‘Neighboring Rights’
In the
era of content flood, a lot of attention is being paid to content producers as
well as their rights and income. It has become a rite of passage in
entertainment programs to ask about the copyrights they own when creators such
as composers and lyricists appear on TV. The copyright commission they receive
has also become a hot topic on the Internet. Now, copyright has become a
‘public-friendly keyword’ that anyone living in this era would have thought
about at least once.
Recently, ‘neighboring rights’, which is similar to copyright but unfamiliar, is attracting new attention. A while ago, the legal battle between the rookie group Fifty Fifty, who debuted with the song ‘Cupid’ and hit the Billboards simultaneously, the agency ‘Attract’, and the contract-free ‘The Givers’ became a public issue. From now on, let's look at 'neighboring rights', which are a little unfamiliar to us.
 |
| clipartkorea.co.kr |
Do singers and producers have copyrights?
YES! A singer,
a composer, a lyricist and production company, four of all have ‘neighboring
rights’.
‘What is Neighboring Rights?’
Neighboring
rights, as the term implies, are rights adjacent to copyright. It is a right
given to ‘PERFORMERS’, which collectively refers to people who express creative
works such as singers, performers, and actors, as well as conductors and
directors who direct them. Neighboring rights are granted not only to
performers, but also to record producers and broadcasting companies.
<Source: Excerpts from ‘Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism’ on Naver >
Neighboring rights in the “Fifty Fifty” case
▶Summary ;
A K-POP
group, Fifty Fifty’s song called ‘CUPID’, which gained a lot of popularity at
home and abroad, was composed by a creator called ‘Swedish Students’. Mr. Jeon
Hong-Jung, CEO of Attract (Fifty Fifty's agency) paid about $9,000 to the
creator and bought the song. However, various suspicious were raised as it was
revealed that the copyright of song ‘CUPID’ was owned by the service company ‘The
Givers’ (which is not the agency). Let's look at the arguments on both sides.
Hongjoon Jeon, CEO (Attract) - ‘The Givers’ did not provide any information about CUPID’s copyright.
When the
CEO of the agency came out, suspicions are rising that the copyright fee was
included in the original fee of 9,000 dollars, but the service company ‘The
Givers’ stole the copyright without consultation.
Ahn Seong-il, CEO (The Givers) – What the agency paid 9,000 dollars is not the 'copyright' of the person who created the work, but the 'neighboring right' granted to the record producer, and ‘The Givers’ does not have any rights to neighboring copyright. In addition, ‘The Givers’ claimed that it’s the legitimate copyright they owned by purchase from the composers (Swedish Students) with contract for transfer of rights through a legal process. Moreover, they protested that they have a separate invoice that proves the legitimate copyrights, not a song fee.
What caused the controversy?
Currently,
Attract only owns ‘neighboring rights’ that record producers can have, instead
of ‘copyrights’. Neighboring copyrights of Attract seem to be quite similar to
copyrights, which are said to have been held by a service company through a
legal process. Then, it seems possible to exercise the right to CUPID even if
you have only one of the two, but why is there such a fierce battle over the
name of the right and the owner?
 |
| clipartkorea.co.kr |
Copyright v Neighboring Rights
Neighboring
rights, like copyright, include the contents of property rights and personality
rights. However, it doesn’t have the 'Adaptation Right' (the right to create a
new work based on the copyrighted work by retranslation, arrangement, etc.)
belonging to the property rights of the copyright owner and the 'Public
Exhibition Right’ (the right to decide whether to disclose to a notary)
corresponding to personality rights. Furthermore, personality rights are
granted only to ‘performers’ and do not apply to record producers and
broadcasting companies.
 |
| clipartkorea.co.kr |
In South Korea's case, even in terms of the duration of rights, copyright is maintained until the ‘lifetime period of the copyright holder + 70 years after death’. However, neighboring rights can be protected for 70 years from the time of performance (performer), 70 years from the time of publishing music (music producer), and 50 years from the time of broadcasting (broadcasting business). This is a much shorter than the copyright protection period. Even in terms of the level of rights, it can be said that the ‘right to claim compensation’ held by neighboring right holders does not reach the overall right to the copyright owner’s share of the work.
In other
words, when considering the compensation and added value that can be obtained
through the range of rights, it can be said that copyright has a wider and
greater influence. Therefore, if both sides can acquire two rights, who gets
the copyright will be an important issue.
The Future of Neighboring Rights
We have
looked at neighboring rights so far. With the development of culture and
technology, a large amount of various contents are produced, and social issues
and disputes surrounding copyright as well as neighboring rights are expected
to increase in the future, as in the Fifty Fifty case. In fact, the issue of
‘Should neighboring rights be granted to publishers as well as recognizing the
rights of music companies’ has been discussed for a long time. Recently, the
question of whether an AI cover song using the original singer's voice infringes
on the neighboring copyright of the original singer has become a hot potato in
society. We’re going to have to pay attention to the neighboring copyrights how
it will change and develop in the future.
 |
| clipartkorea.co.kr |
----------------------------------------
<References and Excerpts>
1. [Column] Rights Adjacent to Copyright:
Neighboring Rights: Some references from Patent News
2. Article, “Dugiverse purchased 5ft 5ft Cupid’s copyright and entered into a contract through a legal process” – excerpts and references from Ten Asia (hankyung.com), https://tenasia.hankyung.com/music/article/2023070546364
3. Naver Blog, ‘Neighboring Rights that
Publishers Should Know’: https://blog.naver.com/parkisu007/222950119861
No comments:
Post a Comment