Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement
Sponsored content

Better protection for publicity rights in South Korea

Sponsored by


Min Son of Hanol IP & Law explains how the Korean boy band BTS helped reshape unfair competition law and the protection of publicity rights in South Korea

Readers may have heard of names such as Squid Game, Blackpink, Baby Shark, and BTS. Collectively called K-content, such K-pop, K-drama, and K-culture are gaining popularity not only in Korea, but all over the world.

With the expansion of this content’s power and social media activities such as YouTube and social networking, the number of cases in Korea where another person’s identity has been commercially misappropriated has grown. This has also led to legal disputes.

The BTS case

One of these cases involved the popular boy band BTS. A publisher produced and sold photocards and pictorials of BTS members without the authorisation of BTS’s agency. The agency sued the publisher under the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (UCPA) before its revision.

The case went to the Supreme Court, where it was decided that the publisher’s act constituted an act of unfair competition under the supplementary catch-all provision of the old UCPA (Supreme Court Decision 2019Ma6525, March 26 2020).

When the above decision was made, Korea did not have an explicit statutory provision to protect the right commercially to use personal signs such as portraits and names of a person, so the court had to rely on the catch-all provision. However, in the above ruling, the court presented specific criteria for judgment on the infringement of publicity rights for the first time, and its rules were later reflected in the revised UCPA.

The revised UCPA

The revised UCPA came into force on June 8 2022. In the revised UCPA, an act that infringes a so-called publicity right has been added to the acts of unfair competition.

Specifically, in Article 2(1)(l) of the revised UCPA, an “act of unfair competition” includes an act of infringing another person’s economic interests by using a celebrity’s portrait, name, voice, signature, or other identifiable signs for one’s own business without authorisation and in a manner contrary to fair commercial practice or competition order.

The right holder whose rights have been infringed can claim civil damages, and a preliminary or permanent injunction. They may also pursue administrative remedies for corrective action under the UCPA.

Unfortunately, the UCPA protects only celebrities’ and famous persons’ names, portraits, etc, and the publicity right of a layperson is not protected.

In this regard, it is worth noting that a bill to amend the Copyright Act has been proposed to the National Assembly and is awaiting passage. The proposed Copyright Act expressly provides protection for the “publicity right” under the name of the article “property right including portrait right”.

“Portrait etc” is further defined as “a person’s name, portrait, voice and other traits similar thereto”. As the proposed Copyright Act does not require the portrait, etc to be widely recognised in Korea and have economic value, the expected scope of protection is wider than that of the UCPA in this regard.

Grey zone

Publicity right has long existed in a grey zone of protection. Until now, those whose publicity rights had been infringed have tried to remedy this through various channels such as trademark law, copyright law, unfair competition prevention law, and civil law damages based on constitutional infringement. But none of these has provided a satisfactory solution.

Now with the revised UCPA and the Copyright Law to be introduced, it is certain that the publicity right will be better protected in Korea.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

A New York federal court heard oral arguments this week in a copyright case pitting publishing giants against a digital library
Commissioner Hamano Koichi shares his vision for the JPO and explains that IP offices must promote innovation that drives social change
The Asia-Pacific awards research cycle has now begun – don’t miss on this opportunity be recognised in 2023
The Supreme Court, which is hearing two IP cases this week, should limit the power of US courts to rule on foreign sales
Safety standards wouldn’t lose copyright protection when named in law, so long as they were accessible for free online
In-house tech sources say Amgen v Sanofi has the potential to stifle their prosecution and litigation strategies if SCOTUS’s decision is too broad
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The Federal Circuit said tech firms can challenge the way the USPTO implemented Fintiv, but that won’t mean much for practitioners, say counsel
The England and Wales High Court handed down one of the most hotly anticipated FRAND rulings for some time
Funders discuss different IP portfolio funding options and how they decide whether to offer preferential terms and pricing