RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE IP/Q/JPN/1
24October 1996
ORGANIZATION(96-4461)
Original: English Council forTrade-Related Aspects
ofIntellectual Property Rights
REVIEW OFLEGISLATION ONCOPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS
Japan1
Thepresent document reproduces theintroductory statement made bythedelegation ofJapan
inthereview oflegislation oncopyright andrelated rights attheCouncil 'smeeting of22to
25July19962,thequestions puttoitandtheresponses given. TheAnnex tothedocument contains
across-referencing tableonJapan'slegislation oncopyright andrelated rights.
_______________
I. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
Astotheframework ofthelegislation tocomply withtheobligations regarding copyright under
theTRIPS Agreement, theCopyright Lawisthemain lawtofulfil suchobligations, although some
partsofthese obligations arecovered byother legislation, suchastheCivil Code andthePenal Code.
TheCopyright Lawhasbeencirculated indocument IP/N/1/JPN/C/1. Youcanfindthecontents and
structure ofthislawinitstableofcontents onpages 2and3ofthedocument. Asyoucansee,the
lawcovers moral andeconomic rights ofauthors, neighbouring rights, civilandcriminal remedies
andsoon.Japan made anamendment tothislawinDecember 1994, andthisamendment entered
intoforce on1January 1996. Since ourCopyright Law, before thisamendment, hadalready covered
themajority oftheobligations under theTRIPS Agreement, themajor partoftheamendment in1994
concerned incorporating works, performances, phonograms andbroadcasts fromother WTO Members
intothescope oftheprotection.
II. REPLIESTOQUESTIONSPOSEDBYTHEEUROPEANCOMMUNITIESANDTHEIR
MEMBER STATES
1. What isthedefinition of"country oforigin" asusedintheCopyright LawofJapan (Article 9.1
oftheTRIPS Agreement inconjunction withArticle 5(4)Berne Convention)?
TheprovisionsoftheJapaneseCopyrightLaw(Articles6to9bis)fullycomplywiththeprinciple
ofnational treatment required bytheBerne Convention, although itdoesnotusetheterm"country
oforigin" usedinArticle 5oftheBerne Convention.
1Japan 'snotification oflawsandregulations intheareaofcopyright andrelated rights under Article 63.2
oftheAgreement hasbeen circulated indocuments IP/N/1/JPN/1 andIP/N/1/JPN/C/1.
2Theminutes ofthemeeting have been circulated indocument IP/C/M/8.IP/Q/JPN/1
Page2
2. Towhatextent arequantitative limitations imposed, beitinlaworthrough thecourts, onthe
useofliterary orartistic works forteaching purposes pursuant toArticles 33to35oftheCopyright
Law(Article 9.1oftheTRIPS Agreement inconjunction withArticle 10(2) Berne Convention)?
Article 33oftheJapanese Copyright Lawallows thereproduction ofworks inschool textbooks,
andArticle 34allows broadcasting orwirediffusion ofworks forschool education andreproduction
ofworks intextbooks forsuchprogrammes. However, theseactscanbedoneunder thestrictcondition:
"only totheextent deemed necessary forthepurpose ofschool education". Also, theusershallannounce
theusetotheauthor inorder toprovide theauthor withachance toexercise his/her moral rights,
andshallpaycompensation tothecopyright owner.
Article 35allows theperson whoisincharge ofteaching ineducational institutions toreproduce
awork totheextent deemed objectively necessary forthepurpose ofuseinthecourse ofteaching,
provided thatsuchreproduction doesnotunreasonably prejudice theinterests ofthecopyright owner
inthelightofthenature ofthework aswellasthenumber ofcopies, etc.
These Articles (Articles 33to35)havebeencarefully established andapplied under strict
interpretation soastocomply withArticles 9(2)and10(2) oftheBerne Convention andArticle 13
oftheTRIPS Agreement.
[Follow-up question]
What mechanisms areinplace toinform andpaycompensation toauthors ofworks ofWTO
origin whensuchworks arereproduced, broadcast ordiffused bywireaspermitted inArticles 33and34
oftheJapanese Copyright Law? Ifnosuchcompensation mechanism exists, howmany copies are
concerned?
According toArticles 33and34,itistheuserhimself whoshallinform theauthor oftheuse
based onthese articles, andtheusershallpaythecompensation directly tothecopyright owner. This
system covers theworks ofWTO origin.
Even intheordinary useofexisting works under theauthorization ofthecopyright owner,
itistheuserhimself whoshould findandcontact theauthor andcopyright owner andpaythefeeif
necessary.
Inaddition, thenumber ofcompanies making useofArticles 33and34islimited, andthese
companies areinclose contact withtheMinistry ofEducation, which ensures theproper functioning
ofthesystem.
3. Does Japan require thatthesource andthename oftheauthor bementioned, inaccordance
withArticle 9.1oftheTRIPS Agreement inconjunction withArticle 10(3) Berne Convention, whenever
useismade ofawork inaccordance withArticle 35oftheCopyright Law?
When ateacher usesawork forteaching without theauthorization ofthecopyright owner based
onArticle 35,heorsheshall, according toArticle 48(1)(3), clearly indicate thesource "provided that
standard practice sorequires". Theobjective ofArticle 48(1)(3) istoclarify thattheteacher isnot
required toindicate thesource when itispractically impossible andthisprovision isclearly consistent
withtheprovision ofArticle 10(3) oftheBerne Convention.
4. Does Article 41oftheCopyright Lawpermit thefreeuseofworks inrelation tocurrent events
bywhatever means ofcommunication tothepublic, including forms which arenotexplicitly listed in
Article 9.1oftheTRIPS Agreement inconjunction withArticle 10bis(2) Berne Convention?IP/Q/JPN/1
Page3
Article 41oftheJapanese Copyright Lawistolimitthecopyright ofawork intheusefor
thepurpose ofreporting current events done bysuchorganizations asnewspaper companies and
broadcasting organizations. Insuch cases, thework canbeused bymeans ofphotography,
cinematographyandbroadcastingaswellassuch"othermeans"asnewspaperarticlesandwirediffusion.
However, theyareallowed only"totheextent justified bytheinformatory purpose", and,therefore,
thisprovision isnottoallow suchusesunlimitedly.
[Follow-up question]
Does Japanese law(Article 41)allow thefreereproduction ofaliterary workinanewspaper,
magazine orsimilar publication forthepurpose of"reporting current events"?
Article 41oftheJapanese Copyright Lawdoesnotallow unlimitedly thereproduction ofa
literary work inanewspaper, magazine andothers forthepurpose of"reporting current events".
Theuseallowed under Article 41isonly"totheextent justified bytheinformatory purpose".
Thisarticle wasstipulated anticipating suchcases asthebroadcasting ofasporting event withthemusic
usedinthatsporting event, andthereproduction ofastolen picture onanewspaper.
Although Article 41doesnotstipulate anydifferentiated range ofuseinterms ofthecategory
ofworks, inthecaseofliterary works, itisextremely hardtoimagine acase, inwhich itisallowed
bythisarticle toreproduce awhole literary work inanewspaper, magazine, etc"totheextent justified
bytheinformatory purpose".
5. Does Article 41oftheCopyright Lawallow thereproduction orexploitation ofawork not
actually seenorheard inthecourse oftheevent thatisbeing reported (Article 9.1oftheTRIPS
Agreement inconjunction withArticle 10bis(2) Berne Convention)?
Article 41oftheJapanese Copyright Lawallows reproduction andexploitation ofawork seen
orheard inthecourse ofanevent andof"awork implicated intheevent" forthepurpose ofreporting
current events donebysuchorganizations asnewspaper companies andbroadcasting organizations.
"Awork implicated intheevent" means awork which constitutes theevent asthesubject matter.
Forexample, when atheftofapicture happens, thatpicture isthework "implicated intheevent".
Therefore, Article 41doesnotallow thereproduction ofworks which merely relate totheevent.
6. Isittheposition oftheGovernment ofJapan thatArticle 14oftheSupplementary Provisions
ofLawNo.48of6May1970 should bemaintained initscurrent form? Ifnot,what amendments
doestheGovernment envisage (Article 9.1oftheTRIPS Agreement inconjunction withArticle 11(1)
Berne Convention?
AstoArticle 14oftheSupplementary Provisions ofLawNo.48of6May1970(theJapanese
Copyright Law), theCopyright Council oftheAgency forCultural Affairs oftheJapanese Government
already supported theabolition ofthesaidArticle. Taking thisintoconsideration, thegovernment
ofJapan isnowexamining theresult ofthisCouncil.
7. Towhatextent isaperson orbodycorporate whose name appears onacinematographic work
presumed tobethemaker ofthesaidwork under Japanese law(Article 9.1oftheTRIPS Agreement
inconjunction withArticle 15(2) Berne Convention)?
Although Article 14oftheJapanese Copyright Lawrefers onlyonthepresumption ofauthors,
aperson orbody corporate whose name appears onacinematographic work ispresumed tobethe
maker ofthatwork inpractice, andthere hasbeennopractical orjudicial problem onthispoint.IP/Q/JPN/1
Page4
8. Doesthedefinition ofcomputer programmes ascontained inArticle 2(1)(xbis) oftheCopyright
Lawinclude programs insource codeaswellasprogrammes inobject code(Article 10.1oftheTRIPS
Agreement)?
Computer programs defined inArticle 2(1)(xbis)oftheJapanese Copyright Lawincludes
programs insource codeaswellasinobject code.
9. Dooriginals ofcomputer programs andcinematographic works fallwithin thescope ofthe
rental rightprovided byArticle 26bis andArticle 26respectively oftheCopyright Law(Article 11of
theTRIPS Agreement)?
Boththerightofdistribution (including therightoflending) provided forinArticle 26ofthe
Japanese Copyright Lawandtherightoflending provided forinArticle 26bisprescribe thattheacts
ofdistribution orlending covered arethose doneby"copies" ofthework.
However, astheconcept of"copies" intheJapanese Copyright Lawincludes allfixations of
awork, theoriginal ofthework isalsoincluded intheconcept of"copies".
10. Does Article 91(1) oftheCopyright Law, inconjunction withArticle 112(1) ofthesame Law,
allow performers toprevent boththefixation oftheirunfixed performance andthereproduction ofsuch
fixation when undertaken without theirauthorization (Article 14.1oftheTRIPS Agreement)?
Performers 'righttomake sound orvisual recordings stipulated inArticle 91oftheJapanese
Copyright Lawisanexclusive rightwithrespect tosound andvisual recordings andobviously includes
thepossibilityofpreventingthereproductionofunauthorizedfixationofperformances,whichisrequired
byArticle 14.1oftheTRIPS Agreement, andArticle 91fulfils theobligation oftheTRIPS Agreement.
11. Does Article 92(1) oftheCopyright Law,incombination withArticle 112(1) ofthisLaw, give
performers thepossibility toprevent anycommunication tothepublic oftheirliveperformance when
undertaken without theirauthorization, including where suchcommunication doesnotrequire anyactive
participation bytheperson communicating theperformance, suchaswhere works aremade available
foraccess on-line (Article 14.1oftheTRIPS Agreement)?
Based onArticle 92(1) oftheJapanese Copyright Law, performers havetheexclusive right
oftransmission tothepublic byanymeans including wireorwireless transmission, simultaneous or
on-demand, analog ordigital, oftheirliveperformance when suchtransmission isundertaken without
theirauthorization.
Astothecommunication tothepublic other thanthetransmission tothepublic, performers
themselves canexercise "thepossibility ofpreventing" itbycontract.
[Follow-up question]
Could theJapanese representatives giveanexample ofcases ofcommunication tothepublic
ofliveperformances which areconsidered nottobeactsoftransmissions tothepublic oractsof
broadcasting under Article 92(1) ofJapanese Copyright Law?
Onesimple example ofsuchacaseis"live performance" infront ofthepublic.
12. Towhatextent doestherequirement inArticle 100oftheCopyright Lawtocommunicate "by
meansofaspecialinstrumentforenlargingimages"limitthebroadcastingorganizations'righttoprohibit
communication tothepublic oftheirtelevision broadcasts (Article 14.3oftheTRIPS Agreement)?IP/Q/JPN/1
Page5
Article 100oftheJapanese Copyright Lawgrants tobroadcasting organizations theexclusive
righttocommunicate tothepublic theirtelevision programmes bymeans ofthedevice toenlarge the
image.
Astothecommunication tothepublic through normal television withpayment, therehasbeen
nosuchpractical caseinJapan, andsotheJapanese Copyright Lawprovides forsuchexclusive right
onlyinthecaseofcommunication withaspecial instrument forenlarging images.
[Follow-up question]
Inlightoftheanswer given toquestion No.12,itisourunderstanding thatJapanese Lawdoes
notgrant broadcasting organizations therighttoprohibit thecommunication tothepublic oftelevision
broadcasts when thecommunication isnot"bymeans ofaspecial instrument forenlarging images"
(Article 100). HowdoesJapanese Copyright Lawcomply withtheobligation setupinArticle 14.3
oftheTRIPS Agreement?
Article 100oftheJapanese Copyright Lawgrants tobroadcasting organizations theexclusive
righttocommunicate tothepublic theirtelevision programmes bymeans ofthedevice toenlarge the
image. Paragraph 6ofArticle 14oftheTRIPS Agreement stipulates thatanyMember may,inrelation
totherights ofbroadcasting organizations conferred under paragraph 3ofthesame Article, provide
forlimitations permitted bytheRome Convention. AsArticle 13(d) oftheRome Convention stipulates
thatthedomestic lawofthestatewhere protection oftherightisclaimed maydetermine theconditions
under which itmaybeexercised, theJapanese Copyright Lawexcludes thecommunication tothepublic
oftelevision broadcasts bymeans ofatelevision forhome use.
13. Dooriginals ofphonograms fallwithin thescope oftherental right provided by
Articles 95bis(1)-(3) and97bis(1)-(3), incombination withArticle 2(1)(vii), oftheCopyright Law
(Article 14.4oftheTRIPS Agreement)?
TheJapanese Copyright Lawprovides for"therightoflending" withrespect tocommercial
phonograms. Ifanoriginal ofaphonogram isusedforcommercial purposes, itwillberegarded as
"acommercial phonogram", andtherefore, theoriginal ofaphonogram usedforsuchpurposes falls
within thescope of"therightoflending".
14. From which point intimedotheprovisions ofArticle 14.1-14.3 ofTRIPS apply totherights
ofperformers andproducers ofphonograms inphonograms under theCopyright Law?
TheGovernment ofJapan considers itdesirable toprovide ahighlevel ofprotection for
intellectual property rights andbelieves 50yearretroactive protection oftherights ofperformers and
producers ofphonograms (sound recordings) isappropriate. Therefore, adraft amendment tothe
Copyright Lawisunder preparation forsubmission totheDietwithaviewtoextending theperiod
ofretroactive protection forsuchrights to50years.
III. REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYSWITZERLAND
1. Pleaseexplainwhetherandhowleviesforprivatecopyingaredistributedtoforeignrightholders.
ThesystemofPrivateRecordingCompensationwasintroducedbytheamendmenttotheJapanese
Copyright Lawin1992, andwasstarted in1993(sofaronlyfor"sound recording", excluding "visual
recording").IP/Q/JPN/1
Page6
Thecompensation iscollected byacollective society called theSARAH (Society forthe
Administration ofRemuneration forAudio Home Recording), which began thedistribution of
compensation money in1994. Thecompensation isdistributed tothree collective societies inJapan,
namely those of(1)music copyright owners, (2)performers and(3)producers ofphonograms.
These Japanese collective societies thendistribute partofthecompensation totheiroverseas
counterparts inaccordance withthenegotiated contracts based onthestatistical outcomes anddataof
sampling surveys.
Wehavebeeninformed thatthethree collective societies havealready reached contracts with
theiroverseas counterparts, except forone.Negotiation between theJapanese performers 'organization
anditscounterpart intheUnited States isstillinprocess.
2. Please indicate where onecanfindtheprovisions onborder measures andprovisional measures.
Thelegalbasis of"boarder measures" canbefound intheJapanese Copyright Lawandthe
Customs Tariff Law. Article 113oftheJapanese Copyright Law, stipulates thatitisdeemed an
infringement onacopyright toimport intoJapan, fordistribution, objects made byanactwhich would
constitute aninfringement oncopyright atthetimeofsuchimportation iftheywere made inJapan.
Theimportation ofobjects made bycopyright infringement isprohibited byArticle 21ofthe
Japanese Customs Tariff Lawandshallbepunished byArticle 109oftheJapanese Customs Law.
Asforthedueprocedures, special requirements related toborder measures areprovided by
Articles 21bisand21teroftheCustoms Tariff Law.
Provisions on"provisional measures" canbefound intheCode ofCivilPreservative Procedure
which isoneofgeneral lawsrelated tocivilremedies. TheCode isincluded inWTO document
IP/N/1/JPN/1 titled"Notification ofLaws andRegulations under Article 63.2oftheAgreement", which
wasissued on1March 1996.
IV. REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYTHE UNITED STATES
1. Please explain whether andhowJapanese lawprovides protection forworks, phonograms and
performances fromother WTO Members, andwhether andhowitdoessoonthebasis ofnational
treatment, asrequired byTRIPS Article 3(generally, withrespect toallcopyrights andneighbouring
rights) andArticle 9.1(incorporating Berne Article 5(1)). Inparticular, please explain hownational
treatment isafforded withrespect tothedistribution oflevies forprivate copying under Article 30(2)
and104bis etseq., oftheCopyright Law.
TheJapanese Copyright Lawprovides protection forworks, phonograms, performances and
broadcasting fromotherWTO Members. Inconcrete terms, Articles 6,7,8and9respectively provides
protection fortheworks, performances, phonograms andbroadcasting which aregranted protection
under theJapanese Copyright Law. Alltheseprovisions cover theworks, phonograms, performances
andbroadcasting from other WTO Members.
Thisprotection isprovided onthebasis oftheprinciple ofnational treatment required by
Articles 3and9.1(incorporating Berne Article 5(1))oftheTRIPS Agreement. Namely, astoworks,
theJapanese Copyright Lawgrants toworks from other WTO Members alltherights stipulated in
theJapanese Copyright LawforJapanese works. Astoperformers, producers ofphonograms and
broadcasting organizations, theJapanese Copyright Lawgrants toperformers, producers ofphonogramsIP/Q/JPN/1
Page7
andbroadcasting organizations ofotherWTO Members alltherights stipulated intheTRIPS Agreement
inaccordance withitsArticle 3,which provides that"thisobligation (national treatment) onlyapplies
inrespect oftherights provided under thisAgreement".
The"right tocompensation forprivate recording" stipulated inArticles 30(2) and104bisof
theJapanese Copyright Lawisgranted toallrightowners protected under theJapanese Copyright Law
including those inother WTO Members. Thislegislation doesnotdiscriminate between Japanese and
foreign rightowners, andtherefore itdoesnotposeanyproblem inthelightoftheprinciple ofnational
treatment.
[Follow-up question]
Howarethelevies forprivate copying under Articles 30and104bis oftheJapanese copyright
lawdistributed soastogivetheappropriate share torightholders fromother WTO Member countries?
ThesystemofPrivateRecordingCompensationwasintroducedbytheamendmenttotheJapanese
Copyright Lawin1992, andstarted in1993 (sofaronlyfor"sound recording", excluding "visual
recording").
Thecompensation iscollected byacollective society called SARAH (Society forthe
Administration ofRemuneration forAudio Home Recording), which began thedistribution of
compensation money in1994. Thecompensation isdistributed tothree collective societies inJapan,
namely those of(1)music copyright owners, (2)performers and(3)producers ofphonograms.
These Japanese collective societies thendistribute apartofthecompensation totheiroverseas
counterparts through negotiations andcontracts based onthestatistical outcomes anddataofsampling
surveys.
Wehavebeeninformed thatthethree collective societies havealready reached contracts with
theiroverseas counterparts, except forone.Negotiation between theJapanese performers 'organization
anditscounterpart intheUnited States isstillinprocess.
2. Itappears thatArticle 95.3oftheCopyright Lawapplies the“ruleoftheshorter term”to
phonograms andperformances fromother WTO Members. Isthistrue? Ifso,please explain how
thisisconsistent withtheobligations setforth inTRIPS Article 4.
Article 4oftheTRIPS Agreement provides forthemost-favoured-nation treatment withregard
totheprotection ofintellectual property. However, Article 4(b)stipulates that"(any advantage, favour,
privilege orimmunity) granted inaccordance withtheprovisions oftheBerne Convention (1971) or
theRome Convention authorizing thatthetreatment accorded beafunction notofnational treatment
butofthetreatment accorded inanother country" areexempted from thisobligation.
Ontheother hand, Article 95(3) oftheJapanese Copyright Lawstipulates theapplication of
reciprocity withrespect tothetermoftheprotection fortherighttosecondary usefeesofcommercial
phonograms ofperformers. Thisprovision isbased onthedeclaration ofreservation which Japan made
inaccordance withArticle 16.1(a)(iv) oftheRome Convention, andtherefore, isconsistent with
Article 4(b)oftheTRIPS Agreement. Thismeans thattheprovision ofArticle 95(3) isconsistent
withtheTRIPS Agreement.
3. Please explain whether andhowJapan protects against boththedirect andindirect reproduction
ofphonograms asrequired byTRIPS Article 14.2, including bydigital transmission inthecontext of
subscription orinteractive services.IP/Q/JPN/1
Page8
Article 96oftheJapanese Copyright Lawprovides fortherightofreproduction ofproducers
ofphonograms i.e.theright toauthorize orprohibit thedirect orindirect reproduction oftheir
phonograms required byArticle 14.2oftheTRIPS Agreement. Thisrightapplies alsototheactof
reproduction through digital transmission inthecontext ofsubscription orinteractive services.
4. PleaseexplainwhetherandhowJapanprovidesfullretroactiveprotectiontoworks,phonograms
andperformances fromother WTO Members, asrequired byTRIPS Articles 9.1,14.6and70.2, each
ofwhich incorporate byreference orrelyupon Berne Article 18.Please givethedatebacktowhich
suchprotection extends withrespect toeachcategory ofsubject matter.
TheGovernment ofJapan considers itdesirable toprovide ahighlevel ofprotection for
intellectual property rights andbelieves 50yearretroactive protection oftherights ofperformers and
producers ofphonograms (sound recordings) isappropriate. Therefore, adraft amendment tothe
Copyright Lawisunder preparation forsubmission totheDietwithaviewtoextending theperiod
ofretroactive protection forsuchrights to50years. Astotheworks originating inWTO Member
countries, Japanese Copyright Lawprotects copyright inthework from itscreation totheendofa
50-year period following theauthor 'sdeath. Thisprotection covers, asof1996, allworks theauthor
ofwhich diedinandafter1946.
5. Please explain whether theperformer 'srightunder Article 91oftheCopyright Lawincludes
therighttoprevent thereproduction ofunauthorized fixations ofperformances, asrequired byTRIPS
Article 14.1.
Therighttoprevent "thereproduction ofunauthorized fixations ofperformances" stipulated
inArticle 14.1oftheTRIPS Agreement isincluded intherightprovided forinArticle 91oftheJapanese
Copyright Law. ThisrightintheJapanese Copyright Lawisanexclusive rightinterms ofsound or
visual recordings oftheir performances, andthisArticle fulfils theobligation under theTRIPS
Agreement.
6. Please explain howthecompulsory licenses forreproduction, translation andadaptation of
works inschool textbooks andeducational broadcasting provided forthrough Articles 33and34of
theCopyright Lawareconsistent withthepermissible scope ofexceptions toprotection setoutinBerne
Articles 9(2)and10(2), asincorporated byTRIPS Article 9.1,andinTRIPS Article 13.
Articles 33and34oftheJapanese Copyright Lawarenotprovisions ofcompulsory licenses
butoflimitations oncopyright entailing theobligation ofcompensation. Article 33allows reproduction
ofworks inschool textbooks; Article 34allows broadcasting orwirediffusion ofworks forschool
education andreproduction ofworks intextbooks forsuchprogrammes. These actscanbedoneunder
thestrict condition: "only totheextent deemed necessary forthepurpose ofschool education". Also,
inorder toprovide theauthors withchances toexercise theirmoral rights theusershallannounce the
usetotheauthor. Inaddition, theusershallpaycompensation tothecopyright owner. These provisions
havebeencarefully established andapplied under strict interpretation inconformity withArticles 9(2)
and10(2) oftheBerne Convention andArticle 13oftheTRIPS Agreement.
[Follow-up question]
Please describe howArticles 33and34oftheJapanese copyright lawhave been strictly
interpreted soastobring themwithin thepermissible limitations onrights setforthinBerne Articles 9
and10andTRIPS Article 13.Inparticular, hasthetextoftheseArticles ofJapanese lawbeenlimited
inoperation orapplication inanyway,suchasbyconsidering theamount thatcanbecopied, the
availability ofalicense fromtherightholder, theintended purpose ofthework, orthespecific nature
oftheuse?IP/Q/JPN/1
Page9
BothArticles33and34stipulatethelimitationonthepermissibleusetobe"totheextentdeemed
necessary forthepurpose ofschool education".
Forexample, reproducing orbroadcasting alarge number ofworks ofthesame author or
reproducing orbroadcasting thewhole range ofawork (forexample, awhole novel) isnotdeemed
necessary.
Attention should bedrawn tothefactthatthepermissible reproduction under Article 33can
bedoneonlyforschool textbooks authorized bytheMinistry ofEducation. IntheJapanese school
education system, itisrequired thatalltextbooks bechecked andauthorized bytheMinistry of
Education, andtherefore, the"school textbook" inthisArticle doesnotmean allbooks usedatschool.
Thismeans thatthere isaqualitative limitation insuchcases.
Also,alltextbooksarepurchasedandgiventoallelementaryandlowersecondaryschoolstudents
bytheMinistry ofEducation, which means thatthere isaquantitative limitation.
Astothebroadcastingprogrammesorwirediffusionprogrammesforschooleducationstipulated
inArticle 34,attention should bepaidtothefactthatthepermissible broadcastings under Article 34
arethose which conform tothenational curriculum standard established indetail bytheMinistry of
Education.
Therefore, thisArticle doesnotallow allbroadcasting forschool education sotherange of
theapplication ofthisArticle isverylimited.
7. Please explain howtheexceptions provided through Articles 30(1), 38,and102comply with
Berne Article 9(2)andTRIPS Article 13,which require limitations andexceptions toexclusive rights
tobelimited tocertain special cases which donotconflict withanormal exploitation oftheworkand
donotunreasonably prejudice thelegitimate interests oftherightholder, including thelimitations for
phonograms in14.6.
Article 30(1) istheprovision which allows ausertoreproduce aworkbyhimself forthepurpose
ofhispersonal useandfamily use. Article 38istheprovision which permits ausertouseawork
fornon-profitpurposesunderstrictconditionsinsuchintangibleformsaspublicperformance,recitation,
lending andwirediffusion. Article 102isasimilar provision onlimitation ofneighbouring rights.
TheJapanese Copyright Lawhassome provisions oflimitations andcopyright andneighbouring rights,
butalloftheminclude strict anddetailed conditions. Therefore, these provisions havebeencarefully
stipulated andstrictly interpreted inconformity withtheprovisions ininternational treaties suchas
Article 9(2)oftheBerne Convention which allows limitation onreproduction ofworks "provided that
suchreproduction doesnotconflict withanormal exploitation ofthework anddoesnotunreasonably
prejudice thelegitimate interests oftheauthor" andArticle 13oftheTRIPS Agreement which allows
limitations andexceptions.
[Follow-up question]
Please describe howtheexceptions inArticles 30(1), 38and102oftheJapanese copyright
lawhavebeenstrictly interpreted soastobring themwithin thepermissible limitations onrights set
forthinBerne andTRIPS. Inparticular, hasthetextofthese Articles ofJapanese lawbeenlimited
inoperation orapplication inanyway,suchasbyconsidering theeffect onthemarket forthework,
thenature ofthework, orthespecific nature oftheuse?IP/Q/JPN/1
Page10
(i) Article 30(1)
- thereproduction hasbedonebytheuserhimself;
- "other similar useswithin alimited circle" isstrictly applied nottoinclude
"friends";
- thenumber ofcopies should belimited;
- reproduction forprofit-making purpose isnotpermissible;
- reproduction fortheuser'sbusiness isnotpermissible evenifthatbusiness
isnon-profitable.
(ii) Article 38(1)
Article 38(1) permits public performance ofworks under some conditions:
Firstly, itshould bedonefornon-profit-making purpose. "Non-profit-making purpose"
doesnotmerely mean "noadmission charge", andindirect contribution toprofit-making is
notpermissible.
Forexample,freepublicperformanceforadvertisement,backgroundmusicinafactory,
music played inahotel lobby areallconsidered asfor"profit-making-purposes".
Secondly, nofeeshould becharged. "Fee" includes anytypeofpayment including,
forexample, monthly payment forthemembership ofagroup.
Thirdly, theperformers should notreceive anypayment. "Payment" includes alltypes
ofmoney thattheperformers receive regardless ofthedenomination.
(iii) Article 38(2)
Article 38(2) allows wirediffusion ofaworkalready broadcast under some conditions.
These conditions aresimilar tothose inArticle 38(1), butthere isanadditional condition i.e.
"already broadcast". Because ofthiscondition thisparagraph virtually applies only to
simultaneous wirediffusion forareas withdifficulty inreceiving theoriginal broadcasting.
(iv) Article 38(3)
Article 38(3) allows communication tothepublic ofworks already broadcast or
wire-diffused byareceiving apparatus under certain conditions. Mostoftheconditions overlap
withthose inArticle 38(1).
(v) Article 38(4)
Article 38(4) allows lending ofworks under certain conditions. Theyarealsoincluded
inArticle 38(1).
Asaresult ofsuchconditions, thelending rightoftheJapanese Copyright Lawvirtually
becomes therightofcommercial rental except forcinematographic works.
(vi) Article 38(5)
Article 38(5) allows lending ofcinematographic works under certain conditions. Some
oftheconditions overlap withthose inArticle 38(1).IP/Q/JPN/1
Page11
However, thisparagraph provides fortwoadditional conditions; firstly thelending
hastobedonebyaudiovisual education facilities designated bytheGovernment andsecondly,
suchfacilities shallpaycompensation.
8. Please explain howArticles 67and68oftheCopyright Law,which permit compulsory licensing
insituations where theowner ofacopyright isunknown andwithregard tothebroadcasting ofworks,
respectively, comply withTRIPS Article 13which requires thatlimitations andexceptions toexclusive
rights beconfined tocertain special cases which donotconflict withanormal exploitation ofthework
anddonotunreasonably prejudice thelegitimate interests oftherightholder.
Article 67oftheJapanese Copyright Lawstipulates thattheperson whowishes toexploit a
work which hasalready beenmade public butthecopyright owner ofwhich cannot befound may
lawfully exploit theworks under theauthorization byacompulsory license issued bytheCommissioner
oftheAgency forCultural Affairs andupon depositing compensation, theamount ofwhich isfixed
bytheCommissioner. Article 67alsostipulates thatthecopies reproduced insuchawaymustbear
anindication totheeffect thatthereproduction ofthesecopies hasbeenlicensed bytheCommissioner.
Article 68stipulates thatabroadcasting organization maybroadcast aworkalready made public
under theauthorization byacompulsory license issued bytheCommissioner oftheAgency forCultural
Affairs andupon paying compensation tothecopyright owner, theamount ofwhich isfixed bythe
Commissioner, provided thattheorganization cannot reach anagreement inrespect ofauthorization
tobroadcast thework withthecopyright owner through thenegotiation.
AstoArticle 67,thecondition setoutintheArticle, which reads "provided that,afterdue
diligence, thecopyright owner cannot befound forthereason thatheisunknown orforother reasons"
isinterpreted strictly; forexample, when applying foranexploitation based onArticle 67,theapplicant
should submit adocument toclarify thatheorshecould notcontact thecopyright owner although
heorshehasmade every possible effort. Through thepasttenyears, onlytwocases havebeenaccepted
based onthisprovision.
AstoArticle 68,thissystem hasnever beenusedsofar.
9. Please explain thecircumstances inwhich copyright isowned bytheNational Treasury, and
thecontent oftheprovisions oftheCivil Code (Law. No.89,of1896), asreferred toinArticle 62
oftheCopyright Law.
According totheJapanese Civil Code, aninheritance withnoheirs andthelikebelongs to
theNational Treasury.
However, Article 62oftheJapanese Copyright Lawstipulates thatcopyright withnoheirs
shallnotbelong totheNational Treasury butexpire. ThisArticle hasbeenestablished because itwas
considered moredesirable toputsuchworks inpublic domain forfreeexploitation inorder tocontribute
tocultural development.
10. Please explain whether civilpenalties under Japanese lawserve todeter infringement andto
adequately compensate copyright holders, given theconcerns raised bysoftware companies withregard
tothehighcosts ofbringing civilactions, thedifficult evidentiary burdens facing copyright owners
andthelowlevelofdamages andcostreimbursement awards.
Theconcept ofcivilpenalties doesnotexistinJapanese legislations.
TheCivil Code stipulates that,inprinciple, asufferer (copyright owner) hastheburden of
proof withregard totheamount ofdamage when claiming compensation.IP/Q/JPN/1
Page12
However, asitisnoteasytoprove theamount ofdamage caused byinfringement ofcopyright,
theJapanese Copyright Lawhasanexceptional provision thatturnssuchburden ofproof totheinfringer
toprotect copyright owners.
Article 114oftheCopyright Lawstipulates asfollows:
(i) Inthecasewhere anowner ofcopyright, rightofpublication orneighbouring rights
claims compensation fordamages from aperson whohasinfringed intentionally or
negligently anyofthese rights, theprofits, ifany,obtained bytheinfringer fromthat
infringement shallbepresumed tobetheamount ofdamages suffered bysuchanowner.
(ii) Theowners ofcopyright andneighbouring rights mayclaim compensation fordamages
from aperson whohasinfringed intentionally ornegligently their copyright or
neighbouring rights, theamount ofdamages suffered being thatcorresponding tothe
ordinary amount ofmoney which would bereceived bythem through theexercise of
these rights.
(iii) Theprovision ofthepreceding paragraph shallnotprejudice anyclaim tocompensation
fordamages inexcess oftheamount mentioned therein. Insuchcase, thecourt may
takeintoconsideration theabsence ofanybadfaithorgross negligence onthepart
oftheinfringer infixing theamount ofdamages.
11. Please explain thecriminal andcivilremedies available forcopyright infringement andthe
extent towhich theyfullyimplement theobligations inTRIPS Articles 41,45,50and61. Inthe
response, please specify, interalia,whether these remedies mayinclude theseizure, forfeiture and
destruction ofinfringing articles andequipment usedtomake theinfringing articles, asrequired by
Article 46and61,andthemanner inwhich thegrant ofcivilprovisional relief isprovided inaccordance
withTRIPS Article 50.
(1) Article 114oftheCopyright Lawstipulates thepresumption oftheamount ofdamages
caused byinfringements andcorresponds adequately toArticle 45oftheTRIPS Agreement
which stipulates "damages".
Article 112oftheCopyright Lawprovides fortherightofdemanding cessation against
infringementsandcorrespondsadequatelytoArticle46oftheTRIPSAgreementwhichstipulates
"other remedies".
Furthermore, Article 119oftheCopyright Lawprovides forpenal punishments against
infringements andcorresponds adequately toArticle 61oftheTRIPS Agreement.
Article 112(2) oftheCopyright Lawprovides fortheseizure andthedestruction of
infringing articles andequipment usedtomake theinfringing articles andArticle 19ofthe
Penal Code provides forforfeiture.
(2) Acopyright owner mayclaim civilremedies, suchascompensation byfiling acivil
casetothecourt against aperson whoinfringed his/her copyright.
Theoutline oftheprocedure inregard totheprovisional measures isasfollows:
Theprocedure fortheprovisional measures isinitiated bytherequest ofaparty concerned.
Following thehearings from theparty (orbothparties), thecourt determines whether thelegal
requirements foradopting theprovisional measure aremet.Ifthecourtdetermines toadopt themeasure,IP/Q/JPN/1
Page13
theorder ofpreservative measure isserved onthedefendant. Thedefendant mayrequest thecourt
theannulment oftheorder byraising ofanobjection.
Inaddition, based ontherequest from thedefendant, thecourt which issued theorder shall
fixacertain reasonable period andrequire theapplicant:
(i) tofilethecaseonthemerits andtoprovide written evidence offiling thecaseonthe
merits within suchperiod.
(ii) toprovide written evidence ofpendency ofcasewithin suchperiod, ifthecaseisalready
filed.
Incasetheapplicant failstoprovide suchevidence within therequired period, thedefendant
mayrequest thecourt theannulment oftheorder ofpreservative measure.
[Follow-up question]
Please describe theextent towhich exparte injunctive relief isavailable inJapan. Forexample,
under whatcircumstances isarightholder inacomputer program thatsuspects acompany isusing
copies ofthatprogram without itsauthorization abletorequest anexparte search andseizure order
fromthecourt, andtohavethatorder executed? Ifthisprocedure isavailable, howoftenisitinvoked
andhowlongdoesittake? Ourcompanies haveindicated thatitcan,onoccasion, takemonths or
evenyears; isthisaccurate?
(i) Asforexparte injunctive relief, theCode ofCivil Preservative Procedures provides
for"provisional orders regarding objects concerned" and"provisional orders deciding a
provisional status" asprovisional measures which courts mayorder.
(ii) Theprovisionalorderregardingobjectsconcernedmaybeissuedwhereacourtconcludes
there isapossibility thattheapplicant would notbeabletoexercise, orwould come toface
extreme difficulties inexercising, itsrightbecause ofachange inthesituation ofsuchobjects
(Article 23.1oftheJapanese Code ofCivilPreservative Procedures). Itisnotalways necessary
forthecourt togiveanopportunity totheadverse party topresent itsopinion prior tothe
issuance ofprovisional order. (Ontheother hand, acourt shallholdahearing which both
parties concerned mayattend before thecourt renders decision ofinjunction asthefinal
measure.)
(iii) Theprovisional order deciding aprovisional status maybeissued where acourt
concludes thatsuchanorder isnecessary foravoiding extreme damage orimminent danger
which theapplicant would suffer regarding thelegal relations atissue (Article 23.2ofthe
Japanese Code ofCivil Preservative Procedures). Inprinciple, thecourt shallholdahearing
orinterrogation which theadverse partymayattend priortotheissuance oftheorder. However,
where thecourt considers itwould beimpossible toaccomplish thepurpose oftherequest for
theprovisional order ifitheldsuch ahearing orinterrogation, thecourt mayissue the
provisional measure without holding thehearing orinterrogation (Article 23.4oftheJapanese
Code ofCivil Preservative Procedures).
(iv) Asforthenumber ofcases inwhich injunctive relief isrequested based oncopyright,
andthelength oftimenecessary tocomplete theprocedures, statistics arenotavailable, and
wedonothavespecific figures. However, itisourrecognition thatthissystem isfunctioning
well.IP/Q/JPN/1
Page14
ANNEX
LISTING OFCROSS REFERENCE
PART II: STANDARDS CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY, SCOPE AND USEOF
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
PROVISIONS OFTHE TRIPS AGREEMENT PROVISIONS OFRELEVANT LAWS
AND/OR REGULATIONS
SECTION 1:Copyright andRelated Rights
Article 9: Relation totheBerne Convention
Para. 1-Compliance withtheBerne
Convention
Para. 2-Extent ofcopyright protection Copyright Law, Article 2,para. 1(i)
Copyright Law, Article 10,para. 3
Article 10: Computer Programmes and
Compilations ofData
Para. 1-Protection ofcomputer programmes Copyright Law, Article 10,para. 1(ix)
Para. 2-Protection ofcompilation ofdata Copyright Law, Article 12,para. 1
Copyright Law, Article 12bis,para. 1
-Protection ofanycopyright subsisting
inthedataormaterial itselfCopyright Law, Article 12,para. 2
Copyright Law, Article 12bis,para. 2
Article 11: Rental Rights
-Rental right ofcinematographic
worksCopyright Law, Article 26
-Rental right ofcomputer programmes Copyright Law, Article 26bis
Article 12: Term ofProtection Copyright Law, Article 52
Copyright Law, Article 53
Copyright Law, Article 54
Copyright Law, Article 57
Article 13: Limitations andExceptions Copyright Law, Articles 30-47bis
Copyright Law, Articles 67-69
Article 14: Protection ofPerformers, Producers
ofPhonograms (Sound Recordings)
andBroadcasting Organizations
Para. 1-Fixation andreproduction right of
performersCopyright Law, Article 2,para. 1(xiii)
Copyright Law, Article 91,para. 1IP/Q/JPN/1
Page15
PROVISIONS OFTHE TRIPS AGREEMENT PROVISIONS OFRELEVANT LAWS
AND/OR REGULATIONS
-Right ofbroadcasting and
communication tothepublic of
performers related tothelive
performances
Para. 2-Reproduction right ofproducers of
phonograms
Para. 3-Fixation andreproduction right of
broadcasting organizationsCopyright Law, Article 92,para. 1
Copyright Law, Article 96
Copyright Law, Article 98
-Right ofbroadcasting and
communication tothepublic of
broadcasting organizationsCopyright Law, Article 99
Copyright Law, Article 100
Para. 4-Rental right ofproducers of
phonogramsCopyright Law, Article 97bis,para. 1
-Rental right ofperformers Copyright Law, Article 95bis,para. 1
-Asystem ofequitable remuneration
ofrightholdersCopyright Law, Article 97bis,paras. 2-3
Copyright Law, Article 95bis,paras. 2-3
Para. 5-Term ofprotection ofperformers and
producers ofphonogramsCopyright Law, Article 101
-Term ofprotection ofbroadcasting
organizationsCopyright Law, Article 101
Para. 6-Application oftheprovisions of
Article 18oftheBerne
Convention (1971)Supplementary provisions paras. 2and4
ofLawforpartial amendments tothe
Copyright Law(Law No.112of
14December 1994)