그라피티와 관련한 저작권법상 쟁점에 관한 소고

Graffiti is one of the street arts that has recently attracted attention. Early Graffiti was generally illegally written without the building owner or government permission. Graffiti has evolved to include a message of resistance that rebels and disobeys the established culture. Due to the nature of these graffiti, there has been much debate about whether illegally created graffiti is subject to copyright protection. Since our copyright law requires that the work be a representation of human thought or emotion, and that there should be creativity, graffiti can also be protected as a work under copyright law if creativity is acknowledged. Illegality, which is an intrinsic characteristic of graffiti, can not affect the establishment of a work as a discussion of other value standards such as obscenity, behavior to benefit the enemy. In addition, if Graffiti is destroyed or demolished due to demolition or development of the building, there will be a problem of copyright and ownership conflict between the copyright owner of the graffiti and the building owner. In addition to author's property rights, copyright holders have moral rights to protect the personal interests of authors, If there is a conflict between the disposition of the owner as the act of disposition and the right to maintain the identity of the author, the issue of how to interpret and adjust the conflict of rights of both parties arises. This paper analyzed the Supreme Court decision of Dorasan Station case concerning the conflict between ownership and moral rights, the 5Pointz judgment of the United States, the Visual Artist Rights Act, the EU Directive, and the restructuring provisions of the UK Copyright Act. The Supreme Court of Korea ruled that the copyright law can not counteract the disposition of the owner based on the right of integrity. On the other hand, in the case of the United States Visual Artist Rights Act and 5Pointz judgment, the limited scope of application and the requirement of 'recognized stature' are protected against the personal interests of the authors although they can be regarded as limited protection compared to the author's right system. Realistically, protection for all graffiti is difficult. However, for graffiti created under the owner's permission or registered, protection is required for the personal interests of the author and preserving graffiti. On the other hand, an owner who meets certain conditions needs a device that is not responsible for infringement of moral rights. In conclusion, it would be necessary to legislate to protect the interests of both parties in a balanced manner.