D&A LLC represented domestic golf course design firms in a copyright infringement action against Golfzon, in which the Supreme Court ultimately rendered a reversal and remand decision addressing for the first time in Korea the issue of creativity in golf course designs under the Copyright Act.

The plaintiffs designed golf courses under contracts with golf course owners, while the defendants operated a screen golf business by producing and running simulation videos reproducing the actual appearance of the golf courses pursuant to usage agreements with the relevant golf courses. The plaintiffs sought an injunction and damages, alleging infringement of copyright in the golf courses, including reproduction rights and the right to create derivative works.

The key issue in this case was whether golf courses possess sufficient creativity to qualify as “works” protected under the Copyright Act.

The trial court recognized copyright protection, holding that a golf course constitutes an “architectural work” reflecting the designer’s creative individuality. However, the appellate court denied originality, finding that a golf course is merely a functional product shaped by game rules, international standards, and topographical constraints.

D&A argued that golf course design is not merely a functional outcome, but a field in which creative individuality is realized through the selection, arrangement, and combination of design elements. The firm supported its position by reviewing domestic and international case law and legal doctrine. Furthermore, by analyzing routing plans, hole layouts, and landscape design elements, the firm demonstrated the unique characteristics of each course.

As a result, the Supreme Court accepted these arguments, holding that although golf course design involves functional constraints, such constraints do not automatically preclude creativity. The court also found that a golf course may be protected as a copyrighted work, where it reflects creative individuality through the selection, arrangement, and combination of its elements. Finding that the lower court failed to examine these principles properly, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case. 

This decision is significant in that it clarifies that even works with strong functional elements, such as golf course designs, may be protected under the Copyright Act where creative choices and combinations are reflected.

Notably, as the screen golf industry increasingly faces the possibility that authorization from copyright holders will be required to reproduce actual golf courses, this ruling is expected to bring significant changes to the relevant licensing framework. Furthermore, it is likely to serve as an important precedent in disputes involving similar fields, such as architectural works and landscape design.

Related Article: [The Asia Business Daily] “First Recognition of Creative Nature in Golf Course Copyright”… D&A Secures Supreme Court Remand