Copyright Law Should Not Be Used to Criminalize Political Satire
Misusing copyright claims to punish protected expression undermines freedom of expression.
Freedom of expression enjoys the highest level of constitutional protection when it comes to political satire and parody. Against this backdrop, the recent police decision to arrest a user for posting a satirical image combining a YTN news image and caption on charges of obstruction of business and copyright infringement is deeply troubling. Equally concerning is YTN's decision to characterize the image as "fake news," as such reporting by a media outlet that is itself an interested party risks legitimizing criminal punishment for protected expression.
The image at issue combined footage of the South Korean and Japanese leaders playing drums together with an authentic YTN caption concerning former President Yoon Suk Yeol. Both the image and the caption were taken from genuine YTN broadcasts; they were simply broadcast at different times and later recombined into a satirical image. It is therefore difficult to characterize the image as a conventional example of false factual assertions or disinformation.
Rather, the image can reasonably be understood as political satire highlighting the irony between "former President Yoon Suk Yeol facing a prosecution request for the death penalty" and "President Lee Jaemyung playing drums alongside the Japanese prime minister." Juxtaposing separate factual events to convey political meaning is a well-established technique in both journalism and political satire. Although some politicians or their supporters may find such expression offensive, offense alone cannot justify criminal punishment.
More importantly, it remains unclear what actual social harm this satirical image caused. Criminal sanctions against speech should remain a measure of last resort, reserved for cases involving substantial harm to the rights of others or other legally protected interests. Even if some viewers mistakenly believed that the image reflected an actual YTN broadcast, neither the police nor YTN has identified any concrete social disruption or legally cognizable harm resulting from that misunderstanding. The mere possibility of confusion cannot by itself justify criminal prosecution.
The most troubling aspect of this case is the apparent misuse of copyright law. Korean copyright law does not criminalize every alteration of a copyrighted work. The Supreme Court has made clear that criminal liability for infringement of the author's right of integrity arises only where the alteration poses a risk of damaging the copyright holder's social reputation (Supreme Court Decision 2020Do10180, Nov. 30, 2023). Mere modification or editing is insufficient; the alteration must objectively threaten the author's public reputation.
That standard is plainly not satisfied here. The satirical image targeted a political situation rather than YTN itself, and it is difficult to conclude that it was intended or likely to harm YTN's character, credibility, or social reputation. Moreover, Articles 28 and 35-5 of the Korean Copyright Act expressly recognize quotation and fair use for criticism, satire, and parody. Transforming an original work is often an essential feature of parody. If modifying copyrighted material alone could trigger criminal liability, meaningful political satire would become nearly impossible, and the Copyright Act's protections for quotation and fair use would be substantially undermined.
The obstruction of business charge is equally difficult to justify. That offense exists to protect the actual performance of another's business activities. Yet nothing suggests that YTN's broadcasting, reporting, or news production was materially disrupted by the circulation of this satirical image. Its broadcasts were not interrupted, nor were its journalistic activities impaired. Expanding the offense to cover speculative concerns about a media outlet's reputation risks transforming obstruction of business into a tool for suppressing criticism rather than protecting legitimate business operations.
Indeed, borrowing and modifying the format or appearance of news reports to communicate political messages has long been a recognized form of satire. Parodies of newspaper front pages and television news graphics are common around the world. If such expression could be treated as criminal obstruction of business simply because it incorporates elements of a news organization's presentation, political commentary and satire that draw upon journalistic materials would inevitably be chilled.
YTN's decision to frame the incident as a "fake news" case is also problematic. Labeling the image as "fake news" lends rhetorical support to criminal enforcement based on a copyright claim. YTN may have intended the phrase merely to describe an image designed to resemble a genuine news report. However, in South Korea the term "fake news" has increasingly become a powerful political label used to justify public condemnation and government regulation. If satirical works that do not constitute disinformation are nevertheless treated as "fake news," political parody, memes, and other forms of satirical expression will inevitably be chilled. Characterizing an alleged copyright infringement as a "fake news" offense risks legitimizing copyright law as an indirect means of restricting protected expression.
It is also significant that YTN was not merely reporting on this case. As the party claiming to be the victim of copyright infringement, it was itself directly involved in initiating the criminal investigation. Reporting on the case in a manner that emphasizes the need for criminal punishment raises legitimate questions regarding journalistic fairness and conflicts of interest. It is therefore appropriate to consider whether such reporting is consistent with the fairness requirements imposed on broadcasters under Article 9(4) of the Broadcasting Act.
This is not the first attempt to use copyright law against political satire. In a previous case, the government-operated broadcaster KTV filed a criminal complaint alleging copyright infringement against a musician who produced a satirical video about former President Yoon Suk Yeol after defamation and insult charges were unavailable. Such cases reveal a recurring pattern in which public institutions or media organizations invoke copyright law to suppress criticism or satire when direct restrictions on expression are legally unavailable.
Concerns about disinformation cannot justify treating every edited image or satirical work as criminal "fake news." A democratic society protects freedom of expression precisely because it tolerates speech that may be exaggerated, provocative, or even capable of causing misunderstanding. This case should serve as another reminder that neither copyright law nor criminal law should become instruments for chilling political satire.
Open Net calls on the police to refrain from applying copyright law and obstruction of business charges in ways that unduly restrict freedom of expression. Media organizations should likewise refrain from casually labeling political satire as "fake news" in ways that legitimize criminal punishment. Copyright law exists to protect creative works—not to serve as a backdoor mechanism for suppressing criticism and political satire.
0 Comments