In 2020, South Korea amended its Personal Information Protection Act to introduce the regulation of “pseudonymized information”, a concept similar to “pseudonymized personal information” under Japan’s Act on the Protection of Personal Information. This amendment faced constitutional challenges from several civic groups, arguing that it violates the constitutional “right to self-determination of personal information”. In 2021, the Constitutional Research Institute of the Constitutional Court of Korea published a report suggesting the possibility of unconstitutionality. However, in October 2023, the Constitutional Court dismissed these complaints, upholding the amendment’s constitutionality.

This paper examines the perception of the “right to self-determination of personal information” in South Korean law and its apparent contradiction with the regulation of “pseudonymized information”, focusing on the issues raised in the Constitutional Research Institute’s report. It then analyzes the Constitutional Court’s reasoning in declaring the amendment constitutional. Furthermore, the paper draws a comparison with the relationship between “pseudonymized personal information” and the theory of the “right to control one’s own personal information” under Japanese law, highlighting the challenges that remain in both legal systems.

Some of the recent studies on the privacy legislation in our country argue that the key objective of this law is protection against the exercise of power by decision makers. This argument indicates that the OECD Privacy Guidelines include “the principle of relevance,” which states that decisions about data subjects must be based on relevant data; however, this has not been considered in our country. This principle is similar to that highlighted by academic theories and judicial precedents regarding administrative procedures in Japan and is important in the exercise of public power.

This paper discusses the significance of this principle in the personal information protection system of administrative entities, and attempts top present the legal measures to ensure its implementation.

The purposes of this paper are 1) to summarize the overall picture of rule formation on, and governance of, the metaverse in Japan, and 2) to clarify the role that private sector driven soft law should fulfill within this overall picture. After an overview of the status of rule-making in the metaverse in Japan, both in the government and the private sector, an overview of the Virtual City Guidelines as an example of private sector driven soft law and the background leading to their establishment will be presented. Based on the overview of the current rule-making process, the roles of multi-stakeholders participating in the rule-making process and the roles that private sector driven soft law should play in the overall picture will be discussed.

This paper examines the following issues related to the right of publicity.

First, the use of an AI-generated persona may violate the right of publicity, even if the celebrity is not part of the AI’s training data. This is particularly true if, at the time of use, the user is aware that the celebrity’s identity or likeness would attract customers.

Second, the protection of an organization’s name is insufficient if it is based solely on the right of publicity of its individual members. The rights and interests of organizations should be considered separately from those of individuals.

Finally, it is essential to recognize the continuity between the right of publicity, which prevents unauthorized use by others, and the business interest, which relates to an individual’s own use.