Hello, I am Attorney Eom Sang-yun from Cheongchul Law Firm.

Recently, the Supreme Court overturned the original decision in a copyright infringement lawsuit filed by a golf course design company against Golfzon, stating that the design and layout of the golf course may be considered a creative work protected under copyright law. Today, we will explore the contents of that ruling and its implications.

[Summary of the Case]

The plaintiffs are corporations that signed design contracts with golf course owners and completed the course design, while the defendants are companies that produce and provide videos of golf courses for screen golf simulations. The defendants have provided videos that replicate individual golf courses to screen golf venues without the permission of the plaintiffs, the original designers.

The defendants, who are screen golf simulator companies, entered into agreements with the owners of each golf course, created golf course videos, and provided them to screen golf venue operators. As a result, the design companies (plaintiffs) claimed that their copyright (rights to reproduction and creation of derivative works) was infringed and filed a lawsuit for damages due to copyright infringement.

The key issue in this case was whether a golf course, which is significantly constrained by golf rules and natural terrain, qualifies as a 'creative work' protected by copyright law.

[Court's Judgment]

The issue in this case is whether each golf course can be considered as a creative work eligible for protection under copyright law. The original court ruled that individual holes are inevitably constrained by golf rules or the terrain of the site, and it concluded that minor differences in the shape, length, width, and form of basic components would not be deemed as a creative expression.

In contrast, the Supreme Court held that a golf course can indeed be considered a creative work protected under copyright law for the following reasons.

• The creativity required by copyright law does not demand absolute originality; it can be recognized as long as it embodies the creator's independent expression without simple imitation of others.

• Golf course designers, while considering constraints imposed by golf rules or the site terrain, can exhibit creative individuality by choosing, arranging, and combining components to distinguish from other golf courses.

• An organic combination that guides players to develop appropriate strategies based on the situation of hitting the golf ball and allows them to appreciate the beauty of the course through artificial landscaping and surrounding scenery can be regarded as a creative expression according to design intent.

In other words, the Supreme Court recognized that if the selection, arrangement, and combination of components of a golf course reflect the creator's unique expression and distinguish it from existing golf courses, it can be considered a work. This reversed the first and second courts' judgments, which did not recognize creativity by focusing on the constraints of golf course design (golf rules, site environment, etc.), and the final conclusion is expected to be determined in the appeal process.

[Implications of the Case]

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court previously acknowledged the copyrightability of golf course design drawings in a similar lawsuit filed by an American golf course design company against Golfzon, leading to a reversal ruling. Thus, not only the golf course itself, but also the design drawings can be recognized as works if they possess distinguishing features from other courses.

This Supreme Court ruling is significant in that it recognized copyright protection for functional designs such as sports facilities. It is anticipated that this ruling will serve as a legal basis to strongly argue copyright infringement if the selection, arrangement, and organic combination of basic elements that constitute functional designs manifest the designer's intentions. Furthermore, in future business models that digitize and implement real architectural structures or spaces (for example, the metaverse), it will be necessary to examine not only obtaining permission from the owner of the design but also the infringement of the original designer's intellectual property rights.

Depending on the outcome of the appeal process, screen golf companies like Golfzon are facing billions of won in damages as claimed by the plaintiffs. Additionally, to legally service existing course videos, large-scale royalty contracts with the designers will need to be newly established, leading to an inevitable strengthening of corporate IP compliance procedures and restructuring of service fee structures.

Cheongchul Law Firm provides comprehensive advice related to intellectual property rights to numerous companies based on the expertise and experience built through partnerships with major law firms in Korea, such as Kim Jang Law Office, Pacific, Kwangjang, Sejong, and Yulchon, as well as in-house lawyers at large corporations. We will be a strong ally who accurately grasps the nature of the case and effectively conveys the client's position when working with Cheongchul.