Can't use Lotte Tower, so using Namsan Tower?"... The copyright controversy over buildings that fueled the popularity of Netflix's top show "K-Pop Demon Hunters

Table of Contents

The animated series "K-Pop Demon Hunters," which has become a global sensation after topping Netflix charts, has received praise for its high level of understanding of K-Pop idols, fandoms, and Korean culture as a whole. The addictive OST is an added bonus. This work, which topped the movie charts in 41 countries including the United States, unexpectedly sparked controversy over an unfamiliar term: 'architectural copyright.'

The incident began with a message posted by the art director of the work on their personal social media account. "Fortunately, we obtained the copyright permission for Namsan Tower, making it a million times easier... Watching you, Lotte Tower?" The message was interpreted as meaning that while they had planned to feature the Lotte World Tower in the work, they couldn't resolve the copyright issues and thus changed it to Namsan Seoul Tower (the art director's account is currently suspended).

This post has spread online, eliciting various responses. In addition to reactions like 'Lottemart doesn’t have a feel for global hits,' there were also analyses such as 'It was probably described like the Tower of Orthanc, so they couldn’t help but refuse.' In the story, Namsan Seoul Tower is depicted as a major battleground for the demons.

However, it was revealed that this was not true upon verification. According to an official from Lotte E&C, which owns the Lotte World Tower, "We have never received any inquiries regarding the work, nor have we restricted the use of the video on the grounds of copyright." Instead, they stated, "In cases where requests for filming video content or using computer graphics are made, we cooperate without any particular restrictions, and in the case of unauthorized use, we do not consider it a problem unless it is for commercial purposes."

Although it was closer to a mishap, this incident sparked interest in the 'copyright of architectural works,' which was unfamiliar to the general public. The copyright of architectural works is strictly protected by law. The Copyright Act specifies 'buildings and models or design documents for buildings' as architectural works. This means that not only the building itself but also its designs and models can be subject to copyright protection. However, not all buildings receive such protection. There must be 'originality' beyond mere functionality.

According to the legal community, ordinary apartments or houses are repetitive structures focused on functionality, making it difficult for them to receive protection. In contrast, buildings such as the Lotte World Tower, 63 Building, Sebitddungddung Island, and Namsan Seoul Tower, which have unique designs and architectures, can be recognized for their creativity. Indoor architecture, pavilions, exhibition halls, and temporary structures can also become protected if they showcase originality.

Copyright law expert Oh Seung-jong, an advisor to Bit Law Firm, stated, "The determination of copyright infringement is based on the 'substantial similarity' standard. This means that the copied work must retain the essential characteristics of the original piece, which should be recognizable by the general audience. If one can immediately identify it as 'representing Namsan Seoul Tower' without any additional explanation, then it would be considered substantially similar."

A ruling was made two years ago demonstrating that the concept of copyright in architectural works does not just appear in legal texts. This case involved the well-known cafe 'Wave On Coffee' in Gunji, Busan. The cafe, which had gained popularity due to its unique design, filed a lawsuit claiming that "a cafe in Ulsan had imitated the design of our building."

In 2023, the court ordered the Ulsan cafe to pay compensation and issued a demolition order. This was the first time in a domestic architectural copyright lawsuit that a 'demolition order' had been issued. This ruling is considered a turning point in the recognition of architectural copyrights in Korea.

Then would it also be an issue to feature buildings in movies or animations? It depends on the case. Copyright law allows for free use of 'works that are permanently exhibited in open places,' and this includes architectural works.

The N Seoul Tower, which is open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, is an architectural structure that can generally be reproduced in the form of drawings or photographs for use, in principle. However, there are conditions. It is not allowed for sales purposes, and 'identical reproduction' is also not permitted. That is, legally, one should not sell photos taken of the Namsan Seoul Tower without permission, and one should not create buildings identical to it either, as seen in the Busan cafe case mentioned earlier.

There is an exception here as well. Capturing the panoramic view of Namsan while naturally including Namsan Seoul Tower in the background is allowed as "incidental use." Attorney Go explained, "Incidental use refers to a case where an architectural structure inadvertently appears in the background while shooting with another subject as the main focus." He further clarified, "When you go to Namsan for a commemorative photo, Namsan Tower can appear in the background, just like how when you take a photo at Gwanghwamun, Yi Sun-sin's statue can appear behind you."

The issue arises when architectural works become central to the subject matter of a piece. In "Gangnam Kitchen," the Namsan Seoul Tower does not merely serve as a backdrop but becomes a significant stage for the main activities of the characters, occupying a considerable portion of the content. Legal experts opine that this cannot be considered incidental use.

A recent legal dispute almost arose over the copyright of a building featured in a video. A company had used an image of a Starbucks store building without permission in a video advertisement, and the architect raised an issue with this. Although the case nearly went to legal dispute, it was resolved through mutual agreement between both parties. The company compensated the architect for the unauthorized use along with usage fees.

The representative of Kim Kyeong-Hoon Hsplan Architect Firm, who designed the Starbucks store building, said, "In Korea, due to low awareness of copyright on architectural works, there are still cases where designs are used without much thought. When accidents occur due to carelessness without malice, through appropriate compensation and agreements, we can gradually expand awareness of copyright," he said.

In fact, there has been a lack of awareness regarding architectural copyright in domestic settings. The idea that 'buildings are also art' was unfamiliar, and related legal disputes were rare. However, as seen in previous cases, with an increase in legal disputes recently, recognition is gradually being established.

However, there are still many tasks to be resolved in the field of copyright for architectural works. The biggest issue is that the criterion for 'substantial similarity' is uncertain. Attorney Oh stated, "Since the criteria for creativity are unclear, careful legal review is essential to protect the rights of architects and prevent copyright infringement."

In today's world where K-content is receiving global attention, architectural copyrights are gradually becoming an important issue. This is due to the frequent appearance of unique Korean architectural works in dramas, movies, and animations, which also increases the likelihood of related disputes.

The 'K-Pop Demon Hunters' incident, although a misunderstanding, has served as an opportunity to raise social awareness and the need for institutional improvements regarding architectural copyright. It is now crucial that we recognize each building we see every day could be a creation deserving protection as an artistic work.