위키법률/미국 공정 이용 입문서/웹 사이트 저작권법

이 문서는 위키백과와 다른 위키미디어 자매 프로젝트에서 저작권법에 저촉될 수 있는 사진 등의 컨텐츠를 인용하고자 하는 사용자들에게 대강의 정보를 담은 문서입니다. 좀 더 구체적으로 말하면, 위키미디어 재단이 저작물의 보호를 받는 저작물의 “공정 이용”에 대한 시각을 제공하고자 합니다. 이 문서는 오직 일반적인 정보만을 제공하는 목적으로 만들어졌으며, 법률적인 자문의견이나 조언이 아닙니다. 이 문서는 위키미디어 재단의 공정 이용에 대한 일반적인 입장입니다. 따라서 어떤 인용이 “공정”한지에 대한 질문 등은 실제 법률 전문가에게 구할 것을 권합니다.

저작권법

저작권법은 원저작자의 그림, 집필, 건축, 촬영, 소프트웨어, 사진, 음악 등 창작물에 대한 저작권을 보호합니다. 저작물에 대한 권리는 창작자의 작품이 한 번 유형의 형태로 정해지면 자연스럽게 보호됩니다.

1976년 저작권법은 저작권 소유자에게 저작물의 사본 만들기, 저작물을 기반으로 한 파생 저작물 준비, 사본 배포 또는 소유권 이전, 저작물을 공개적으로 공연 및 전시하는 것을 포함하여 여러 가지 일을 할 수 있는 배타적 권리를 부여합니다. 소유자의 독점적인 보호는 일반적으로 저자의 수명과 70년 동안 지속되며, 그 이후에는 저작물이 퍼블릭 도메인이 되어 저자의 허가 없이 사용할 수 있습니다. 저작권 소유자에게 이러한 광범위한 보호를 제공함으로써 의회는 "특별 보상을 제공함으로써 작가와 발명가의 창의적 활동에 동기를 부여하고 제한된 독점 통제 기간이 만료된 후 천재의 제품에 대한 대중의 접근을 허용하기를" 희망했습니다. Harper & Row, Pubs., Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 546 (1985).

저작권 보호 표시가 필요하지 않기 때문에(© 기호 또는 "저작권"이라는 단어처럼) 저작물이 저작권으로 보호되는지 여부를 인식하기 어려울 수 있습니다. 인터넷에 게시된 자료의 경우 게시된 창작물(블로그 게시물, 사진, 동영상 등)이 저작권의 보호를 받는지 여부를 인식하는 데 특히 혼동을 줄 수 있습니다. 그러나 자료는 인터넷 서버에 저장되어 유형의 매체에 고정되어 있기 때문에 잠재적으로 저작권법의 보호를 받습니다. 좋은 경험 법칙은 모든 창작물이 저작권의 보호를 받으며 작품을 사용하거나 복사하려면 작성자의 허가가 필요하다고 가정하는 것입니다(아래에서 설명하는 중요한 예외 한 가지 제외).

저작권법과 그 작동 방식에 대한 자세한 내용은 http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/faqs/copyright-protection/ 에서 스탠포드의 저작권 입문서를 참조하세요.

공정 이용 예외 조항

1976년 저작권법 107항에 명시된 "공정 이용"은 창작물 복사 및 사용을 방지할 수 있는 저작권 소유자의 권리에 대한 예외입니다. 공정 이용 원칙은 저작권법이 육성하도록 고안된 바로 그 창의성을 달성하기 위해 저작권 소유자의 허가 없이 저작권이 있는 자료를 일부 사용하는 것이 필요하다는 것을 인정합니다. Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207, 236(1990). "공정 이용"으로 간주되는 특정 상황에는 비판, 논평, 뉴스 보도, 교육, 장학금 및 연구 목적으로 저작권이 있는 저작물을 사용하는 것이 포함됩니다. 예를 들어, 특정 상황에서 작가는 자신의 문서에서 다른 작가의 말을 인용할 수 있고, 기자는 뉴스 가치가 있는 사건을 낭독할 때 누군가의 사진에 대해 논평할 수 있습니다.

저작권으로 보호되는 저작물의 사용이 공정 이용 예외에 해당하는지 여부를 결정하기 위해 법원은 다음을 살펴봅니다.

1. 사용 목적과 성격;
2. 저작물의 성격;
3. 사용된 저작물의 상당 부분; 그리고
4. 저작물의 시장 가치에 미치는 영향. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994).

이 조사의 중심 목적은 복제된 저작물이 원본을 대체하는지(공정 이용이 아님) 또는 복제된 저작물이 본질적으로 변형 가능한지 여부를 조사하는 것입니다. 저작은 “새로운 것을 추가하고, 목적이나 성격을 달리하여 첫 번째를 새로운 표현, 의미 또는 메시지로 변경하는 경우 . . . .”

조금 더 자세히 알아보기 위해 각 요소를 살펴볼 수 있습니다. 요인 (1)은 사용이 상업적인지 비상업적인지와 변형적인 사용이라는 두 가지 질문을 던집니다. 이때 변형은 원래의 소재를 그대로 사용했는지를 묻고, 원작과 다른 새로운 표현이나 의미를 추가한다. 요인 (2)는 저작물이 보다 창의적인 것과 대조적으로 더 사실적인지(사실이 보호되지 않으므로 대부분 사실인 저작물의 보호가 더 얇음) 및 저작물이 게시되었는지 또는 미공개인지(미공개 작업이 더 많은 보호를 얻음)를 봅니다. 요인 (3)은 원본 작업의 어느 정도를 가져갔는지, 복사된 작업이 새 작업을 얼마나 구성하는지 확인합니다(예: 영화의 26초를 복사하는 것이 별거 아닌 것처럼 들릴 수 있지만 새 비디오가 26초인 경우 길고 100% 복사이며 공정 사용이 아닐 가능성이 높음) 원본 작업에서 차지하는 부분이 얼마나 중요한지(예를 들어 법원 소송 사례는 제럴드 포드가 그의 책을 썼을 때 그가 서평에서 낙슨을 사면한 이유에 대한 부분을 망쳤을 때입니다. 괜찮지 않았다). 마지막으로 요인 (4)는 실제 효과와 잠재적 영향 측면에서 원본 저작물의 시장에 사용이 어떤 영향을 미칠지 살펴봅니다(예를 들어, 특정 책이 영화로 허가되지 않았더라도, 책이 정기적으로 영화에 대해 허가된다는 사실은 허락 없이 영화를 책으로 만드는 것이 문제라는 것을 의미합니다).

특정 사용이 "공정한"지 여부를 결정하는 것은 쉬운 일이 아니며 동일한 사용을 검토하는 두 법원은 사용이 공정한지 여부에 대해 다른 결론을 내릴 수 있습니다. 그러나 과거 사례에서 관찰할 수 있는 몇 가지 일반적인 주제가 있습니다. 일반적으로 논평, 학술 또는 이와 유사한 목적으로 텍스트의 아주 작은 부분을 사용하는 경우 다른 사람의 저작물을 사용하는 것은 공정합니다. Wright v. Warner Books, Inc., 953 F.2d 731, (2d Cir. 1991) 참조 (정보 제공을 위해 라이트의 미공개 서신의 중요하지 않은 짧은 부분을 복사하는 것은 공정하다고 판단). 또한 저작물이 경쟁적 목적(즉, 원본 저작물의 판매에 영향을 미치는) 또는 상업적 또는 광고 목적(비영리, 교육 또는 정보 제공 목적과 반대)으로 사용된 경우 저작물의 사용은 공정한. Harper & Row, 471 U.S. at 562. 일반적으로 작업에서 더 적은 양의 자료를 가져오면(전체 작업에서 자료의 양과 중요성과 비교할 때) 공정하게 사용할 가능성이 높습니다. Monster Comms. v. Turner Broadcasting, 935 F. Supp. 490, 495 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) 참조 (정보 제공 목적으로 영화의 일부를 차지하는 것은 공정하다고 판단). 당연히 '공정 이용' 분석은 사실 의존도가 높기 때문에 저작물의 사용이 '공정'할지 여부를 고려할 때 아래에 포함된 사례의 특정 예를 살펴보는 것이 도움이 됩니다.

공정 이용 요소에 대한 추가 논의는 http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/에서 "공정 이용"에 대한 스탠포드 입문서를 참조하세요.

판례법의 공정 사용 일부 적용

패러디

Elsmere Music v. N.B.C., 482 F.Supp. 741(SDNY 1980), 노래 "I Love New York"의 저자는 "I Love New York"의 4음 코러스를 사용했지만 도시 이름을 대체한 패러디 노래 "I Love Sodom"에 대해 Saturday Night Live를 고소했습니다. . 이 노래는 뉴욕시의 이미지를 정리하려는 시도를 조롱하는 스케치의 일부였습니다. 법원은 그 노래가 공정 사용이라고 판결했습니다. 법원의 주장에서 중요한 것은 다음과 같습니다. (1) 노래와 스케치에 있는 명백한 패러디; (2) SNL 노래가 "I Love New York"의 상업적 가치에 영향을 미치지 않았다는 사실; (3) 패러디가 효과적인 패러디에 필요한 것보다 더 많은 작업을 수행하지 않았다는 사실.

In Columbia Pictures Indus. v. Miramax Films Corp. 11 F.Supp.2d 1179 (C.D.C.A. 1998), Miramax used a movie poster to advertise a Michael Moore documentary that was intended to look like the one used by the film Men in Black. The Men in Black poster featured the characters with the tagline “Protecting the Earth from the Scum of the Universe” and the other featured Michael Moore in similar clothing with the tagline “Protecting the Earth from the Scum of Corporate America.” The court found that the Moore poster constituted copyright infringement and was not fair use. In rejecting the fair use argument, the court relied on the following factors:

1. Commercial advertisements as parody are entitled to less indulgence than other forms of parody (such as education or purely entertainment purposes);
2. The poster did not create a “transformative work” commenting on the original – it simply used the ad to poke fun at a different target; and
3. The ad was simply a vehicle to entice people to see the Moore movie in the same way that Columbia used its ad to entice people to see Men in Black.

The court also found that the nature of the original work as creative expression (as opposed to informational) weighed against fair use.

In contrast, the court in another movie poster parody case, Liebovitz v. Paramount Pictures, Corp.,137 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 1998), did find fair use. There, Liebovitz claimed that Paramount infringed her photo of nude, pregnant Demi Moore, which was originally featured on the cover of Vanity Fair magazine. To advertise its movie, The Naked Gun, Paramount featured Leslie Nielson‘s face over the image of a nude pregnant woman in the exact pose of Demi Moore. The main difference in the court’s analysis, which led to the finding of fair use, was that the court was convinced by Paramount’s argument that this ad actually commented on the original work – ridiculing the work itself. The court did, however, express some reluctance to grant protection because the poster was used as a commercial advertisement (stating that its use as an ad “lessens the indulgence” to which the parodic work is entitled).

논평/역사적 정보

In SOFA Ent., Inc. v. Dodger Prods., Inc., 709 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 2013), SOFA’s founder attended a performance of Jersey Boys and realized that a seven second clip of Ed Sullivan’s introduction of the band Four Seasons on The Ed Sullivan Show appeared in the play. SOFA sued Dodger (the producer of Jersey Boys) for copyright infringement on the grounds that Dodger was using its clip without SOFA’s permission or a license. Dodger answered by asserting that its use of the clip constituted fair use. The court agreed. It examined the four factors and found that the use was transformative (it was used not for its entertainment value but for biographical purposes to mark an important moment in the band’s career), it merely conveyed factual information, it only used a short seven second clip, and the secondary use (the play Jersey Boys) was not a substitute for the original (The Ed Sullivan Show) and thus created no threat to SOFA’s business model.

In Elvis Presley Enters., Inc. v. Passport Video, 349 F.3d. 622 (2003), a group of companies holding various proprietary rights relating to Elvis Presley sued the defendant producer of a 16-hour documentary about Presley’s life which contained excerpts from television appearances, photographs, and music. The Ninth Circuit found that while the defendant’s work was a biography, it was clearly commercial in nature, as it sought to profit directly from the copyrights it used without a license. In fact, one of the most prominent sales points on the box of the biography was that “every Film and Television Appearance is represented.” The court also noted that the producers’ use of plaintiffs’ copyrights was not consistently transformative. While the use of many of the television clips was transformative because the clips played for only seconds and were used for reference purposes, the court noted that some clips were played without much interruption and very little voice-over. The court held that “[t]he purpose of showing these clips likely goes beyond merely making a reference for a biography, but instead serves the same intrinsic entertainment value that is protected by Plaintiff’s copyrights.”

Political Criticism and Comment

In Baraban v. Time Warner, 54 USPQ2d 1759 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), the court analyzed whether a political commentary of a photograph constituted fair use. The photographer plaintiff had taken a picture for a nuclear power industry lobbying group of a woman milking her cow one mile from a nuclear reactor. The photograph was meant to portray the safe relationship between cows and the nuclear plant. A critic of the nuclear energy industry wrote a book attacking the industry and reproduced the plaintiff’s photograph in a smaller, black-and-white format with text criticizing it. Finding fair use, the court explained that:

“Mr. Baraban’s photograph … is a target of Mr. Celente’s criticism at least in part. The photo is part of a newsworthy advertisement that comments on an issue of public importance. The photograph is an integral part of that commentary because Mr. Baraban’s artistic portrayal of the wholesome duo [at] the … farm makes the point that nuclear energy is safe in a way that words alone could not. Thus, the photograph itself is a work of political commentary, and the defendants are allowed to quote or reproduce a reasonable portion of that commentary in order to respond to it.”

Photographs and Fair Use

Because photographs don’t make sense to excerpt in the same way as a large written work, they require some special considerations. Photographs are still subject to the same copyright protections, and fair use exceptions, as other forms of content. Courts faced with a fair use claim for a photograph apply the four-factor test discussed above. Because of the intensely factual nature of the test, it is often difficult to predict how any court will rule on a fair use defense, and, as discussed above, two courts reviewing the same facts may come to two different conclusions. However, there are certain situations where courts have held use to be “fair,” such as when photographs are used for political criticism or comment, are newsworthy and not used for their original intended purpose, or are transformed into a new form or purpose that differs significantly from the original. Below are some cases where courts have found that someone has fairly used someone else’s photograph.

정치적 비판 및 논평

As discussed above, Baraban v. Time Warner, which concerned the photograph of a cow near a nuclear power plant, provides a great example of a photograph as fair use. The critical part of the court’s discussion is that the photo was newsworthy and commented on an issue of public importance. On top of that, the photograph was an “integral” part of the commentary.

Newsworthiness

In Nunez v. Caribbean Intern. News Corp., 235 F.3d 18 (5th Cir. 2000), a professional photographer took several photographs of the winner of Miss Puerto Rico Universe for use in his modeling portfolio. Some controversy arose over whether the photos were appropriate for a Miss Puerto Rico Universe because the model was naked or nearly naked in at least one of the photos. A newspaper then obtained several of the photographs through various means, and over the next week, without the photographer’s permission, included three of his photographs, along with several articles about the controversy. The photographer claimed that the reprint of his photographs in the newspaper without his permission violated the Copyright Act of 1976. Applying the “fair use” factors, the court focused on the “newsworthy” nature of the photographs, the difficulty of presenting the story without the photographs, and the minimal effect on the photographer’s photography business. Specifically:

• On purpose and character of the use, the court found that the newspaper both sought to “inform” and “gain commercially,” and that the two purposes offset each other in the fair use analysis.
• On the nature of the copyrighted work, the court stated that the “reproduction . . . does not threaten Núñez’s right of first publication” because “they were hardly confidential or secret” because the photographer had “commissioned the pictures for the very purpose of semi-public dissemination.”
• On the amount or substantiality of the use, the court found that the newspaper “admittedly copied the entire picture; however, to copy any less than that would have made the picture useless to the story.”
• On the effect on the market, the court concluded that “the market for professional photographs of models publishable only due to the controversy of the photograph itself is small or nonexistent.”

As a result, the court held that “where the photograph itself is particularly newsworthy, the newspaper acquired it in good faith, and the photograph had already been disseminated, a fair use exists under 17 U.S.C. § 107.”

변형 목적

In Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd., 448 F.3d 605 (2d Cir. 2006), the holder of copyrights on seven posters of the famous music group “The Grateful Dead” sued the publishers of biographical book, claiming that reproductions of the posters contained in the book violated its copyrights. The court examined the four fair use factors and found that the use of each image was transformatively different from the original expressive purpose. The publishers used the images as historical artifacts, not artistic expression, to document the actual occurrence of Grateful Dead concert events. The court also found it important that the images were displayed in reduced size and scattered among many other images and text, and that the use of the images did not impact the copyright holder’s original purpose for the poster images, which was to promote concerts. The court concluded that the book publishers’ use of the copyrighted images in its book was fair use.

재제작 저작물의 크기 및 질

In Kelly v. Arriba-Soft, 336 F.3d. 811 (9th Cir. 2003), the Ninth Circuit considered whether a search engine’s practice of creating small reproductions (“thumbnails”) of images and placing them on its own website (known as “inlining”) was fair use. Of importance was that the thumbnails were much smaller and of much poorer quality than the original photos and served to help the public access the images by indexing them. Accordingly, the reproduction of the photos did not did not undermine the potential market for the sale or licensing of those images. Similarly, the Ninth Circuit in Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon. com, Inc., 508 F. 3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007) followed Kelly and found that a Google search engine had fairly reproduced thumbnails of a subscription-only website (featuring nude models).

For more cases that discuss whether the use of a photograph or other content is “fair” in a particular context, please see http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/cases/.

결론

Under certain circumstances, users can reprint or upload photographs without a copyright holder’s express permission. Even if you believe the use to be fair, the copyright holder may disagree, and it will then be up to a court to decide. In making that determination, the court will likely evaluate each of the four fair use factors. In making its determination, one of the most important factors the court may consider is whether the use is “transformative;” that is, whether it “adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning or message . . . .” Campbell, 510 U.S. at 578-79. The following are some practical considerations that may influence a court's analysis for deciding whether an uploaded photo is fair:

1. What was the original purpose of the photographer in taking the photograph, and is the photograph now being used for a different purpose?
2. Was the original more factual or more creative?
3. Is the photograph now being used for profit or not?
4. How much of the photograph is being used?
   • Is the entire photograph being used, or just a portion?
   • If a portion is being used, is it an extremely important part of a larger work (e.g, the top 5 rankings of a “best 100 X” list)?
   • If the photograph is presented in the context of an article, is it cropped to omit portions that are irrelevant to the article?
   • Is the photograph being reproduced in its original file size and resolution, or in some reduced size?
5. Is there other material being used with the photograph, such as handwritten notes, historical or educational text, etc., that puts the photograph in a new or different context?
6. What is the likely effect on the original market for the original photograph?