저작권법상의 전시권 관련 규정의 문제점과 개선방안

It is necessary to define rules for the ‘display’. But if it is impossible, I think that we need to define the ‘public display’(display a work publicly) clearly. It is a common point that display right is wide in scope. Therefore, it is necessary to narrow the scope of display right or widen the range of limitation. Factors for determining the scope of the display right are (i)a range(type) of protected work, (ii)whether the publication of the work or not, (iii)display method(original or copies). First, it is necessary to consider a plan to exclude the architectural works from artistic work, etc. in protected works. if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place. we need to make a rule of copyright restrictions on reproduction and use of the building. Second, I think we need to approach step by step in relation to unpublished requirements for art work, etc.(Photographic works and then artistic works). If you impose a requirement on all unpublished art works, etc. it shall be considered to be taken the introduction of resale right into account together. Finally, Under display method is maintained unchanged, it should be also accepted that the owner of the copy of a work of art, etc., or a person who has obtained the owner’s consent, may display the work in its copy form. it is necessary to make a rule for the first sale doctrine for display. In determining the range of exceptions of limitation of display right, we have to consider the relation to the reproduct and use of such artistic work, etc which is always on display at a place open to the public. there is a need to clarify the concept of ‘a place open to the public’ by legislation.