China

China, where TikTok first emerged, can be regarded as the birthplace of short-form content.

According to the 2022 data, key features of copyright disputes involving short-form content in China are as follows: ① the number of cases is increasing annually, indicating significant potential for further growth; ② the range of lawsuit subjects is broad, primarily encompassing long-form videos and short-form platforms; and ③ the frequency of similar cases is relatively high, with the majority of cases addressing similar issues^.1)

Among the 10 representative examples are: “Providing popular music on a short-form platform without the permission of the rights holder constitutes copyright infringement;” “The creation of short-form content featuring animated characters does not constitute fair use;” “Using another’s background music without permission in short-form content provided by an MCN company constitutes a violation of the music producer’s rights;” and “Incorporating another’s copyrighted work as subtitles in short-form content constitutes copyright infringement.” Overall, the case summary and ruling present a convincing conclusion, indicating a rise in various types of disputes since around 2022.

Another characteristic is the strong control exerted by government authorities, instead of relying on court-sponsored resolution.

Japan

Japan’s society generally adopts a conservative and cautious stance regarding rights infringement, resulting in few disputes related to high-tech issues. Due to the absence of a fair use provision in Japanese copyright law, rights holders tend to take fairly strong actions. A recent controversial case in Japan involved both criminal and civil legal action against “fast movies,” which are short videos of approximately 10 minutes that summarize key parts of longer videos, which indicates that Japanese courts are adopting a stringent stance on such actions.²⁾

4. Platform-Level Issues

When analyzing the legal dynamics of short-form content, one key aspect involves the relationship between individual short-form content creators and original copyright holders, while another aspect concerns the relationship between original copyright holders and the platform operators hosting these short-form content pieces.

Copyright holders prioritize platform-level action and solutions over individual short-form content creators, who produce content sporadically and often disappear, making control and enforcement difficult. This is a common pattern surrounding the provision of copyrighted content online, similar to the “WebHard” issue of the past. Given that these platform operators provide the most economic benefit, this issue could represent a more significant challenge for the industry.

The legal liability of platforms to copyright holders depends on whether they are deemed liable for “aiding and abetting copyright infringement.”

Platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube are addressing this issue by offering content for which they have secured the rights or by providing accessible content through licensing agreements with rights holders.³⁾

The platform provides users with an “audio library” of available music. The selection of music differs based on whether the user’s account is personal or commercial, with further distinctions in the content available even within personal accounts for commercial purposes such as advertisements. The platform policies are important for individual creators of short-form content, and these policies are constantly changing.

For example, YouTube offers the “Content ID” system, which requires rights holders to register their content, enabling the platform to filter out videos with copyright infringement issues and distribute revenue to rights holders. Moreover, these platforms routinely receive “infringement reports” and respond promptly to notifications from rights holders. However, the volume and rapid turnover of short-form content often render this reporting and enforcement process ineffective.

Given their global presence, platform operators must consider potential conflicts arising from varying copyright laws across countries. In fact, it seems that the response is being operated differently, like in the U.S. and the E.U.




5. Issues under the Korean Copyright Act

What issues might arise under the Korean Copyright Act? Potential challenges include the infringement of copyright property rights, such as the right to reproduce and the right to create derivative works. Moreover, moral rights, such as the right to maintain integrity and the right to attribution, could also become problematic. In one case, a court ruled that a broadcaster’s arbitrary deletion or editing of 23 minutes from a 63-minute lecture for a broadcast program constituted a violation of the speaker’s right to maintain integrity⁴⁾. In light of this, trimming original works to brief segments lasting from 10 seconds to 1 minute could also be considered a violation of the right to maintain integrity.

Short-form content often uses popular videos or music without proper credit, raising concerns about infringement of attribution rights and violations of the Indication of Sources (Article 37).

Key defenses for short-form content creators include “Quotation from Work Made Public” (Article 28) and “Fair Use of Works, etc.” (Article 35-5).

According to the Copyright Act, the most important requirement for “Quotation from Work Made Public” in relation to short-form content is that the usage remains within a “reasonable limit.” This proves challenging, as short-form content often consists solely of other copyrighted works. Moreover, short-form content creators seldom cite their sources, making it difficult to meet the requirement of being “in compliance with fair practices.”

However, a notable precedent is the “Thumbnail Image Case,” in which displaying thumbnail images on a search engine was deemed a citation of a published work, despite the absence of a strict master-slave relationship and citation of the source.⁵⁾ Similarly, in the “Crazy” singing case, a video of a young daughter humming and dancing in a UCC video was deemed a citation of a published work.⁶⁾

In regard to the topic of fair use, the Supreme Court provided a detailed explanation of each requirement of the fair use provision in the “Korea Institute of Curriculum and Evaluation” case, which involved the posting of national exam questions online for a significant period of time. While the ruling positively considered the “Purpose and character of use,” it negatively considered the “Effect of the use on the current or potential market for or value” and thus denied fair use. Therefore, short-form content, whose “purpose and character of use” is typically commercial, is unlikely to qualify as fair use.⁷⁾

In addition, the frequent claim that “It is not a non-commercial use” lacks merit, as short-form content is primarily created for commercial purposes, and such a defense has been dismissed in legal cases.⁸⁾ The argument that the “use of a short part does not constitute copyright infringement” is also unfounded under the Copyright Act. The argument that “indicating the source does not constitute copyright infringement” may serve as a defense against the right to attribution and the right to the Indication of Sources (Article 37 of the Copyright Act), but it does not fully negate copyright infringement.

The legal liability of short-form content platform operators will be assessed under the Limitation on Liability of Online Service Providers of the Copyright Act (Articles 102 and following).

The Supreme Court precedents indicate that, in a case where an online service provider hosts a post infringing on another’s copyright on an online bulletin board, the court ruled that it would be difficult to deem the provider obligated to take appropriate action if the online service provider did not receive specific, individual requests from the victim to remove or block the post, was unaware of the circumstances surrounding the posting, or was technically or financially unable to manage and control the post.⁹⁾ This ruling is similar to the liability of online service providers regarding trademark infringement or defamation.

6. Conclusion

The rapidly growing demand for brief, stimulating, and addictive short-form content has led to a sharp increase in the number of short-form content creators in recent years, a trend that is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. Moreover, the recent addition of AI technology to the production of short-form content seems to be accelerating this growth even more.10)

This growth in short-form content has positive aspects, such as revitalizing user creativity and increasing content accessibility for the general public, and negative aspects, such as infringement on the holders’ rights, which makes it necessary to strike a balance between these two aspects.

Platforms providing short-form content operate on a global scale, with legal responses varying according to each country’s legal framework. As a leading content powerhouse and copyright owner, Korea needs to closely monitor these global trends, implement legislative measures, and respond through international cooperation when required.

1) Korea Copyright Commission, “China Copyright Monthly Trends, April Issue - [Analysis of the Beijing Internet Court’s Short-Form Copyright Case Trial Status and 10 Major Cases]” (May 2022).

2) Kim Kyungsook, “Spoilers and Copyright Issues in Japanese Films – Centered on Fast Movies,” Korea Copyright Protection Agency, Overseas Copyright Protection Trends(Aug. 2025).

3) For example, a licensing dispute between TikTok and Universal Music prevented TikTok users from accessing songs by Universal artists, such as Billie Eilish and Ariana Grande, between 2023 and 2024, until both companies reached an agreement to restore access.
4) Seoul High Court Decision 92NA35846, Sep. 27, 1994 (“21st Century Lecture” case).

5) Supreme Court Decision 2005DO7793, Feb. 9, 2006.

6) Seoul High Court Decision 2010NA35260, Oct. 13, 2010.

7) Supreme Court Decision 2021DA272001, Jul. 11, 2024.

8) Supreme Court Decision 2013DO7228, May 29, 2014 (Minerva case).

9) Supreme Court Decision 2016DA271608, Feb. 28, 2019.

10) A recent article discusses the “mass-produced illegal short-form,” which is easily created using AI: “Google, Nobel Prize Winner, is Taking the Lion’s Share of Copyright in the Back,” The Chosun Ilbo, Oct. 14, 2024.