A Study on the Fair Trade of Content Rights: Protecting Small & Medium Sized Content Creators and Publishers in the Nested Publishing Industry

콘텐츠 권리의 공정거래에 관한 연구: 출판산업 가치사슬에서 중소 콘텐츠 창작자와 출판업자의 권리 보호

  • Received : 2017.06.08
  • Accepted : 2017.07.25
  • Published : 2017.06.30


Online and wireless communications have dramatically changed the contents industry marketplace. Content transactions are now instantaneous as distribution channels move from the 'mart' to smart platforms, creating opportunities for content creators large and small. Yet with opportunity comes the threat of imbalance in the industry ecosystem. In order to ensure the health and diversity of an industry that relies so heavily on the welfare of small creative enterprises, it is essential to establish rules for the fair transaction of content rights. Several structural forces may work against such rules: first, the industry consists of a large number of small distributor intermediary businesses (e.g. major publishers); second, end distributors (e. g. platforms) maintain a superior, monopsony position; and third, economic valuation of content is difficult. In terms of acquisition business model, rights transactions can be classified into three general models: (1) license model, (2) original acquisition model, and (3) monopsony model. This study explores the publishing industry in detail, considering key statutes and their operation across the models. From analysis of Korea and the US statutes and case law, and decisions of the Fair Trade Commission (FTC) of Korea, we offer evaluation criteria for discerning between fair and unfair content rights transactions. We further recommend industry practice that may enhance the likelihood for fair content rights transactions, and thus a thriving publishing ecosystem.

온라인 및 무선 통신은 콘텐츠 산업 시장을 획기적으로 변화시켰다. 유통 채널이 서점에서 스마트 플랫폼으로 이동함에 따라 거래가 즉각적으로 이루어져 제작자에게 새로운 크고 작은 기회가 제공되었다. 그러나 그러한 기회는 산업 생태계의 불균형을 초래한다. 창의적 중소기업의 성장이 중요한 콘텐츠 산업 특성상, 산업의 건전성과 다양성을 보장하기 위해서는 콘텐츠 저작권에 관한 공정거래 규칙이 필요하다. 하지만 산업의 몇몇 구조적 특성이 이러한 규칙의 시행을 어렵게 한다. 첫째, 콘텐츠 업계는 주요 출판사들처럼 다수의 중소 판매업자들로 이루어져 있다. 둘째, 구글과 같은 플랫폼 회사 등 최종 판매자들은 독점적 지위를 보유하고 있다. 셋째, 콘텐츠에 대한 경제적 가치 평가도 어렵다. 기업 인수의 측면에서 보면, 저작권 거래는 (1) 라이선스(권리위임) 모델, (2) 원시취득 모델, (3) 수요독점 모델로 분류가 가능하다. 이 연구는 출판업계에서의 주요 법령과 각 모델 별 적용 방식에 대해 알아본다. 한국과 미국의 법령, 판례분석, 공정거래위원회(FTC)의 심결들을 분석하여 저작권 거래의 공정성/불공정성 평가 기준을 제시한다. 나아가 이 연구는 콘텐츠 저작권의 공정한 거래를 제고하기 위하여 콘텐츠 산업의 일반적 관행을 개선하기 위한 가이드라인을 제시함으로써 출판산업 생태계가 발전하기를 기대하는 바이다.



  1. Bobelian, M. (2012). "The Irony of the Government's Antitrust Case Against Apple and Five Publishers," Forbes.com accessed April 1, 2016.
  2. Chen, B. N. (2015). "Ruling that Apple Led E-book Pricing Conspiracy is Upheld," The New York Times. Available from https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/01/technology/ruling-that-apple-led-e-book-pricing-conspiracy-is-upheld.html (accessed July 21, 2017).
  3. CPRC Secretariat (2013). "About e-Books Market Trends," US and EU Cases Studies and their Relevance for Japan, CPRC.
  4. FTC (2010), Survey Report on the Status of the Advertising Industry Trades, Fair Trade Commission (in Japan).
  5. Fuyuro, T. (2005), "To Solve the Question over the Distribution Rights of the Broadcast Program?: Do Not Be Easily the Right Treatment," Broadcast Research and Investigation, 34-45.
  6. Gorman, R. A. and J. C. Ginsburg (2002). Copyright: cases and materials, Foundation Press Publishing.
  7. Jang, G.-Y. (2013). The Future of the Book, Blue Territory Publisher.
  8. Jang, T.-J. (2005). Introduction to Administrative Law, Hyeonamsa.
  9. Jung, J. W. (2014). "Correcting Unfair Contracts in the Publishing Industry & Strengthening Copyright Holder Rights," Money Today. Available from http://www.mt.co.kr/company/info/notice.htm (accessed July 19, 2017).
  10. Kazuhiro, T. (2013). A Study on the way of public business rules by the Antimonopoly Law and Business Law, Fair Trade Commission in Japan.
  11. KIITPA (2006). 2006 Digital Content Industry White Paper, Korea IT Industry Promotion Agency.
  12. Kim, G.-C. (2014). Improvement Scheme for the Content Fair Trade, Korea Culture and Tourism Institute.
  13. Kim, J. I. (2014), "Korean Government Now Preventing 'Gurumbang incident,' the Unfair Trading in Publishing," Dong-A Ilbo. Available from http://news.donga.com/BestClick/3/all/20140828/66082736/1 (accessed July 20, 2017).
  14. Kim, J.-H. (2013). Beyond the Book and Towards Content Platform, Minumsa.
  15. Kim, J.-Y. (2009). Large Research Center of the Music Industry Vertical Integration on the Impact of the Music Market, Kyunghee University Graduate School of Business, Master's Thesis.
  16. Kim, M., D. Shin, and K. Jung (2016). "Identity of Entrepreneurs in the Evolution of a New Organizational Form: The Emergence and Growth of eBook Publishers Population in Korea" The Journal of Small Business Innovation 19(2), 17-36.
  17. KISA (2009). 2009 Internet Use Survey, Korea Internet & Security Agency.
  18. KOCCA (2012). Necessity of Status and Unfair Trade Compliance Content Rating System, Korea Creative Content Agency.
  19. Lee, B.-Y. (2007). Contents of Animation Books Using the Old Story, Korea Studies Information.
  20. Lee, G.-H. (2013). Digital Content Publishing, Publishing Marketing Institute Korea.
  21. Lee, H. C. and J. J. Jung (2004). "A Study on the Development Processes and Profits for Contents in e-Learning Small-Medium Venture Company," The Journal of Small Business Innovation 7(3), 115-134.
  22. Lee, Y.-D. (2011). "A Study on the Legal Characteristics of Asymmetric Regulation over Market Dominant Enterprises in the Telecommunications Industry," Journal of Korea Information Law, 9(1), 1-34.
  23. Lee, Y.-D. and G.-G. Choi (2013). "Regulation on "Consumer Welfare Decreasing Activities" in Market Dominant Firms' Abusive Behaviors," Journal of Korea Competition Law 27, 69-95.
  24. Lim, E.-M. (1998). Multimedia Content Business World, JinHan Book.
  25. Lutzker, A. P. (2003). Content Rights for Creative Professionals, Focal Press publishing.
  26. Na, Y. (2007). "A Study on the Protection of the Online Digital Contents Rights," WonKwang Law 23(2), 511-533.
  27. Seoul Metropolitan Government (2017). "Survey of Unfair Practices in Cultural Art Market's Unfairness," (June 13, 2017), Seoul Metropolitan Government, 4-8.
  28. The Guardian (2016, March 7), "Apple to pay $450m Settlement over US Ebook Price Fixing," The Guardian. Available from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/07/apple-450-millionsettlement-e-book-price-fixing-supremecourt (accessed July 21, 2017).
  29. Weston, A. (2010), "Valuation and Litigation Damages: An Excerpt from Chapter 11 of Fundamentals of Intellectual Property Valuation," CONSOR Intellectual Asset Management.