interesting way.
In a world where we create content ourselves, share it across time zones and borders, and exchange feedback, we need to understand intellectual property rights so that "knowledge can become power and wealth," and prepare for the future.
The third book in the Bookpole knowledge and culture series, 'Polpole'.

Isn't this a wonderful painting? This is "Space Opera Theater" (Theater D'opera Spatial), the grand prize winner at an art competition held in Colorado, USA in 2021.
But there is a hidden secret to this painting.
This painting was created by AI without using any actual brushes or paints.
No matter how much you look at it, it still looks like a real painting, doesn't it? Here's a question: Is it perfectly acceptable to submit a painting drawn by AI, not a human, to an art contest? There are still sharply divided opinions on this matter.
On the one hand, “AI programs should be viewed as ‘tools’ for creation, just like brushes, paints, or other art tools.
“The process of thinking of keywords, selecting photos, and editing them all involves human effort and creativity,” he asserts.
However, looking at overseas case law, there are still many cases where copyright is not recognized for drawings drawn by AI.
--- pp.21~23

While numerous studies continue to explore the use of ChatGPT, there are issues that cannot be overlooked.
I've compiled a few bold questions.
- Who owns the content created in ChatGPT?
- Can anyone use the content created by ChatGPT?
- Where does ChatGPT's information come from, and is it reliable?
How can ChatGPT help with intellectual property rights?

Let's take a look at them one by one.
First, while content generated by ChatGPT may be protected by copyright, the AI ​​itself cannot own the content.
Even in Europe and the United States, AI cannot own copyright because it lacks legal personality, a prerequisite for owning intangible assets.
So, can the AI ​​company that developed ChatGPT own the copyright?
--- pp.32~33

Among the incidents that took advantage of celebrities' names or fame, there is the 'BTS fake photobook' incident.
Company A was a company that produced and sold magazines that mainly featured photos and articles of celebrities.
Company A produced and sold a BTS photobook without the consent of Big Hit Entertainment, BTS's agency.
Accordingly, Big Hit Entertainment filed a lawsuit against Company A.
The court accepted Big Hit Entertainment's application for an injunction, judging that Company A had committed an illegal act based on Article 2, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 3 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.
After this incident, the Patent Office recognized the importance of expanding the scope of intellectual property rights and attempted to introduce publicity rights.

--- p.50

Do you know who won first place in the 2019 Person of the Year in the Broadcasting and Entertainment category? It wasn't BTS or Yoo Jae-suk, it was Pengsoo.
I hesitate to call him a person though.
As you all know, Pengsoo is a character created by EBS.
However, this penguin almost couldn't use its own name due to trademark infringement.
What's going on? As of 2019, a search of trademarks related to Pengsoo at the Korean Intellectual Property Office revealed a total of 18 trademark applications.
Of these, only two trademarks were applied for by EBS, and the rest were all applied for by third parties.
The problem was that the EBS trademark application was later than the trademark applications of other people.
South Korea's trademark law adopts the 'first-to-file principle'.
Let's take a moment here to look at what electoral college means.

--- pp.79~80

With the growing demand for home-cooked meals and the proliferation of videos sharing simple cooking methods, recipes are now readily available anytime, anywhere.
So, is copyright for a recipe recognized? Given the ever-evolving definition of copyright, we must first consider whether a recipe should be considered a creative work expressing human thought and emotion.
Recipes are not protected under copyright law because they are considered "human ideas" rather than unique creations.
If you watch a YouTube video that teaches you how to cook a dish and then make and sell it, there is no problem under copyright law.

--- p.94

This actually happened in the past.
It looks like one athlete really liked a photo of himself taken by a fan.
He used this photo as a promotional post for a paid messenger.
A fan who found out about this protested to the player, saying, "You used it without permission," and they started fighting.
The fan who took the photo asked the player to take the post down, but the player refused.
The fan responded, 'I took the photo, so the copyright belongs to me.
It required 'permission to use'.
Meanwhile, the athlete said, 'I have the right to the portrait because it is a picture of me.
So, he argued, 'there is no need for permission to use it.'
So, which of the two is right?
--- pp.128~129

Have you ever seen a variety show or drama on social media recently with the screen flipped horizontally, the voices altered, or the screen tilted? Just by visiting Facebook, you can easily come across these videos.
The screen doesn't display properly. Is this simply a bug that occurred during the upload of these videos? It's not a bug; it's intentional.
These are all common methods used these days to avoid copyright infringement.
People who upload videos like this say there are many ways to avoid copyright infringement, such as, "It's okay to use it for a short time," "You can just change the audio or remove it entirely," or "It's okay to adjust the size, flip, or speed of the video."
I think it's okay as long as you don't use the original footage as is.
Is that really true?
--- pp.173~174

In fact, there was a copyright lawsuit over a high school exam question.
As a copyright infringement was found against an internet site that had posted exam questions from a high school without permission, it was confirmed that Korean courts accept exam questions and mock exam questions as copyrighted works.


“If high school teachers create exam questions or provide answers without plagiarizing others in order to measure the academic performance of students in their schools and calculate their academic grades, and the expression of the questions or answers provided have a minimal level of creativity, then the exam questions are considered copyrighted works under the Copyright Act.” This is a case where the court ruled that an internet site that uploaded exam questions without permission infringed on copyright and held the internet site liable for damages.
(Seoul Central District Court 2006.
10.
18.
(See Decision 2005gahap73377)

--- pp.191~192