The Netflix drama 'Squid Game' is a craze.

It set a record for the highest box office hit on Netflix.

By the way, this story has been uploaded to Mom Cafe.

## Case 1


"My child played 'Mugunghwa Flower' with a squid game at lunchtime. ... It's called 'If you move, you shoot and kill'. I was surprised."



## Case 2


Yesterday, two people at the playground I remember a conversation with a child, so I write it down.


Child 1: Let's play squid game!


Child 2: Mugunghwa has bloomed. How is it?


Child 1: That's scary.

Did you bleed?


Child 2: Let's pretend we're really going to get something like a gun and kill it.


The squid game is not available for viewing by teenagers.

Children shouldn't watch it, but it is said to be popular among elementary school students these days.

Actually, there are a lot of squid game videos on YouTube.

In particular, there were many videos that re-edited brutal scenes as they were, and it was said that problems like the above case occurred.

There is no age limit for these videos, and there are people who captured brutal scenes and reported them to our truth team.



As the 'just' squid game didn't work, a fact check request came in to find out whether the 're-edited' squid game is okay, is this a loophole in the video rating policy, and there is no way to control it.




I've checked it from the ground up.

I searched for a squid game video without adult authentication.

Some content requested adult verification, but most did not.


Re-edited content featuring brutal scenes without adult verification


In fact, the point that children are easily exposed to violent and sexual scenes because of re-edited content is not a thing of the past.

However, in the case of the squid game, there is a lot of attention and exposure, so the problem is bound to arise even more.



I asked the experts for opinions.

We asked Kwak Jun-ho of the Law Office Office, Choi Jae-yun of Taeil Law Firm, and another lawyer who requested anonymity.

In general, they pointed out possible copyright violations.

Article 136 of the Copyright Act stipulates that "infringement of (work) by means of reproduction, performance, display, distribution, rental, etc. shall be punished by imprisonment with labor for not more than five years and by a fine not exceeding 50 million won."



Mechanically re-editing and uploading to YouTube without permission from the copyright holder is highly likely to be a violation of copyright law.

However, it is said that re-editing the trailer video by modifying, processing, and criticizing it is relatively free from copyright violations.

So-called 'derivative works' can be recognized as independent works.


Copyright Act Article 5 (Secondary Works)


① 'Secondary works' created by translating, arranging, transforming, adapting, producing images or other methods of the original work are protected as independent works.


There are also precedents that explain a little more specifically.


In order to receive a protected derivative works intended to, but based on the original work original work and maintain substantial similarity, and be added to modify, increase or decrease in the extent that can be a new work phase social norms for this additional new creativity,

- Supreme Court 99 degrees 863



Of course, as the Supreme Court precedent has the proviso of 'common sense', the interpretation may differ from case to case depending on the situation. We ask for your understanding that the team cannot clearly state "this is a copyright violation and not that".



A lawyer who requested anonymity said, "From the point of view of the production company, I know that the re-edited video is not a big problem because it has a promotional effect."



This time, I asked Netflix for a position. "We are closely monitoring the current situation, and we are internally reviewing the necessary measures," he replied in principle.



Now, let's take a closer look at the 're-edited' brutal scene issue.



First of all, I asked the Video Rating Committee and the Yeongdeung Board, which classified the squid game as 'not accessible to teenagers'.



According to Article 50 of the 'Act on the Promotion of Movies and Video' (Movie and Video Act), the Yeongdeung Commission said that re-edited videos on YouTube are not subject to ratings. Article 50 of the Film and Video Act stipulates that "(like YouTube), 'video products that are provided for public viewing using information and communication networks without payment' are excluded from classification."



Since the zero rating committee is an institution that grades prior to distribution, it is difficult to legally engage in follow-up management.




The post-management agencies are called the Korea Communications Standards Commission and the Oversight Committee. I asked the watchdog. According to Article 21 of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of the Korea Communications Commission (KCC), the Vigilance Committee said that it has the task of reviewing videos that are released through telecommunication lines. Naturally, re-edited YouTube videos are also subject to deliberation by the vigilante committee.



The watchdog also knew that there was a problem with the re-edited squid game footage. However, he said that there is a physical limit to the management because the amount is so large.



The vigilance committee sets the priorities of deliberation and issues correction orders. It is said that the priority of the current deliberation by the vigilante committee is for things that are clearly illegal, such as obscene information, prostitution information, and information harmful to young people. Although we have monitor agents for harmful information on the Internet such as YouTube, SNS, and KakaoTalk chat rooms, it is also true that the monitoring staff is not sufficient compared to the scope of management. Because of these limitations, the vigilante committee is encouraging self-regulation through business cooperation.



So, this time I asked YouTube how it is self-regulating.



A YouTube spokesperson said, "The team in charge reviews the content reported by users, and deletes content that is judged to violate the guidelines. We're filtering out content." According to the Google Transparency Report, 1,089,761 videos were deleted according to the YouTube guide in Korea last year.




When asked about age-restricted videos, YouTube said, "In this case, we are applying age restrictions or removing thumbnails. Age-restricted videos cannot be monetized and do not appear in some sections of YouTube."



However, our fact is that even if we look at the actual situation that the team has grasped earlier, it is also true that it is easy to find brutal re-edited videos as re-edited videos have exploded as much as the popularity of Squid Game.

Although it is difficult to make a simple comparison with the squid game, a recent parliamentary office analyzed a video of violently drinking alcohol on YouTube, and there was also a statistic that only 0.3% of youths were restricted from access.



There is a structural problem in that the deliberation and management of the authorities and the self-regulation of YouTube cannot keep up with the speed of video production that is pouring out like crazy.

Naturally, due to the problem of video re-editing, video ratings are being neutralized.

In fact, our team looked for papers to see if there was a way, and asked experts, but it was not easy to find a suitable alternative.



However, the vigilante committee said, "If there are a lot of reports (related to brutal scenes), we can adjust the priority of the review."



(Interns: Minseon Kwon, Haeyeon Song)