Korean Law Demystified!

Personality Rights under Korean Law

0013

In Korea, it is generally understood that Articles 10 and 17 of the Korean Constitution (대한민국헌법) guarantee an individual’s so-called personality rights (초상권).

Article 10 deals with “the right to human worth and dignity + the right to pursue happiness,” while Article 17 deals with “the right/freedom to privacy.”

Personality rights can essentially be broken down into:

1) Right to Privacy (프라이버시권), and

2) Right of Publicity (퍼블리시티권).


<Right to Privacy>

1. It is the right to be left alone and not have one’s likeness (e.g., face, body part) represented publicly without permission.

2. The “face” or “body part” must be attributable to a specific person. In other words, the pictured/photographed face or body part must be recognizable/identifiable. Permission, meanwhile, can be presumed. For instance, deliberately walking into an area where one should have known a TV show was being shot.

3. Infringement can occur either by: a) Taking pictures/photos without permission, or b) Making public such pictures/photos without permission.

4. Factors for Consideration: a) Did the person pictured/photographed give permission? (express or implied) + b) Did picture/photo single out the person? (vs. merely part of the background) + c) Was the person pictured/photographed in an objectively unfavorable light? (i.e., a reasonable person would feel humiliation) + d) Is the person a public figure? If so, was the picture/photo taken in a public place? + e) Finally, does the picture/photo serve a public purpose?

5. Infringement is not a crime. It is a civil matter. The infringer could face tort liability. Sometimes, infringers “get away” because the pictured/photographed person was: a) unaware of the infringement, or b) aware but could not be bothered.


<Right of Publicity>

1. It is the right to keep one’s image/likeness from being commercially exploited without permission.

2. Unlike “right to privacy,” this right is more of a “property right.”

3. Most often, public figures such as celebrities decide to seek legal remedy for infringement.

4. Factors for Consideration: a) Did the person pictured/photographed give permission? (express or implied) + b) Was the photo/picture used commercially (e.g., to promote one’s business)?

5. Infringement is not a crime. It is a civil matter. The infringer could face tort liability. Sometimes, infringers “get away” because the pictured/photographed person was: a) unaware of the infringement, or b) aware but could not be bothered.


<Food for Thought>

1. CCTV (Closed-circuit television): In Korea, CCTVs set up in public places for purposes of facility safety and/or fire and crime prevention are allowed. But, the issue of legality is not always crystal clear. Abuse can make such use illegal. Also, it’s generally a good idea to inform the public that they are being recorded, etc.

2. Google Glass: In my opinion, the use of such glasses (in Korea) is highly likely to infringe upon a person’s “right to privacy” under Korean law. The question is how to monitor such monitoring. Of course, changing the current interpretation of the law is also an option.

Thanks for reading!

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: