|
|
 |
11. Judicial Precedents
(Outline of the case)
The defendant, an official of the Social Welfare Agency of the government, reproduced in and transmitted in an interactive way to the public from the Agency's LAN system (electronic bulletin board of newspaper/journal articles) a journal article of the plaintiff, a journalist.
The plaintiff claimed to the defendant the deletion of the article, the preventive cessation of the use of all his works, and compensation for the damage, asserting that the said act infringed the plaintiff's rights of reproduction and public transmission. The defendant asserted that the said act of reproduction was permitted by Paragraph 1, Article 42 of the Copyright Law as the reproduction for "internal use by administrative organs" to "the extent deemed necessary".
The Court judged that the act of storing the work within the LAN system clearly constituted infringement of the right of public transmission (also covering the act of making transmittable in the case of interactive transmission) because Paragraph 1, Article 42 of the Copyright Law, which provided for limitation on the right of reproduction in specific cases, did not apply to the right of public transmission (also covering the act of making transmittable in the case of interactive transmission). The Court also judged that, in substantial terms, the act of storing the work within the LAN system in order to transmit it to a number of people in the internal divisions of the Social Insurance Agency, the Social Insurance Institute, the Administration Center of the Social Insurance Agency, the local social insurance centers and the local social insurance bureaus was not covered by the said provision of the Copyright Law, which provided for limited cases truly necessary for internal use.
(Points)
The points of this case were (1) whether the act of storing the journal article in the LAN system of the Social Insurance Agency constituted infringement of the right of reproduction (Article 21) and/or the right of public transmission, and (2) whether the act was covered by the limitation provision of Paragraph 1, Article 42 of the Copyright Law.
As the act of storing various data and works in digital format prevails, attention should be paid to the fact that reproducing a work in a LAN system without authorization constitutes infringement of the right of reproduction unless it is covered by any limitation provision of the Copyright Law, and also, that the act constitutes infringement of the right of public transmission if the LAN system covers plural premises and is accessible by a number of specific people.
The Court judged that the interpretation of Paragraph 1, Article 42 should not be expanded easily, which seems appropriate.
|
(Outline of the case)
In the public relations magazine which was planned by Prefecture A and published by the Association of Prefecture A's Municipalities, seven municipalities' bulletins and pictures, which were copied from tourism pamphlets, were reproduced. The photographer who took the pictures claimed, against Prefecture A and the Association of Prefecture A's Municipalities, damages, asserting that the copyrights of the pictures are owned by the photographer and the reproduction in the magazine constitutes an infringement. The court approved the claim, judging that the copyright is owned by the photographer.
(Points)
This litigation could have been avoided if Prefecture A had obtained authorization of the photographer when it planned the magazine, checking who owned the copyrights of the bulletins and pictures and whether there had been any contract of copyright transfer between the photographer and the municipalities.
Requesting the creation of a work such as a picture, paying the money, does not mean the transfer of copyright, and therefore, in order to avoid any future problem, it is better to make a written contract on the ownership of copyright.
However, in another precedent on a similar case, in which the ownership of copyright was disputed in terms of an illustration ordered by a city for a poster and a pamphlet, the court judged that the copyright had been transferred to the city, considering the contract which said, "¥ 300,000 should be paid for the use of the illustration, and the use of three times, all the rights will be transferred to the city" as well as the fact that, after the use of three times, the original illustration was submitted to and stored in the city.
|
Copyright-related Organizations for Contact
| Copyright Research & Information Center (CRIC) |
|
|
| Japan Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers (JASRAC) |
|
|
| Japan Writer's Association |
|
|
| Japan Artists' Association |
|
|
| Japan Photographic Copyright Association (JPCA) |
|
|
| Japan Graphic Designers Association |
|
|
| Japan Book Publishers Association (JBPA) |
|
|
| Japan Magazine Publishers Association (JMPA) |
|
|
| Japan Council of Performers' Organization |
|
|
| Recording Industry Association of Japan (RIAJ) |
|
|
| National Association of Commercial Broadcasters in Japan (NAB) |
|
|
| Japan Video Association (JVA) |
|
|
| Motion Picture Producers Association of Japan |
|
|
● Public Information Films
|
| Japan Association of Audiovisual Producers |
|
|
● Private Recording Compensation Systems
|
| Society for the Administration of Remuneration for Audio Home Recording (sarah) |
|
|
| Society for the Administration of Rmuneration for Video Home Recording (SARVH) |
|
5-4-6 Akasaka, Minato-ku, Tokyo 107-0052 Japan |
| TEL: +81-3-3560-3107 FAX: +81-3-5570-2560 |
| URL: http://www.sarvh.or.jp |
|
| Japan Reprographic Rights Center (JRRC) |
|
|
| Association of Copyright for Computer Software (ACCS) |
|
|
| Software Information Center (SOFTIC) |
|
|
| Japan Publicity Rights Protection Organization (JAPRPO) |
|
|
Japan Copyright Office (JCO),
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science & Technology
|
|
|
|
