Business in local authority and copyright
    Chapter 7 Events Organized by the City

    7. Events Organized by the City

    Q 7-1 The city is planning an exposition collecting admission fees. A number of companies and organizations are expected to participate, making their own pavilions, and offering art exhibitions, musical concerts, and so on. Is there any problem of copyright?

    Answer

    There must be a number of different arrangements for an exposition such as those organized directly by the local government with participation contracts with a lot of companies and organizations or those organized by a non-profit-making organization, based on the initiative of the local government with similar contracts.

    In many cases, the organizer sets the general theme of the exposition, coordinating the overall arrangements, while individual activities and events are planned and carried out by each participating entity. Also, the organizer usually establishes the rules and/or guidelines for individual activities and events, which are agreed upon by the contracts between the organizer and the participants.

    The admission fees are usually paid to the organizer and it has the right to use the collected fees. It can be said, therefore, that the organizer has the power to control the pavilions as well as take the responsibility and, at the same time, has the right to enjoy the economic benefits brought about by the exhibition.

    On the other hand, the activities and events within each pavilion are planned and carried out by each participating company or organization, rather than the organizer, and the participant should take the first responsibility of such activities and events. It is virtually impossible for the organizer to check how all the works in all the pavilions are used and how contracts of authorization are made. Therefore, the organizer should make it clear by the contract that it is each participating entity that should take care of copyright contracts.

    The organizer should include in the contract with the participant the obligation of the participants to be careful for the use of copyrighted works and also provide appropriate information and guidance. Also, the contract should include some provisions on the responsibility of the participants for adequate copyright clearance, declaration of non-existence of infringement, and obligation for compensation for any possible infringement and damages to the organizer. Furthermore, it is desirable to make it obligatory for the participants to report to the organizer all the works used in the pavilions, classifying the categories such as artistic works, pictures, musical works, and so on, as well as the information on the right owners and authorization contracts with them, so that the organizer be kept informed of the use of works and be able to check the reports.

    If any copyright infringement is found in one of the pavilions, it is likely that the organizer is also accused, together with the actual infringer, as the entity which is responsible for the overall management and is enjoying the economic benefits.

    JASRAC requires the organizer, when it authorizes the use of musical works in such an exposition, to take care of the contract collectively in terms of all musical works to be used in all pavilions, considering its responsibility and benefits.

    Contact Point
    for Further Information
    Japan Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers (JASRAC)



    Q 7-2 In the exposition organized by the city, one of the participating companies is planning to present its documentary video on a large display. Is it necessary to obtain the authorization of any right owner?

    Answer

    The documentary video corresponds to a cinematographic work under the Copyright Law, and presenting it to the public on the large display within the pavilion of the exposition corresponds to the act of public presentation under the Copyright Law.

    The author of a cinematographic work is, as is provided for explicitly by Article 16 of the Copyright Law, "those who, by taking charge of producing, directing, filming, art direction, etc., have contributed to the creation of that work as a whole". Also, this article provides for that the authors of novels, scenarios, music or other works adapted or reproduced in a cinematographic work are not the authors of the cinematographic work, because they are preexisting and independent works. These authors are called classical authors, and, as their works exist independently from the cinematographic work, when the cinematographic work is used contracts with them are also needed in addition to that with the right owner of the cinematographic work.

    In the case of a cinematographic work, the author is not necessarily the right owner in terms of the economic right, which is the case only for such a work. Article 29 of the Copyright Law provides for in terms of the owners of the economic rights of a cinematographic work that the economic rights in a cinematographic work belong to the maker (film/video company) of that work, provided that the authors of the work, who are not employees of the maker, have undertaken to participate in the making. The definition of the "makers of a cinematographic work" is provided for in Article 2 of the Copyright Law, which is, "those who take the initiative in, and the responsibility for, the making of a cinematographic work".

    However, in the case of the video mentioned in the question, the company (company A) participating in the exhibition and presenting the video may not be the "maker" of the video, because it is usually the case that such a company has ordered the making of the video, paying the necessary money, to another company (company B) specialized in video-making. In such a case, the "maker" of the video is company B. Therefore, in such a case, if there has been no contract between company A and company B to transfer the economic rights from the latter to the former, the economic rights are continuously owned by company B, and company A should obtain the authorization for the public presentation of the video from company B.

    Also, if company A created the video for itself by mobilizing its employees alone, the video corresponds to a "work made by employees in the course of their duties", and therefore, company A is the author of the video. In this case no authorization of others is needed in terms of the use (public presentation) of the video. When a scenario and/or musical works are used in the video, contracts should be made with all relevant right owners for the public presentation as mentioned before.

    Contact Point
    for Further Information
    Japan Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers (JASRAC)
    Relevant Articles
    of the Copyright Law
    Paragraph (3), on the concept of cinematographic works
    (x), paragraph (1) Article 2 on the definition of makers of cinematographic work
    (xvii), paragraph (1), Article 2 on the definition of presentation
    Article 15 on works made by an employee in the course of his duties
    Article 16 on authorship of cinematographic work
    Article 22bis on the economic right of presentation
    Article 29 on the ownership of economic rights in cinematographic works



    Q 7-3 In the pavilion of the city itself we will exhibit and sell special products of the city and present a PR video, which was made by the City Office's Tourism Division, on a multi-vision display. Is there any copyright problem?

    Answer

    The PR video corresponds to a cinematographic work under the Copyright Law, and presenting it to the public in the pavilion corresponds to the act of public presentation under the Copyright Law. Presentation here may sound like the showing of a film on a large screen, however, showing a video on a display also corresponds to presentation.
    A crucial point here is the meaning of "made by the Tourism Division". It may literally mean that the officials working in the Tourism Division themselves made the video, using a camera, recording the sound and so on. In this case the video is a "work made by employees in the course of their duties", and the city can present it to the public as the author of the video. Although the authorization of the authors of the works adapted or reproduced in the video is needed, it is usually obtained by the contract to create the video.

    However, it is usually the case that the Tourism Division ordered the making of the video to a specialized video company. In this case, the economic rights are owned by that company, and the city should obtain the authorization of the company to present the video to the public. Therefore, it is better for the city to make a contract to transfer the economic rights from the company to the city. If there is no such contract, the economic rights are owned by that company as has been explained in Q7-2.

    If there is such a contract and the economic rights have been transferred to the city, the city, as the right owner may present the video to the public. However, in this case, the contract between the video company and the authors of the works adapted or reproduced in the video should be checked. For the musical works, JASRAC should be contacted.

    Contact Point
    for Further Information
    Japan Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers (JASRAC)
    Relevant Articles
    of the Copyright Law
    Paragraph (3), Article 2 on the concept of cinematographic works
    (x), paragraph (1) Article 2 on the definition of makers of cinematographic work
    (xvii), paragraph (1), Article 2 on the definition of presentation
    Article 15 on works made by an employee in the course of his duties
    Article 16 on authorship of cinematographic work
    Article 22bis on the economic right of presentation
    Article 29 on the ownership of economic rights in cinematographic works



    Q 7-4 A cable distribution system will be established in the exposition site to transmit music in music CDs to all pavilions continuously. Is there any problem of copyright?

    Answer

    Yes. Such a type of transmission to the public is called "wire diffusion to the public" in the Copyright Law, which is a part of "public transmission" covered by copyright. The concept of public transmission under the Copyright Law covers three types of wired/wireless transmission to the public: (1) interactive transmission, which automatically takes place upon request from members of the public, (2) simultaneous transmission, which continuously reaches members of the public, and (3) e-mail/facsimile services, which takes place upon request from members of the public manually.

    The definition of public transmission in the Copyright Law excludes transmission within one premise from the scope of public transmission. (The public transmission of computer programs within one premise is not excluded.) This "one premise" means the adjoining area occupied by the same entity within one building or one site. Therefore, public transmission between the places occupied by different entities falls under public transmission, even if the places are apparently sited within one premise, and calls for the authorization of relevant right owners.

    An exposition is organized under one common theme and the organizer is carrying out collective management of the whole exhibition site. However, there are usually a number of buildings and pavilions within the site, most of which are planned, organized and occupied by different organizations and companies. Therefore, wired transmission within the whole exposition site, connecting a lot of buildings and pavilions seems to correspond to "public transmission" under the Copyright Law, which calls for the authorization of the relevant right owners.
    "Wire diffusion organizations" in the Copyright Law means those who engage in the wire diffusion service continually whether they are profit-making or non-profit-making organizations and whether they are licenses by the government or not. Therefore, if the cable distribution system continues to transmit music, the transmitter corresponds to a wire diffusion organization under the Copyright Law.

    Such wire diffusion of music calls for, firstly, the authorization of the authors, viz. the composer and the songwriter. This authorization can be obtained through directly from the copyright owner or through JASRAC or other collective societies of musical works in terms of a number of musical works.

    Also, it is necessary to pay remuneration to the singers and music instrument players, who are called "performers" in the Copyright Law. This remuneration is called "secondary use fee", which is not paid directly to each performer but collectively through Japan Council of Performers' Organizations (GEIDANKYO) and the Recording Industry Association of Japan (RIAJ).

    There used to be an exceptional provision (Article 14 of the Supplementary Provisions) in the Copyright Law, which provided for that the author's economic right of public performance did not apply to that making use of sound recordings of musical works. Therefore, the act of public performance of music by playing a CD was not covered by copyright but the act of public transmission of music by wire diffusion was covered. However, this provision was abolished in 1999.

    Contact Point
    for Further Information
    Japan Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers (JASRAC)
    Japan Council of Performers' Organizations (GEIDANKYO)
    Recording Industry Association of Japan (RIAJ)
    Relevant Articles
    of the Copyright Law
    (ix)bis, paragraph (1), on the definition of wire diffusion
    (vii)bis, paragraph (1), Article 2 on the definition of public transmission
    (ix)ter, paragraph (1), Article 2 on the definition of wire diffusion organizations
    Article 23 on the economic right of public transmission
    Paragraph (7), Article 2 on the concept of musical performance
    Article 22 on the economic right of public performance



    Q 7-5 The city is planning to make a video of old shrines and temples in the city and to present it in the city's pavilion. However, some shrines and temples are claiming for payment for shooting. Should the city pay it?

    Answer

    By making a video of old shrines and temples, what are reproduced in the video tape seem to include such things as the buildings, gardens, walls and gates as those located outdoors as well as the statues, paintings, drawings and other artistic works as those located indoors. Some of them may be works of authorship but the terms of protection of most of them seem to have already expired, and therefore, they do not seem to be protected by copyright. Also, even if some of them are still protected by copyright, the shrines and temples usually just purchased them without obtaining the copyright.

    The old shrines and temples are controlling and managing such buildings and things as the owners and/or administrators of the physical things, not necessarily having copyright. Therefore, it is in fact possible to shoot a video of the walls, buildings and gardens from the outside.

    However, with a view to make a video of the statues, paintings, drawings and so on, which are located in the inside of the shrines and temples, it is necessary to get into the buildings. As the shrines and temples are controlling such tangible things, it is necessary to obtain their approval to come into the site and shoot them. In giving the approval, if the shrine or the temple set some conditions in terms of the future use of the video, it means that there is a contract which binds the city. The request for payment for shooting is also an offer for a contract, which means that the shrine or temple would not allow the shooting crew to come into the site to make a video of statues, paintings, drawings and so on without paying the money.

    This request for payment is not based on copyright but the status of the administrator of the buildings and other tangible things. Therefore, if there was no terms on the range of the future use of the video at the approval (contract) of shooting, the shrines and temples have no right (copyright or other property rights) to control the use of the video as well as what are fixed within it as images.

    There are some extremely exceptional cases of the court judgments in the past by which the existence of the right of publicity was confirmed in terms of the use of the picture of a cruiser and an advertising balloon, which had been taken from the outside without approval, however, they are rare cases.

    Relevant Articles
    of the Copyright Law
    Article 206 of the Civil Code on 91 on ownership
    Article 51 on the term of protection of author' economic rights

    To Page of Top