검색창

Menu

Read Next 서울에서 마주한 맥스

가나다순보기

Music Features

HOME Music Features

2021-03-01

음악이 자산이 된다

By. 조채영

//www.youtube.com/embed/?wmode=opaque&rel=0&loop=0&autoplay=0

요즘처럼 모두가 힘든 시기에 솔깃하지 않을 수 없는 광고문구다. 음악저작권사용료의 지분을 공유해 저작권사용료를 분배받는 형태의 플랫폼 이야기다. 아직 생소한 개념이지만 이미 2017년 7월에 서비스가 시작됐고 현재 700여곡이 거래됐다고 한다. 이름만 들으면 알만한 유명 음악인들이 참여하고 23만 여명이 이용하고 있으며 연 7.4%의 수익률을 올리고 있다는 수많은 기사들을 읽으면, 당장 시작해야 할 것 같은 기분이 든다. 일반인들이 내가 좋아하는 음악의 저작권사용료를 받을 수 있다니 어떻게 이런 사업이 가능한 것일까. 공개된 정보에 의하면, 플랫폼 업체가 저작권자로부터 저작권을 양도받은 후 온라인 경매를 통해 일반인들에게 지분을 공유하고, 음원이 소비되면서 발생하는 저작권사용료를 지분률에 따라 분배하는 구조다. 언뜻보면 쉽게 이해할 수 있을 것 같지만, 이 한문장 속에 이해해야 할 저작권 개념이 세 가지 이상 발생한다. 적어도 누가 저작권자인지, 저작권을 양도하는 것은 어떤 의미인지, 음원의 저작권사용료는 얼마나, 어떻게 발생하는지 정도는 정확히 이해한 다음 투자할만한 가치가 있는지 정확히 판단할 수 있을 것이다.

저작권사용료 공유 플랫폼을 설명하는 기사들이 '팬덤의 진화'를 언급하며 저작권사용료 지분을 공유해 아티스트를 응원하라거나 아티스트와 팬이 저작권사용료를 공유하며 더욱 친밀한 관계를 형성한다는 설명을 덧붙였다. 좋아하는 아티스트의 음악 저작권사용료를 공유하면 해당 아티스트에게 큰 도움이 된다고 생각할 수 있다. 여기서 말하는 '도움'이 어떤 식으로든, 어느 정도든, 아무튼 뭔가 도움이 된다는 차원에서 이해하면 말이 안되는 건 아니지만, '금전적 이익'을 의미한다면 다르다. 업체의 실제 계약 내용과 별도로 단순 이론상, 팬들이 음악 저작권에 투자한다고 해서 가수에게 직접적으로 금전적 이익이 발생하지는 않는다. 저작권자는 가수가 아니라 작사, 작곡가이기 때문이다. 저작권은 창작을 한 사람에게만 발생한다. 음원의 창작자는 작사, 작곡가이고 가수는 창작된 악곡을 가창 한 '실연자'이다. 작사, 작곡을 직접 하는 싱어송라이터라면 저작권사용료를 분배받지만, 가창만 한 가수는 저작권자가 아니기 때문에 저작권사용료 또한 발생하지 않는다. 그렇다고 가수와 팬들이 너무 서운해할 필요는 없다. 가수는 실연자로서 '저작인접권'을 가진다. 저작권과 저작인접권은 유사하지만 다른 개념이기 때문에 사용료가 발생하는 경우 또한 동일하지 않다. 예를 들어 BTS의 'Dynamite' 음원이 라디오 방송에서 사용되면, 창작자에게 저작권사용료도 발생하고 실연자의 저작인접권 사용료도 발생한다. 악곡도 사용되고 가창도 사용됐기 때문이다. 그러나 노래방에서 'Dynamite'를 반주에 맞춰 부른다면 실연자인 BTS에게 저작인접권사용료는 발생하지 않는다. 저작인접권은 저작권보다 제한적으로 인정된다는 점을 기억할 필요가 있다.

저작권사용료 공유 플랫폼은 저작권자로부터 저작권을 양도받은 후 주식의 형태와 같이 저작권사용료를 받을 수 있는 지분을 나누어 일반인들과 공유한다. 저작권자가 저작권 양도계약서에 서명을 한 순간부터 저작권자는 플랫폼 업체가 된다. 다양한 형태의 저작권 계약관계가 존재하기 때문에 저작권자가 저작권을 전부 양도하지 않는다고해서 서비스가 불가능한 것은 아니겠지만, 플랫폼 업체가 저작권자가 아니라면 매 순간 저작권자로부터 확인을 받으며 제한된 권한만 가지고 사업을 영위해야 할 뿐만 아니라 잠재적인 침해의 위험성까지 감수해야 한다. 이용자는 저작권자가 허락한 범위 내에서만 저작물을 이용할 수 있는데, 사전에 이용허락을 받았더라도 사용범위가 어디까지인지 이용자와 저작권자의 생각이 언제나 일치하지는 않기 때문이다. 저작권 관련 서비스를 제공하는 업체의 입장에서는 저작권을 전부 양도받은 후 다양한 서비스를 자유롭게 제공하는 것이 무엇보다 중요하다.

저작권 양도의 필요성이 이해가 된다면, 잠깐 다른 사건을 떠올려보자. '구름빵'이라는 단어를 떠올리면 어쩐지 안쓰럽고 안타까운 기분이 든다면, 이 사건에서 무엇때문에 분노했는지 생각해볼 필요가 있다. 저작권 양도계약의 불공정성 때문이다. 이상문학상 사건에서도 저작권 양도 조항이 문제가 되어 수상 거부 사태가 일어났다. 일련의 사건을 거치면서 많은 창작들에게 저작권을 양도하면 큰일난다는 인식이 커진 것 같다. 말했듯이 저작권을 양도하면 더이상 저작권자로서 권리를 행사할 수 없기 때문에 어떤 조건으로 어떤 권리를 양도하는지 꼼꼼하게 살펴보지 않으면, '사건'이 발생한 후 계약 내용을 잘 몰랐다거나 부당하다고 주장하기 어렵다. 저작권 양도계약은 그 자체로 '적폐'가 아니라, 어떤 권리를 어떤 방식으로 양도하는지 양 당사자가 정확히 인식하는 것이 중요하다. 저작권자는 수익을 위해 저작권 양도계약을 적극적으로 활용할 수 있다. 여기서 잠깐. 지금 말하는 저작권은 정확히 말하면 '저작재산권'이다. 저작권은 저작재산권과 저작인격권으로 구성되는데 저작재산권만 양도가 가능하다. '인격'이라는 단어에서 느껴지듯이 저작인격권은 계약에 의해 양도할 수 없다. '저작권 양도계약서'에 서명을 했더라도 여전히 저작인격권은 창작자에게 남아있다. 

지금 이 글을 읽고 “당장 이 서비스에 가입해서 나도 저작권자가 될거야”라고 생각한다면, 양해를 구한다. 중요한 설명이 빠졌다. 저작권 양도계약은 저작권자와 플랫폼 사업자와의 관계에만 적용된다. 이 서비스 가입자들은 저작권을 양도받는 것이 아니라 저작권사용료를 분배받을 수 있는 지분을 가질 뿐이다. 업체는 이용자가 '저작권'이 아닌 '저작권사용료 수익을 얻을 수 있는 권리'를 공유한다고 명시하고 있다. 이용자는 수익을 분배받을 수 있지만 저작권자로서 권리를 행사할 수 없다. 쉽게 생각해서 자유로운 영업 활동을 위해 저작권자로부터 저작권을 양도받은 업체가 다시 다수에게 저작권을 공유하는 것은 이상하지 않은가.  

동학개미에 힘입어 코스피가 3100선까지 뛰어오르고 밀레니얼 세대를 '신 투자 인류의 출현'으로 설명하기도 한다. 투자처를 찾고 있는 수많은 신인류들이 음악저작권사용료 공유 서비스에 가장 궁금해할 질문은, 그래서 얼마를 벌 수 있느냐 일 것이다. 거듭 미안하지만 이 질문의 정답을 아는 사람은 없을 것이다. 다만 수익발생의 매커니즘을 파악하면 각자 나름대로 투자 계획을 세울 수 있을 것이다. 저작권사용료는 말 그대로 저작물이 사용될 때마다 발생한다. 음악저작권사용료는 음반이 팔릴 때, 공연을 할 때, 음원을 다운로드 하거나 스트리밍 서비스를 이용할 때, 음원이 방송에서 사용될 때, 영화에 삽입됐을 때, 악보를 인쇄할 때, 노래방에서 불릴 때, 스포츠 경기장 · 백화점 · 대형마트 또는 일정 크기 이상의 헬스장 · 카페 · 술집 등에서 음원을 사용할 때 등등 다양하게 발생한다. 음반은 출고가의 9% 정도, 음악콘서트는 매출액의 3% 정도를 징수하는 등 이용형태에 따라 저작권사용료 징수액이 다르다는 점도 참고해야 한다. 자연스럽게 음원이 사용되지 않으면 저작권사용료는 발생하지 않는다는 것도 알 수 있을 것이다. 

저작권에 대한 궁금증은 대부분 저작권으로 돈을 벌 수 있는지, 얼마를 벌 수 있는지에 초점이 맞춰져 있다. 언론에서도 저작권 수익 톱 5가 누구인지에 대한 기사를 잊지 않고 내보낸다. 저작권은 저작권자의 사후 70년까지 인정되기 때문에 하나의 똘똘한 저작물만 있으면 자자손손 먹고 살 수 있다는 부러움도 산다. 그러나 몇년 전 한 업체의 25주간 음악차트 분석 결과 주간 차트에서 3주 이상 1위를 계속 한 사례가 단 한 건도 없었다는 점을 떠올리면, 내가 선택한 음원이 지속적으로 안정적인 수익을 발생시킬 것인지 잘 따져볼 필요가 있다. 마지막으로 당부하고 싶은 말은, 이 글을 읽고 새로운 서비스에 대한 배타적 감정이나 불만이 가득한 누군가의 악담이라고 생각하지 않기를. 음악을 자산으로만 보지는 않기를.

조채영 / 연세대학교 법학전문대학원 연구교수
(*이 글은 공개된 정보에 의해서만 작성했기 때문에 실제 계약관계나 서비스 제공 매커니즘은 다를 수 있다는 점을 밝힌다.)



"Music becomes an asset."

During these times of hardship, this new concept is an attractive investment for many. This article explains the platform in which copyright usage fees are distributed by sharing a percentage of music copyright usage fees.  Although it is still a relatively unfamiliar concept, the service has been available since July 2017. Since its inception, more than 700 songs have been traded. Reading numerous articles about the participation of famous well-known musicians, the 230,000 users, and earnings of 7.4% a year, I feel like jumping on board. How can such a business model be even possible where ordinary people can receive copyright fees from their favorite music? According to the information that has been released, the platform company offers its shares to the public through an online auction after receiving rights from the copyright holder. Then, according to the share rates, fees are paid based on the usage of the music. Initially, the concept may seem easy to understand. But it is a bit more complex as there are more than three concepts related to copyright that one needs to understand. It is important to understand who is the copyright holder, what it means to transfer copyright, and how much copyright fees for sound sources are incurred. From there, one needs to determine whether it is worth the investment.

Articles explaining the copyright royalty sharing platforms mention “the evolution of the fandom,'” adding that distributing shares of the copyright payments to support artists, or artists and fans sharing copyright fees form closer relationships. Sharing music copyright fees can also help support for your favorite artists.  Apart from the company's actual contract details,  investments by fans in music copyright do not directly generate monetary profits for the singer. This is because the copyright holder is not a singer but a lyricist and composer. Copyrights belong only to those who create the song.

The sound source creator is a lyricist and a composer, and the singer is the “performer” who sang the created piece. If you are a singer-songwriter who writes and composes, you receive a copyright fee. However, a singer who only sings is not a copyright holder. Therefore, there is no copyright fee. But, there is no need for singers and fans to be too upset.  A singer has a “copyright” as the performer. To be clear, copyrights and neighboring rights are similar. But because they are different concepts, the case of incurring royalties is not the same. For example, if BTS's “Dynamite” sound source is used in a radio broadcast, a copyright fee is incurred for both the creator and the performer. This is because both music and singing are used to create the sound. However, if “Dynamite” is sung along with the accompaniment in a karaoke room, there is no charge for using adjacent copyright rights to the performer, BTS. It is worth remembering that neighboring rights are more limited than copyright.

After receiving the copyright from the holder, the copyright usage fee-sharing platform offers the shares that can receive the copyright usage fee in the form of stocks with the general public. From the moment the copyright holder signs the copyright transfer agreement, the copyright holder becomes a platform company. Since there are various types of copyright contract relations, the service is not impossible simply because the copyright holder does not transfer all of the copyrights. If the platform company is not the copyright holder, not only does the platform company have limited rights, but they are also beholden to the copyright holder. You may also risk a potential breach. The user can use the work only within the range permitted by the copyright holder. Even if the license is obtained in advance, the user's opinions and the copyright holder do not always coincide with the extent of use. For companies that provide copyright-related services, it is essential to provide various types of assistance after all copyrights are transferred.

If you understand the ideas related to copyright transfer, let's take a moment to think of another situation. When you think of the words “cloud bread,” they may elicit some anger within you. This is due to the unfairness of the copyright transfer agreement. In the case of the Lee Sang-Literature Award, the provision of the transfer of copyright became an issue, resulting in the rejection of the award. After a series of events, the notion of handing over copyrights to many creators was decidedly a big problem.  As mentioned, if you transfer copyright, you can no longer exercise your rights as the copyright holder. So unless you carefully examine what rights are transferred and under what conditions, it is difficult to argue that you did not know the details of the contract or state that it was unfair after an incident takes place.

It is important for both parties to accurately recognize which rights are transferred in what ways, rather than focusing on the "red tape.” Copyright holders can actively use the copyright transfer agreement for profit. But hold on. The copyright we are talking about right now is, to be precise, “Intellectual Property Rights.” Copyright consists of the author's property rights and moral rights, but only the author's property rights can be transferred. This is reflected in the word "personality,” which is the author's moral rights (meaning the author's right to pursue mental and personal interests in his/her work) and cannot be transferred by contract. Even if the “copyright transfer agreement” is signed, the copyright's moral rights remain with the creator.

If you read this article and think, "I'm going to sign up for this service right now and become a copyright holder," I ask you to wait as an important explanation is missing. The copyright transfer agreement applies only to the relationship between the copyright holder and the platform operator. Subscribers to this service do not receive copyrights but only have a stake in distributing copyright usage fees. The company stipulates that users share the “right to earn copyright usage fees,” not copyrights. Users can receive revenue but cannot exercise their rights as copyright holders. Isn't it strange that companies that have transferred copyrights from copyright holders for free sales activities can share copyrights with so many?

Thanks to the Donghak ant (small stock investors in Korea), the Korea Composite Stock Price Index (KOSPI) jumped to the 3,100-point level. The Millennial generation has been described as "the emergence of new investors." Many newcomers looking for investment opportunities will be curious about the music copyright fee-sharing service. So how much can they earn money? There is no right answer to this question.  However, if we understand the mechanism of revenue generation, we can make an investment plan. Copyright fees occur whenever work is used. Music copyright fees vary, such as when albums are sold, performances, downloading music, streaming services, printing music, printing music, singing in karaoke, sports stadiums, department stores, large discount stores, cafes, bars, etc. It should also be noted that the collection of copyright fees varies depending on the type of use, with albums collecting about 9% of the forwarding price and music concerts collecting about 3% of the sales. If the sound source is not used legally, there is no copyright fee.

Most of the copyright questions tend to be focused on whether someone can make money and how much. The media publishes articles about the top five copyright revenues. Copyrights are recognized for up to 70 years after the death of a copyright holder. It is invaluable when a brilliant piece of work can maintain popularity. However, as I recall, a few years ago a company did an analysis of a music chart for 25 weeks. There was not a single case that continued to be ranked No. 1 on the weekly chart for more than three weeks in a row. So in conclusion, I would like to ask that you not think of this as an article written as a criticism or complaint about the new service. I simply request that you don't look at music as an asset.(*This article states that actual contractual relationships or service delivery mechanisms may differ because they are written only by public information.)