영상물 저작자의 추가보상청구권 - 민법의 관점에서 -

There have been arguments that the right to claim additional compensation should be recognized for principal directors, including lighting directors, director of photography, who are among the co-authors of audio-visual works by raising the issue of the special rules concerning audio-visual works under Chapter V-2 of the Korean Copyright Act because, even if the film producer earns a large amount of revenue after the transfer of the copyright, the film director is not paid proportional compensation. However, the issue of introducing additional compensation claims for authors of audio-visual works, which was sparked by the "Squid Game" (although authors of audio-visual works have been voicing their rights even before that), has now been intensified by claims to amend the copyright law to adopt the additional compensation right, and several public hearings have been held on the issue. The debate has been fiercely contested by scholars who support the idea and those who deny it. However, the argument that the right to claim additional compensation should be stipulated in Copyright Act has a weak legitimate reasoning because the person who has transferred the intellectual property rights cannot demand additional compensation from the transferee (or the final provider of the audio-visual works) and because the Copyright Acts of foreign countries recognizing the right to claim additional compensation for authors for audio-visual works has different legal culture and different legal system. Introducing foreign systems indiscriminately is not only unhelpful to our legal system, but also has the potential to conflict with our existing legal system, so in-depth research should be done before introducing them. There are revenue sharing rules corresponding to the additional compensation right claimed by the copyright holder in the 'Standard Film Rights License Agreement' and 'Standard Film Rights Transfer Agreement' promulgated by the government in 2015. It will be said that the revenue sharing provision by the Agreements between the parties is legally valid rather than the additional compensation right in court, which has a poor legal basis. The first consideration should be the establishment of an institutional mechanism for the standard contract to be utilized in practice. IPRs are similar to property rights in nature. Nevertheless, additional compensation right which the supporters argue is based on their understanding IPR is stronger right than property rights in intellectual property law area, and they seem to believe that it may be right that can be more easily acquired and more easily disposed of than property rights. The argument to recognize the right to additional compensation after the transfer of intellectual property rights, which is inconsistent with the law of transfer of property rights, raises the issue of whether the act of disposing of intellectual property rights should be defined as a super-property right act, not a quasi-physical right act.