Supreme Court: "Golf Course Layouts Are Copyrighted Works, Unauthorized Use of Screen Images Prohibited"

Golf course, unrelated to the article content

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Hyung-min] The Supreme Court has ruled that golf course layouts are copyrighted works protected under copyright law and must not be used without permission.

The Supreme Court's Third Division (Presiding Justice Kim Jae-hyung) announced on the 19th that it upheld the appellate court's ruling partially in favor of the plaintiffs in a damages lawsuit filed by three golf courses, including Country Club A in Pocheon, Gyeonggi Province, against screen golf company B.

The court stated, "The act of producing and using 3D golf course videos constitutes unauthorized use of the plaintiffs' achievements for the defendant's business in a manner contrary to fair trade practices and competitive order, thereby infringing on economic interests."

The court viewed the unauthorized use of actual golf courses by screen golf companies to create screen videos as an unfair competition method that disrupts market order and imposed restrictions accordingly.

Company B developed a simulation system almost identical to the golf courses by aerially photographing these golf courses in 2008 and sold the system to screen golf venues or operated screen golf venues directly.

Company A and others filed a lawsuit demanding damages for copyright infringement, claiming their golf course layouts were used without permission.

The first trial court recognized the golf course layouts as copyrighted works and held Company B liable for damages amounting to 1.42 billion KRW for unauthorized copying.

The appellate court also ruled, "Golf courses, including the locations of facilities such as clubhouses, access roads, practice ranges, ponds, and bunkers, concretely express ideas and thus qualify as creative works expressing human thoughts or emotions."

However, the court found that the copyright belongs to the golf course designers, not the golf course operators like Company A, and therefore did not recognize damages for copyright infringement by the operators.

Instead, the court ruled that Company B's actions constituted 'unfair competition' by unauthorized use of Company A's achievements and ordered compensation of 330 million KRW.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.