The history of the development of the copyright system in the modern era following the Meiji restoration may be divided into the following periods.

Chapter 1: The era of publishing privilege and publishing regulations

Legislation concerning copyright underwent a remarkable development at the beginning of the Meiji period, when a single piece of legislation known as the Publishing Ordinance was put together to specify the content of copyright protection and the content of publishing controls.

The first legal order covering the publication of works that was issued following the Meiji restoration in 1868 was Government Proclamation No. 358 of April 28, 1868 ("Ban on the issuance and sale of books without government permission"), which provided that one could not issue or sell original works or reprinted works (the reproduction of existing books) unless one received "government permission." This is considered to be legislation more for the regulation of publishing than for the protection of authors.
In addition, Government Proclamation No. 500 of June 20, 1868 ("Screening of books to be issued") provided that the issuance (publication) of books required the manuscript to be submitted to and inspected by the relevant agency.
On December 14, 1868, "Book publication directions" were issued (an advisory from the government to Kyoto Prefecture) banning the publication of unauthorized reproductions.
At this time, Yukichi Fukuzawa (1834-1901) was active as an author who had suffered great injury because of pirated editions.
As a member of a delegation of envoys in the last years of the Tokugawa shogunate, Fukuzawa had toured the countries of Europe and America and absorbed advanced Western knowledge. When the shogunate delegation sailed to the United States in 1860, he went along as a valet of the ship's captain (fleet officer Settsunokami Kimura).
Later, as a member of the shogunate delegation to Europe in 1861-62 (the years Bunkyo 1-2), he visited six countries: France, Britain, the Netherlands, Germany, Russia, and Portugal. Still later, in 1867, he journeyed to the United States again.

Based on these experiences in the West, Fukuzawa wrote and published Occidental Affairs, a book in three volumes describing the history, systems, and conditions in various Western countries, the first volume of which came out in 1866 (Keio 2), the second volume in 1868 (Meiji 1), and the third volume in 1870 (Meiji 3). For the people of the time, who were just awakening from an era of isolation, it was the perfect introduction to the West, and it became a 250,000-copy bestseller. In addition, he also published A Travel Guide to Europe and the United States in 1867 (Keio 3) after his second journey to the United States.
Then, in 1872 (Meiji 5), he published Recommendation of Studies, Volume 1, which, prefaced by the comment, "Heaven does not create one man above another, nor one man below another," argued for individual independence, equality, and freedom. This book too was welcomed by the people of the time; its publication continued until the 17th volume was released in 1876 (Meiji 9), and it became a runaway bestseller. With the publication of such works as Outline of the Theory of Civilization in 1875 (Meiji 8), Yukichi Fukuzawa made his mark as an enlightened thinker.

Fukuzawa's works frequently appeared in pirated editions. Having absorbed Western culture and become familiar with the concept of copyright, he took a resolute stance against such pirated editions. For example, in response to the large number of pirated copies of A Travel Guide to Europe and the United States then rampant in the Kyoto-Osaka area, he ran an advertisement in the Chugai Shimbun No. 12 of April 10, 1868 (Keio 4) asking to be informed of the names and addresses of producers of the pirated editions, in which he stressed, "duplicate editions are universally prohibited in the countries of the world," and enlightened the Japanese public about the concept of copyright.

With regard to the state of development of printing technology in the early years of the Meiji period, in 1869 (Meiji 2), in order to industrialize movable-type printing, Shozo Motoki (known as the father of movable-type technology in Japan) imported a large quantity of movable-type machines for casting movable type, as well as printing machines, and founded a movable-type school. As a result of Motoki's efforts, modern printing machines came to be manufactured in Japan. The government actively introduced new printing machinery and technology from Europe and America to Japan, inviting foreign printing technicians to the country and printing paper currency and stamps. The printing industry thus developed greatly in the early Meiji period.

Section 2: Background leading to the enactment of the Publishing Ordinance

The Publishing Ordinance (Government Notice No. 444) was proclaimed on May 13, 1869 (Meiji 2). This ordinance marked the beginning of copyright legislation in Japan. In most foreign countries, the granting of a monopoly right of publishing was related to the control of publishing, and Japan adopted a similar system. The Publishing Ordinance of 1869 dealt mainly with the control of publishing, but it also provided for the protection of persons who published. Paragraph 3 of the ordinance provides, "A person who publishes a book shall enjoy the benefit of monopoly, which shall be protected by the government." This "benefit of monopoly" is understood as a form of special business privilege. Protection under this ordinance also extended to translated works. Before publishing a work, a publisher had to submit a publication request to the relevant agency (Shohei school or Kaisei school) and obtain "government permission" (paragraph 4), and the "benefit of monopoly" was granted to publications for which this government permission had been obtained. In granting government permission, individual publications were examined by a publication inspection bureau set up in both the Shohei school and the Kaisei school (supplementary ordinance, paragraph 1). It is not entirely clear from the wording of the Publishing Ordinance of 1869 whether the beneficiary of its "benefit of monopoly" was the author or the publisher. [1] It appears that the publication of a book was taken to have a structure of rights understood as an integrated joint act of the author and publisher, but in either case, the publisher was thought of as the primary subject of protection, without proceeding to the stage of recognizing the protection of the author's independent rights.

The Publishing Ordinance was partially amended in 1872 (Meiji 5) and underwent a full revision in 1875 (Meiji 8). The Publishing Ordinance of 1875 was the same as the previous ordinance in that it prescribed both the control of publishing and the protection of the author and publisher. However, the 1875 ordinance altered the old ordinance's "government permission system" for publication to a "notification system." But if, upon examination of the manuscript or presentation copy, a work was deemed to be harmful to public order, its publication was prohibited (Article 4, Article 3). Also, "Publishing Ordinance penal provisions" were added to this ordinance, under which if a book was published without notifying the Ministry of Home Affairs, copies of the book and the sales proceeds were confiscated or a fine was imposed. Therefore, although called a "notification system," it was "notification" in a sense distinct from "notification" as the term is used in contract to "approval" academically in the field of administrative law. As previously, the copyright was in the nature of being granted from the government by "license." Generally, a copyright remained in effect for 30 years. Besides books, Article 27 states, "Those who publish novels and popular songs shall also be covered by this Ordinance," and with regard to works of art such as sculptures and pictures, Article 28 states, "For carvings, paintings, and the like, notification shall be made under Article 1 every time publication is made, and a copyright shall not be granted." [2] As with the previous Publishing Ordinance, it is not entirely clear from the wording of this ordinance who the beneficiary of the "copyright" is.

On June 17, 1876 (Meiji 9), a Photography Ordinance (Government Proclamation No. 90) was enacted that clearly recognized copyright for photographs. This too took the form of a license, with a five-year grant of monopoly. Prior to the enactment of this ordinance, the Publishing Ordinance had been construed as also applying to photographs. The Photography Ordinance provided that every photograph granted a copyright must bear the mark of the photographer, the price, and the month and year of the copyright license (Article 2). Also, many of the provisions of the Publishing Ordinance were applied to photography copyright (Article 4).

Chapter 2: The era of the establishment of authors' rights

Copyright protection was separated from regulations to control publishing by 1887 (Meiji 20), with the Publishing Ordinance (Imperial Ordinance No. 76), the Newspaper Ordinance (Imperial Ordinance No. 75) and the Copyright Ordinance (Imperial Ordinance No. 77) all enacted on December 28 of that year. Enacted at the same time were the Script and Sheet Music Ordinance (Imperial Ordinance No. 78) and the Photograph Copyright Ordinance (Imperial Ordinance No. 79). Although these were still not fully comprehensive, copyright legislation in Japan had finally assumed modern form. The Copyright Ordinance of 1887 was the first copyright legislation in Japan that was independent from regulations to control publishing. This ordinance declared a copyright to be "the right to publish text and drawings and have exclusive possession of the interests in them," placing drawings as well as text under copyright protection. As a general rule, the duration of copyright protection extended during the lifetime of the author plus five years after his/her death, and if the period from the month of copyright registration until the author's death, plus five years, was less than 35 years, copyright protection was extended to 35 years from the month of copyright registration (Article 10). This ordinance had relatively detailed provisions concerning protection of the personal interests of authors. It was provided that the will of the author must not be harmed by falsifying even an uncopyrighted text or drawing (Article 28). Under the previous Publishing Ordinance, it was not clear from the legal wording who was the beneficiary of the copyright, but the Copyright Ordinance clearly stipulated that the copyright was reserved to the "author," and to the author's successors after his/her death (Article 7 paragraph 1). It was also provided that a would-be beneficiary of copyright protection must obtain copyright registration by making an application to the Ministry of Home Affairs prior to publication (Article 3). And the phrase "copyright registration" appeared as a condition for validity during the period of copyright protection (Article 5). Thus, a requirement for protection was to satisfy the forms of registration and labeling, but unlike the license system under the previous Copyright Ordinance, registration was assured as long as certain conditions were met, without a government agency examining each individual work. In other words, copyright was not granted from the state arbitrarily or by its favor, but was enjoyed as an author's right. Although authors' rights came to be protected independently by 1887 (Meiji 20), there are no records of the existence at that time of any active movement for establishing authors' rights. It is therefore thought that what must have formed the background to this legislation was the trend toward the overall legal organization of private law in Japan [3] and the trend toward organized copyright legislation in Europe and America, or the trend toward establishment of the Berne Convention.

The Script and Sheet Music Ordinance (Imperial Ordinance No. 78 of December 1887), which in effect set forth special-case provisions of the Copyright Ordinance, provided that a "right of performance" could be granted to scripts and sheet music for which copyright registration had been obtained. It clearly prescribed that copyright also applied to play scripts and sheet music (Article 1), and that there was a "right of performance" (the right to hold public performances for the pursuit of profit) during the copyright protection period (Article 2). In order to retain the right of performance, the script or sheet music had to bear the phrase "ownership of right of performance" (Article 2).

The Photograph Copyright Ordinance (Imperial Ordinance No. 79 of December 23, 1887), which revised the Photography Ordinance of 1876, was enacted as a legal system separate from the Publishing Ordinance. It prescribed the right to have exclusive possession of the benefit of publishing a photograph as a "photograph copyright" (Article 1). In order to obtain photograph copyright protection, it was provided that one had to apply for copyright registration to the Ministry of Home Affairs prior to publication. But it was also provided that this protection could be obtained for photographs of persons without waiting for such registration (Article 3). Also, as a condition for validity, it was provided that a copyright-registered photograph must, during the period of its copyright protection, bear the name and address of the copyright owner and the month and year of its copyright registration. The photograph copyright protection period was set at 10 years from the month of registration (Article 6), which was longer than under the previous ordinance.

This can be characterized as only a change in the form of the legislation in connection with the opening of the Imperial Diet which entailed almost no change in content from the Copyright Ordinance of 1887. One feature of this law is that it stipulated that the copyright to drawings, which are an artistic work, belonged to the owner of the original (Article 7 paragraph 5), and deemed it piracy to publish a drawing without the owner's approval (Article 22 latter paragraph). Also, a photograph inserted into a copyright-registered text or drawing, particularly one taken for the purpose of the text or drawing, was held to enjoy copyright protection together with the text or drawing (Article 12 paragraph 2). This law, the Script and Sheet Music Ordinance, and the Photograph Copyright Ordinance were repealed when what is now referred to as the old Copyright Law was promulgated in 1899.

Chapter 3: The era of modern copyright law in response to treaties

Section 1: Enactment of the old Copyright Law of 1899

1. Repeal of extraterritoriality and the promise to join the Berne Convention

Toward the end of the Edo period, Japan was forced to sign unequal treaties (extraterritoriality (consular jurisdiction), agreement tariff system, one-sided most favored nation treatment, etc.) with many other countries, beginning with the 1858 (Ansei 5) treaty of amity and commerce with the United States.
The Meiji government had been working toward the revision of unequal treaties ever since Japan had opened up to foreign intercourse, and finally, on July 16, 1894 (Meiji 27), a treaty of commerce and navigation between Japan and Britain was signed in London between minister Shuzo Aoki and foreign minister Kimper (abolition of extraterritoriality and reciprocity of most favored nation treatment; tariff autonomy was acquired by a revision in 1911).

With the revision of unequal treaties thus underway, new treaties were concluded with the United States and Italy that same year, with Russia and Germany in 1895, and with France and the Netherlands in 1896. Similar treaties were concluded with the other countries of Europe one by one until 1897 at which point Japan finally managed to do away with extraterritoriality. These new treaties all went into force simultaneously on July 17, 1899 (on August 4, 1899 with France and Australia).
All of these treaties contained a provision promising that before the abolition of consular jurisdiction, Japan would join the Berne Convention and guarantee the copyright of nationals of all signatory countries.
At the time, Japan had actively absorbed much of the advanced culture of the West through authors' works and had relied on them greatly, and those involved were aware of the problem that joining the Berne Convention would be a formidable hindrance, making it impossible to freely translate works as had been done previously.

2. Enactment of the old Copyright Law and accession to the Berne Convention

Japan had to join the Berne Convention and coordinate its domestic laws by July 17, 1899. In preparation for this, in October 1897 the government appointed then Ministry of Home Affairs councilor Rentaro Mizuno ^[4], and sent him to the countries of Europe to investigate their copyright legislation from November 1897 until his return in June of the following year, 1898.
After his return, the draft copyright law proposed by Mizuno was presented to the 13th Imperial Diet on January 13, 1899 (Meiji 32), and it was deliberated in prior consideration by the House of Peers. The proposed law was referred to a special committee, which met six times in January and February and made a number of amendments to the government draft. On February 7 the law, as amended by the special committee, was approved by the House of Peers. On February 22 it was approved by the House of Representatives and adopted. This legislation promulgated as Law No. 39 on March 4, and went into effect on July 15. With this, the Copyright Law of 1893, the Script and Sheet Music Ordinance, and the Photograph Copyright Ordinance were repealed.
Japan joined the original Berne Convention and the Paris additional provisions on April 18, and legislation to this effect was promulgated on July 13.

The old term for copyright (hanken) used in the old Copyright Law was replaced with the more modern term (chosakuken) in a systematic organization of copyright legislation. Along with improving the basic structure by, for example, repealing registration formalities and protecting foreign works, various amendments were made for individual matters.
For example, texts, drawings, photographs, scripts, and sheet music had previously been taken as the forms of works subject to protection, but the scope of protection was expanded to also include artistic works such as sculptures, carvings, and scale models.
The protection period under the Copyright Law of 1893 was the lifetime of the author plus five years, or 35 years from the month of copyright registration, but under the old Copyright Law of 1899, it was set as a general rule to the lifetime of the author plus 30 years, and to 30 years for the publication or performance of works made public after the death of the author and of anonymous or pseudonymous works.
With regard to translation rights, under the old Copyright Law of 1899, translation rights were extinguished unless the author translated the work, or had it translated, within 10 years of publication of the original work, and no translation could be made without the consent of the author.
In addition, improvements were made to more fully protect the personal interests of the author and to put the copyright limitation provisions in order.

Section 2: The course of partial revisions of the old Copyright Law

1. Partial revision of 1910 (Meiji 43) (Law No. 63 of June 14, 1910)

This was a revision to comply with the Berlin Treaty for the Revision of the Berne Convention (1908), although some provisions were revised without reference to this treaty.
"Buildings" was newly added to the protected works (Article 1).
The revision deleted the old provision (Article 15 paragraphs 1 and 2) by which the author of a published or performed work could not initiate a civil suit against a pirated work unless he/she had obtained registration.
Also, the old provision was removed requiring that in order for a translator to be an author, he/she had to translate "lawfully" (Article 21).
Moreover, with the growing popularity of movies (moving pictures), a provision was newly added that "a person who duplicates or performs the work of another by means of moving picture technology shall be deemed a pirate" (Article 32bis).

2. Partial revision of 1920 (Taisho 9) (Law No. 60 of August 19, 1920)

The second revision, which took place in 1920, was in response to the pirating of phonograph records, which were then starting to become popular.
What prompted the revision was a case of unauthorized copying of phonograph records of recitations with stringed accompaniment "naniwabushi", a case that caused an uproar in the phonograph record industry in the late Meiji and early Taisho periods. The district court and court of appeals found in favor of the plaintiff, but the Supreme Court found against the plaintiff, on the grounds that while unauthorized reproduction was contrary to the concept of justice, there was no law regulating such an act (July 4, 1914). The result of this decision was a flood of low-priced phonograph records reproduced without permission.
This revision added "performances, songs" to the list of examples of protected works (Article 1) and included a provision that "a person who copies the work of another by a device used for mechanically reproducing sound shall be deemed a pirate" (Article 32ter).

3. Partial revision of 1931 (Showa 6) (Law No. 64 of May 30, 1931)

This was a revision to comply with the Rome Treaty for the Revision of the Berne Convention (1928), although it also revised some other pending matters.
The "art" exemplifying works in Article 1 was stipulated as "art (including music; the same applies hereinafter)."
In organizing the provisions concerning the protection of motion picture works, provisions were prescribed including "a person who reproduces the work of another by moving picture technology or a method similar thereto (including cases in which a work is adapted for the screen) shall be deemed an author and shall enjoy the protection of this law, provided that the rights of the original author shall not thereby be precluded" (Article 22quater).
Responding to the growth of radio broadcasting, authors were granted broadcast rights. Also, a compulsory license system was introduced by which a work could be broadcast by paying an appropriate compensation determined by a government agency in the event that no agreement was reached between the broadcaster and the rightholder.

4. Partial revision of 1934 (Showa 9) (Law No. 48 of May 1, 1934)

A partial revision was made in 1934 due to the realization that, although the old Copyright Law had been partially revised to comply with revisions in international treaties since its enactment in 1899, this updating was only a minimal stopgap measure, and some parts remained that did not currespond to current realities.
Based on longstanding requests from the publishing industry, "Chapter 2: Publishing rights" was added, with 10 new articles (Articles 28bis through 28undecies) setting forth publishing rights and prescribing such matters as the respective rights and obligations of the author and publishing rightholder, the duration of publishing rights, registration concerning publishing rights, and remedies for the infringement of publishing rights.
It was made explicit that an author's rights extended to the recording of works on phonograph records and the playing of such phonograph records (Article 22sexies).
Record producers were allowed to have rights as an author with respect to such phonograph records (Article 22septies).
The revised law prescribed that if the residence of the copyright holder was unknown, the work could be published or performed upon deposit of an appropriate compensation determined by a government agency (addition of paragraph 2 to Article 27).
A Copyright Compensation Council was also established (Article 36ter).

Added to the limitations on copyrights were cases in which the performance of a script or sheet music not for profit and without remuneration, or the broadcasting of such a performance, were not construed to constitute piracy (Article 30 paragraph 1 item 7).
Another point added to the limitations on copyright was that a phonograph record performance or broadcast did not constitute piracy (Article 30 paragraph 1 item 8). This provision is said to have been added in response to the so-called "Plage tornado," a whirlwind of litigation in which, from 1931 to 1940, Dr. Wilhelm Plage, as agent for rightholder organizations in European countries, took a hard line in asserting their rights, filing civil and criminal suits against broadcast stations, performers, and translators, all of which made the exploitation of Western European works in Japan impossible.

5. Enactment of the Law of Intermediary Business concerning Copyrights

Beginning in about 1935, it was frequently argued that Japan should withdraw from the Berne Convention, thereby dealing with the Plage tornado.
In late 1937, Plage set up the Dai-Nippon Music Composers and Publishers Association to perform middleman services abroad as an agent for Japanese composers.
Such moves by Plage brought the Ministry of Home Affairs, composers, and other interested parties to a common awareness that it was an urgent matter to establish a Japanese copyright management body that would be able to carry out rights clearance in a convenient manner for those involved. In June 1938, a group around Koichiro Kunishio in the Ministry of Home Affairs came up with the outline of a proposed law ^[5] and proceeded to take steps leading to legislation, including soliciting the views of relevant organizations. On March 10, 1939, the Copyright Intermediation Bill was presented to the 74th Imperial Diet. On March 18 it was passed by the House of Representatives, on March 25 it was approved by the House of Peers and adopted, and on April 5 it was promulgated (going into effect on December 25, 1939).

On December 20, 1939, the Dai-Nippon Music Copyright Association received permission for establishment as an incorporated association, and permission for intermediary business was granted on December 28. Similarly, on December 20, 1939, the Dai-Nippon Literary Copyright Protection League received permission for establishment as an incorporated association, and permission for intermediary business was granted on December 28.
Plage, who had applied for permission for agency business for the Dai-Nippon Music Composers and Publishers Association but was refused, tried to continue his activities by setting up an East Asia Copyright Office in Mukden, Manchuria, but he was charged with violation of the Intermediation Law, fined 600 yen on July 15, 1941, and returned to Germany on December 12, 1941.

6. Suspension of revision work until after the war

A conference to revise the Berne Convention was originally scheduled to be held in Brussels, Belgium in 1935, but to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the convention, which fell in 1936, it was decided to hold the conference a year later, on September 7, 1936.
However, a former Belgian minister of education Destore, who was a prime mover in sponsoring the conference, died unexpectedly. Moreover, 10 countries still had not ratified the Rome revision treaty, and there was not enough time, by the scheduled date of the conference, to study the proposed new international treaty drafted by a committee of experts ^[6] concerning integrating the Berne Convention with the Havana Convention, whose members were the countries of North, South, and Central America. With these and other problems, the conditions were not right for holding the conference, and on June 2, just before it was to be held, Belgium notified the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs that the conference would be postponed.
No revisions were made to the old Copyright Law from 1934 until the end of the war. Even at that time, this law had been viewed as one enacted in the old era of 1899, increasingly out of step with current realities, and a thorough and fundamental revision was believed to be necessary based on the results of the next conference for revision of the Berne Convention to be held in Brussels. However, the outbreak of World War II put a stop to the work of revising the old Copyright law.

After the war, many international copyright disputes occurred, beginning when the occupation administration was coming to an end. In the publishing field, pirated editions of foreign textbooks were rampant. From around 1954, cases occurred such as one in which the company Bunkensha reproduced without permission, and sold by subscription, 30 textbooks in engineering, chemistry, and medicine, including the 13-volume "Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology."
At the time, the penal provision for piracy was a fine of only 500 yen, the same amount as when the old Copyright Law was enacted (2,000 yen under the Law for Temporary Measures Concerning Fines, etc.). Hence, to strengthen the prevention of pirated editions, in May 1958 the Copyright Law was revised to newly provide for two years imprisonment and a fine of 50,000 yen.
In the field of music, around 1956, a dispute arose between Japanese record companies and BIEM of Paris concerning fees for the use of music recordings, and the BIEM case became a subject of negotiations between the Japanese and French governments.
Then, when the Japan Music Copyright Association joined CISAC in September 1960, the "Article 30 item 8" problem attracted international interest, and European governments and authors' organizations complained and called on Japan to revise the law.

[ Copyright Update Japan top ]	NEXT PAGE
Copyright Update Japan 1999 Published by COPYRIGHT RESEARCH AND INFORMATION CENTER (CRIC).