(a) Party Represented by Barun Law: We represented a film product company ("film production company B")

(b) Background of the Case: After joining film production company B, writer A proposed turning a short synopsis he had written before joining the company into a feature-length film. The company accepted this proposal and supervised writer A in drafting a feature-length synopsis based on the short synopsis. Under the company's supervision, writer A made multiple drafts (first, fifth, ..., tenth) for a feature-length film. However, writer A left the company shortly before the filming began. The company completed the film C based on the eleventh draft created after A’s departure.

As the release of film C approached, writer A did not file for a provisional injunction to ban the screening of the movie but maintained that film production company B was infringing his copyright by releasing film C. Consequently, copyright issues arose regarding film C and the eleventh draft, and company B sought to resolve this legal uncertainty.

On September 26, 2024, the Seoul Central District Court ruled that: (1) the eleventh draft and film C do not infringe the copyright of the short synopsis (reason being that film C, the eleventh draft, and the feature synopsis are separate works from the short synopsis), and (2) the eleventh draft and film C do not infringe the copyright of the feature synopsis either (reason being that A had granted a license to create a derivative work of the feature synopsis).

If A had filed for a provisional injunction to ban the screening against company B, B could have easily won and avoided an uncertain situation. However, A did not file for an injunction but continued actions that caused company B to feel uncertain about the release of film C.

In response, we filed a lawsuit on behalf of company B against A to confirm the non-existence of copyright infringement. we explained the sequential connection of "short synopsis > feature synopsis > eleventh draft > film C" using legal principles related to derivative works, works made for hire, and the licensing of works, thereby proving that company B did not infringe the copyright of either the short synopsis or the feature synopsis.

Thanks to our efforts, even though this was not an injunction case, company B was able to promptly resolve its legal concerns regarding copyright before the release of film C.

- Attorneys involved: Jung Young-Hun and Lee Su-Jin