"Return the Rights or Exercise Them": Nine Years Later, Copyright Fee of 12.1 Million Won Imposed on Chun Family's Catalog

Copyright Held by Seoul Metropolitan Government, Overseas Publishing by Family Foundation
Chun Kyungja’s Legacy Divided in Two
City: "1,000 Copies Sold After Non-sale Approval"... Foundation: "Public Project With No Profit"
Warhol and Picasso Have Centralized Permission Channels... In Korea, Copyright Fees Clash After Publication

Nine years ago, the family of the late artist Kyungja Chun demanded, "If you’re not going to exercise copyright, return it to us." Now, the Seoul Metropolitan Government has sent Chun's family a bill for 12.1 million won. This is the copyright fee for the Korean-English catalog featuring around 160 works by Chun, which has been released to the global market.

Visitors are examining Cheon Kyungja's 1978 work, "Soul Flowing with Tango." Photo by Yonhap News

According to the art community on July 14, the Seoul Metropolitan Government recently imposed a 12.1 million won copyright usage fee on the Chun Kyungja Foundation, representing Chun's family, for the production of the catalog "Kyungja Chun: A Brilliant Legend," created in collaboration with Italian art publisher Skira. The foundation argued that it was a "public-interest publication to promote a Korean artist to the world," while the city countered that "the fee was only charged according to regulations for the quantity sold by the private publisher, not for non-commercial distribution."

The catalog is a monograph containing Chun's works, drawings, writings, and documentary photos. The official Skira sale price is 59 euros. The foundation stated that it had been selected for the Arts Management Support Center’s overseas publishing support program and received a 50 million won grant, distributing a significant portion of the catalog free of charge to overseas museums and libraries. It also emphasized that the foundation does not directly receive sales profits.

Cheon Kyungja catalog currently available for pre-order on Amazon. Amazon website

Seoul City: "Non-sale application"... Foundation: "Sales are a means of globalization"

The Seoul Metropolitan Government explained that in September last year, the foundation applied for 2,000 copies of the catalog as "non-sale items for nonprofit purposes" and received permission for free use. However, according to the Skira contract obtained by the city, 1,000 copies were designated for sale by the publisher and the remaining 1,000 for the foundation’s use. The city stated that it maintained free authorization for the copies distributed by the foundation and imposed the usage fee only on the portion for sale.

The 12.1 million won fee is not a royalty based on sales or profits. The Seoul Metropolitan Government applied a fee of 75,000 won per each of the 160 works featured in the book, and 100,000 won for the cover artwork. The calculation was based solely on the number of included works, regardless of how many copies were sold.

The city also revealed that, prior to receiving copyright use approval, the foundation signed a production and distribution contract with Skira in July 2024. Instead of designating the Seoul Metropolitan Government as the copyright holder in the catalog, a statement was included indicating that all content and image rights belonged to the foundation. The city claims it ordered this to be revised in March. The foundation, arguing that the city's fee is unfair, plans to pursue dispute mediation with the Korea Copyright Commission.

The foundation’s explanation of public interest and the issue of copyright are separate matters. In international publishing, "copyright clearance"—securing permission for use of artwork images before publication—is a basic procedure. The foundation was aware that the Seoul Metropolitan Government is the copyright holder. In fact, the foundation’s website has continually stated that image copyrights for Chun Kyungja’s works belong to the city. If the foundation failed to clarify the scope of licensing and copyright statements in advance while producing a catalog for sale with a global publisher, this is a practical oversight that cannot be justified solely by the goal of globalization.

On the afternoon of the 27th at 2 PM, Namhoon Lee, the eldest son of the late artist Kyungja Chun, Junghee Kim, the second daughter, her husband Beomgang Moon, and Jaeran Seo, the widow of the late second son Jongwoo Kim (from left), are holding a press conference in the seminar room on the first basement floor of the Seo-Seoul Museum of Art in Seosomun-dong, Seoul.

In 2017: "Return the rights if you don’t exercise them"

This conflict did not begin with the current catalog. When Chun donated her works in 1998, she transferred the copyrights of her artworks to the Seoul Metropolitan Government. In 2014, the city promoted copyright registration for the donated works, explaining it was "a measure to prevent excessive commercial use." At the time, there were criticisms that this went against the original intent of sharing publicly held works with citizens.

In 2017, amid controversy over the exhibition of "Beautiful Woman," the family sent a public inquiry to the city, demanding that if the city had no intent to uphold the artist's wishes as copyright holder, the rights should be returned to the family. The city refused, stating, "We have no intention of relinquishing copyright."

Since then, legal copyright has remained with the Seoul Metropolitan Government, while artist research, memorial projects, and overseas publishing have been managed by the family’s foundation. Thus, the entity exercising copyright and the one promoting the legacy of "Kyungja Chun" have been separate. The current catalog exemplifies how this dual structure has led to conflict during international distribution.

Major international artist foundations and art museums manage original copyright and image usage conditions separately. Picasso and Andy Warhol require prior permission for publication and commercial use, while even public domain artists such as Munch, Van Gogh, and Matisse have separate usage conditions applied to images provided by museums.

Abroad, "permission channels" are set before book production

The Andy Warhol Foundation manages the copyrights of Warhol’s lifetime works as well as trademarks for his name and signature. To use his works in books, magazines, films, or websites, users must obtain permission through ARS in the U.S., DACS in the UK, or ADAGP in France. Revenue from commercial licenses is incorporated into the foundation’s funds and used to support artists and nonprofit art organizations. The processes of exercising rights, artist research and promotion, and public reinvestment of profits are all managed under a single organization.

For Picasso's works, prior written approval from the Picasso Administration is required for both commercial and non-commercial use. The Administration, representing the heirs, handles permissions, contracts, proofing, and billing. When publishing the works, a copyright notice of "? Succession Picasso" is also required. This structure clearly separates the institution holding the original and the entity with reproduction rights.

Van Gogh is an artist whose copyright protection period has expired. Nevertheless, the Van Gogh Museum distinguishes between the original copyright and the usage conditions for digital images provided by the museum. Images are provided free of charge for research, personal study, and nonprofit publishing, but commercial and corporate use requires a separate application. Even for masters whose copyrights have expired, image provision and paid use are handled through separate agreements.

These international cases do not immediately justify either the city’s fee or the foundation’s exemption request. However, there is a clear difference: before publishing a book, publishers abroad determine who grants permission, for which uses fees are charged, and how the revenue will be used.

The foundation plans to seek dispute mediation, while the city maintains its stance on charging for copies sold. The copyright, which the family requested to be returned in 2017 if not exercised, is now being enforced by the city against the foundation’s catalog nine years later.

A copyright expert in the art world commented, "Major international artist foundations coordinate copyright enforcement, academic use, and international publishing through a single channel. In the Chun Kyungja case, the copyright holder is the Seoul Metropolitan Government, but research and overseas publishing are handled by the foundation, and the lack of prior consultation rules led to this dispute." The expert added, "The real issue is not whether 12.1 million won is too much or too little, but who will manage and utilize the legacy of a Korean master, and by what standards."

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