If My Video Is Massively Stolen on a Community Site

Written by Park Hyun-joo, Attorney at the Protection Review Department, The Korea Copyright Protection Agency  

Kim Mu-bi recently happened to film an interesting video and uploaded it to his Instagram account with subtitles. The video was short but received a lot of positive reactions from netizens, with comments like “creative” and “funny”, and soon accumulated over 100,000 likes. Kim Mu-bi felt very proud, thinking that his personal experience was bringing joy to so many people. However, the excitement was short-lived. The video was not only unlawfully copied and posted on YouTube Shorts, but it also appeared on Instagram Reels and a completely unrelated community site by another internet user. Some individuals even uploaded Kim Mu-bi's video as their own in order to increase views and generate revenue. "I just wanted to share my experience, but I never expected my video to spread like this..." Kim Mu-bi posted a message asking people not to plagiarize his video and reported the issue to the community site administrator, but received no response. After much thought, Kim Mu-bi decided to file a complaint about the illegal copying with The Korea Copyright Protection Agency's COPY112.

Can cases like Kim Mu-bi’s be remedied through the corrective recommendation system under the Copyright Act? When determining whether to issue a corrective recommendation, the Copyright Deliberation Committee considers various factors, such as whether the reproduced or transmitted unauthorized content is protected under the Copyright Act, whether the reproducer or transmitter has legitimate rights, whether alternative measures besides warnings or takedown requests are available, and the type, original price, popularity, and market impact of the copyrighted material in question (Copyright Deliberation Committee Regulations Articles 23 and 15).

In Kim Mu-bi’s case, the first issue is whether copyright can be recognized for a short video. Fundamentally, any creative work that concretely expresses human thoughts or emotions through words, text, sound, color, or other means can qualify as a copyrighted work. Precedents have recognized even Twitter posts of up to 140 characters as copyrightable, stating that “if the short text includes uniquely original expressions, such as incisive insights into life’s essence, satire on contemporary issues, or humorous interpretations of the struggles of the underprivileged, it qualifies as a work.” Likewise, if Kim Mu-bi’s short video contains originality and creative expression, it should also be recognized as a copyrighted work (whether it qualifies for copyright protection)¹⁾.

However, in cases like Kim Mu-bi's involving widespread unauthorized copying, obtaining legal remedies can be challenging. This is because it is difficult to identify the individuals responsible when multiple internet users simultaneously engage in copying and transmission (whether alternative remedies are available). Furthermore, while Kim Mu-bi’s video is short, it has gained significant attention on platforms such as Reels and Shorts, which enable revenue generation. If Kim Mu-bi wished, the video could have been monetized. Therefore, the unauthorized mass copying and transmission of Kim Mu-bi's video could impact the potential earnings (value) the creator might have otherwise achieved (the impact of unauthorized copying on the market for the copyrighted work).

The Copyright Protection Deliberation Committee, in a recent similar case, decided to issue a recommendation for corrective action, including warnings and the deletion or suspension of transmission, to the site operator. This decision was based on a comprehensive consideration of the following: the poster of the infringing content lacked legitimate authorization to use the work; the complainant, as the original creator, actively responded to the infringement by reporting it to the site operator but failed to obtain redress, leading to a complaint filed with KCOPA; and the infringing content had a potential impact on the market or value of the original work.

In accordance with Article 133(3) of the Copyright Act, the Korea Copyright Protection Agency recommends that online service providers take corrective measures to delete or suspend the transmission of illegal copies that infringe copyrights, etc., and to warn the person who posted them, to prevent copyright disputes in advance by notifying Internet users who are not familiar with the Copyright Act about whether they have violated the Copyright Act after a review by the Copyright Protection Deliberation Committee. 

1) The ruling of the Seoul Nambu District Court on May 9, 2013, in case number 2012GoJeong4449