Earticle

초록

영어

“Contents Industry Promotion Act(CIPA)” has been, in fact, under control the Ministry of Culture, Sports & Tourism(MCST). Consequently, additional basic law has come to co-exist with the pre-established “Cultural Industry Promotion Basic Act(CIPBA)”, under which so far, cultural contents and digital cultural contents has been promoted. The revision also made the role of the former one unclear that has solely given base to other the subordinating specific laws including Game Industry Promotion Act, Music Industry Promotion Act. Basic Act for Development of Broadcast and Communication also contains legal ground for the promotion of contents industry, which shall be problematic in relation with CIPA. With respect to Intellectual Property Basic Act(IPBA), clear relations between the intellectual property and contents, and clear and definitive roles between Intellectual Property Committee and Contents Industry Promotion Committee, both are to be installed, need to be considered. CIPA contains mixed ranges of provisions acting as basic law and specific law, in which there is limit that provisions as basic law should be embodied in a specific law. In this regard, CIPA is required to establish a reasonable relations with specific laws. While CIPA is constituted primarily with provision of “programmed regulation”, CIPBA contains provision that is not represented in a specific law, so that no duplication is incurred and each are made up for among CIPA, CIPBA and other specific laws. Considering the concerns about conflict between MCST and Korea Communication Commission, the article 4 of CIPA seems to need revision in a way to secure that Basic Act for Development of Broadcast and Communication is consistent to the basic concept of CIPA. With respect to Intellectual Property Basic Law, IPBA is completely programmed regulation, CIPA is consistent with the purpose and basic concept of IPBA, no direct conflicts are expected. However, contents can be concluded in intellectual property, when planning policy involved, it is need to reconcile with intellectual property Committee. In particular, up on now the Minister of MISP (Ministry of Science ICT and Future Planning) takes on the management of business associated with digital contents. However, upon examination of the organization of Ministry of Culture and MISP, digital contents exclude digital “cultural” contents. In conclusion, the author argues that digital contents means information contents only. In other words, in the field of digital contents MISP should pursue the industry of multimedia contents excluding multimedia “cultural” contents; Internet-related industry; an promotion policy of digital contents distribution and user protection excluding digital “cultural” contents. On the other hand, the area of broadcasting and communications contents can problematically cause duplicative works with MSIP, KCC and MCST, especially, on their fields which associated with the production and promotion policy. Therefore, through amendments to the CIPA, a legal supplementation is needed on the legal application order of broadcasting and communications contents. For the days coming, legal environments need to be improved consistently in a way the relations among laws involved with contents industry promotion are clarified and optimized, from which participants around contents industry benefit from more supports and the consistent policies.

목차

I. 서론
 II. 문화콘텐츠산업 관련 법 상호 관계 정립 문제
  1. 콘텐츠산업 진흥법과 문화산업진흥 기본법과의 관계
  2. 콘텐츠산업 진흥법 및 문화산업진흥 기본법과 개별법과의 상호 관계
  3. 법률적용 관계 정리
 III. 각 정부부처 간 문화콘텐츠 관련 법체계 및 업무 관계 정립문제
  1. 문화부와 미래부의 법체계 및 업무분장 문제
  2. 문화부, 방통위, 미래부의 법체계 및 업무중복 문제
  3. 문화부와 국가지식재산위원회와의 법체계 및 업무조정 문제
 IV. 결론
 참고문헌
 

키워드

저자

• 조용순 [ Cho, Yong-Soon | 한북대학교 특허법률학과 조교수 ]

참고문헌

발행기관

간행물

표지보기 관심저널 등록

• 간행물명

  산업재산권 [Journal of Industrial Property]

• 간기

  계간

• pISSN

  1598-6055

• eISSN

  2733-9483

• 수록기간

  1995~2025

• 등재여부

  KCI 등재

• 십진분류

  KDC 367 DDC 346