I examined the criteria of the originality of photographic works based on the TIC case, examined the general theories about them, the major cases in each country, and the cases in Korea. First, it is found that Korea, UK and USA are using very similar methods in relation to copyright infringement criteria of photographic works. In the case of photographic works, whether or not copyright infringement is determined through the process of establishing the copyrighted work, reproduction of the substantial part of the copyrighted work, determination of authenticity and similarity. These days, the level of originality in photographic works matters. The development and popularization of photographic technology has made it difficult to judge the copyrightability of photographic works protected by copyright law. Regular photographs of amateur photographers, photographs of advertising purposes, reproductions of famous photographs, manipulation of photographs through photoshop, etc., make it difficult to set criteria for judging originality of photographic works. The TIC case was seen as a symbolic object of London as a subject, framed by it and protected the work by choosing the contrast of colors. In this case, however, the defendant criticized the court for acknowledging that the object in the photographs of the plaintiff is a creative expression, even though it can not be monopolized by certain people as a symbol of London. But If you look closely at the judgment, you see that the plaintiff has created ‘deliberate choices and manipulations’ on the subject of the photograph, creating a new symbol, not a classic London symbol. As a result, the subject itself has become independent originality through the intervention of the photographer, and it is judged that not all subjects are. This is also true of fresh watermelon photos case. On the other hand, in the case of Solsom or Sahuc, it was impossible to intervene and manipulate the photographer in the choices of the subject, and each photograph was originalized by other factors such as the shooting technique and the light control. In conclusion, the four examples above do not conflict with one another. It means that the selection or composition of the subject can not be absolutely creative expression factor but rather it should be classified as idea or expression depending on whether creative personality can be revealed through intentional intervention and manipulation of the creator.