Are Golf Course Design Plans Copyrighted in South Korea?

1. What Was This Case About?

The plaintiff was an American golf course design firm. It had entered into separate design contracts with the owners of 11 golf courses in South Korea, creating the course layouts for each. The defendant, a South Korean screen golf simulation company, entered into usage agreements with the golf course owners and incorporated digitally recreated versions of those courses into its screen golf service — without ever seeking permission from the design firm that created the original layouts.

How Did Each Court Rule?

The plaintiff claimed copyright infringement and sought damages, an injunction against continued use, and destruction of all infringing materials.

2. What Is a Functional Work, and Can It Be Copyrighted in South Korea?

Under the Korean Copyright Act, a “work” is defined as a creative production that expresses human thoughts or emotions (Article 2, Item 1 of the Copyright Act). A functional work is one whose primary purpose is to express a functional or practical idea — such as architectural blueprints, maps, technical manuals, or engineering drawings — rather than to create artistic expression for its own sake.

The Standard for Copyright Protection of Functional Works

South Korea’s Supreme Court has established the following consistent standard for functional works:

• General rule: Functional works are often limited in how they can be expressed — because the expression is constrained by the nature of the function, general conventions in the field, or the needs of users. For that reason, many functional works lack the creativity required for copyright protection.
• Exception: However, if a functional work contains the author’s own independent expression and reflects creative originality, it can qualify for copyright protection — even if it also serves a practical purpose.

The key point: being a “functional work” does not automatically disqualify a work from copyright protection. What matters is whether the work contains the author’s independent creative choices beyond merely conveying a function or practical idea.

3. How Is Creativity Assessed in Golf Course Design Plans?

The Supreme Court analyzed the creativity question in two stages: first identifying the constraints that limit creative expression in golf course design, and then examining whether meaningful creative choices remain possible within those constraints.

Factors That Constrain Creative Expression in Golf Course Design

The Court acknowledged the following real-world limitations on a golf course designer’s creative freedom:

• Rules of golf: The number of holes, par scores, stroke sequences, and play order are predetermined by the rules of golf.
• Physical constraints of the site: The terrain, topography, and safety and convenience requirements for players must be respected.
• USGA guidelines: The United States Golf Association provides recommended ranges for fairway width, bunker types and depths, and other elements.
• Equipment and physical limitations: The distance capabilities of players and golf equipment place practical limits on hole lengths and layouts.

Why Creative Originality Can Still Be Found

Despite these constraints, the Supreme Court held that a designer retains substantial creative latitude. Within those limits, a designer can express genuine creative originality by making independent choices about how to select, arrange, and combine design elements, including:

• The overall shape and arrangement of individual holes across the full course
• The placement, shape, and number of hazards such as bunkers, water hazards, and rough areas
• The strategic challenge created for players at each shot situation — from tee shot through approach and putting
• The integration of artificial landscaping and natural surroundings to create aesthetic appeal

The Court stated that as long as the selection, arrangement, and combination of those elements is not “merely a copy of someone else’s work or something anyone would produce in the same or similar way,” the design plans may be found to contain the designer’s independent expression and creative originality distinct from existing golf course plans (Supreme Court Decision 2024Da228661, February 26, 2026).

4. Does a License from the Golf Course Owner Cover the Designer’s Copyright?

This is one of the most practically significant questions raised by this case. The screen golf company had obtained usage agreements from the golf course owners. But the Supreme Court’s reasoning makes clear that this alone is not sufficient to avoid copyright infringement claims by the designer.

Property Ownership and Copyright Are Separate Rights

Copyright in a design belongs, in principle, to the person who created it — not to the person who commissioned or owns the property on which the design was built. The golf course owner has rights over the land and physical facilities; the design firm retains copyright in the design plans it created.

Confusing these two distinct rights is a common — and costly — mistake. Any business that digitally recreates a physical space must identify and obtain separate licenses from both the property owner and the copyright holder of the underlying design or architectural work.

5. What Does This Ruling Mean for Businesses in Practice?

The Supreme Court’s decision in Case 2024Da228661 carries significant practical implications well beyond screen golf.

Broader Recognition of Copyright in Functional Design Works

This ruling reinforces that functional works — including architectural plans, landscape designs, urban layout plans, and game map designs — are not automatically excluded from copyright protection in South Korea. Courts must conduct a genuine examination of whether creative originality exists in the selection and arrangement of design elements, rather than dismissing protection solely on the basis that the work serves a functional purpose.

A Clear Warning for the Digital Recreation and Simulation Industry

Businesses that digitally recreate real-world spaces — screen golf operators, VR tourism platforms, game developers, metaverse builders — must now approach licensing with greater care in South Korea. The risks of relying only on the property owner’s consent include:

• Liability for copyright infringement damages potentially reaching hundreds of millions of Korean Won
• Court orders requiring the business to cease all infringing services
• Orders for the destruction of all infringing materials, including software and systems

Before launching any product or service that digitally replicates a designed physical space, legal due diligence should include identifying all potential copyright holders — not only property owners but also architects, landscape designers, course designers, and other creative contributors.

Impact on How Courts Must Analyze Copyright Claims

The Supreme Court also made clear that courts have a duty to conduct substantive examination of whether creative originality exists in a work’s selection, arrangement, and combination of elements — rather than dismissing protection with a summary conclusion that the work is merely functional. This higher standard of judicial scrutiny benefits copyright holders across a wide range of industries.

6. FAQ

When dealing with copyright disputes involving functional design works, or when building products and services that digitally recreate designed spaces, proper legal due diligence at the outset can prevent far more costly litigation later. Our team has handled complex intellectual property and corporate disputes drawing on extensive practical experience across both domestic and cross-border matters.

※ The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The applicable legal analysis may differ depending on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. Please consult a qualified attorney for advice on your particular situation.