"Requested Netflix Profits" Claim Rejected Again as Writer of "Strange Lawyer Woo Young-woo" Loses Appeal

Court: "OTT Transmission Is Not a Separate Use"

Production Company Prevails in Both Trials; Writer’s Side Loses

The court has ruled in favor of the production company in the copyright dispute surrounding the drama "Strange Lawyer Woo Young-woo." The decision was based on the judgment that its release on Netflix cannot be considered a separate secondary use.

Strange Lawyer Woo Young-woo Poster. AStory

In the lawsuit filed by the writer of the drama "Strange Lawyer Woo Young-woo," which achieved great popularity after being simultaneously broadcast on both the ENA channel and Netflix in 2022, the writer’s side lost in both the first and second trials.

According to Yonhap News, on April 1, the Seoul High Court’s Civil Division 4 (Presiding Judge Kim Woojin) dismissed the appeal filed by the Korea Broadcasting Writers Association against the production company AStory in the monetary lawsuit. The Korea Broadcasting Writers Association participated in the lawsuit after receiving a trust over the script property rights from writer A.

This case originated from a scriptwriting contract that writer A signed in 2019. The writer's side argued that, since the contract was based on “broadcast through a broadcasting company,” the subsequent airing on Netflix constituted a secondary use of the work and therefore demanded additional compensation and delayed damages.

However, in April of last year, the Seoul Western District Court in the first trial did not accept this argument. The court found it difficult to regard transmission via OTT as a separate act of secondary use. It specifically stated, "By the end of 2019, when the writing contract was signed, it can be seen that broadcasting a drama not only through broadcasters but also through OTT service providers had become a common practice," concluding that it was natural to interpret the contract as encompassing both broadcasting and online transmission.

The fact that the drama was released simultaneously on both ENA and Netflix on the same day was also cited as a basis. Since the OTT and broadcast releases were conducted in parallel, the court found it difficult to separate them as distinct uses.

In the second trial as well, the court dismissed the association’s appeal, affirming the original judgment. The court determined that even if some parts of the contract only mentioned “broadcast” or were written based on broadcast standards, it is difficult to conclude that the overall structure excluded OTT transmission. The fact that the standard contracts at the time did not sufficiently reflect the OTT environment was also taken into consideration.

The court further mentioned that the contract limited the scope of secondary use to matters such as producing additional seasons or remakes, and stated, “There is room to believe that the defendant (the production company) regarded transmission via OTT service providers as a form of use under the writing contract and did not intend to treat it as a secondary use.” Taking these points into account, the court concluded that the plaintiff’s claim alone was insufficient to determine that the contract’s purpose was limited solely to broadcast, and accordingly, dismissed the appeal.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.