JCO Report

Regarding the Act Partially Amending the
Copyright Act(2023 Amendment of the Copyright Act)
Copyright Division, Agency for Cultural Affairs;
Japan Copyright Office (JCO)

I. Introduction
Table of Contents:

I.

Introduction

II. Purpose and Outline of theAmendment
1. New compulsory license system forthe exploitation of works
2. Transmission to the public ofworks in legislative andadministrative organs
3. Calculating damages from piracy, etc.
4. Eﬀective dates

The WIPO Japan Office supports this article under aFunds-In-Trust Japan Industrial Property Global(FIT/Japan Industrial Property Global) project.

A Bill Partially Amending the Copyright Act,
submitted to the 211th session of the Diet, wasapproved and enacted on May 17, 2023, andpromulgated on May 26 as Act No. 33 of 2023. ThisAct aims to ensure the fair exploitation of works
and other subject matter and to contribute to
the appropriate protection of copyright andneighboring rights. Accordingly, it introduces thefollowing measures: the creation of a new compulsory
license system in response to challenges posed byuncertainties surrounding the intentions of copyrightand neighboring rights owners regarding the
exploitation of their works and other subject matterto facilitate access to such works when permission
cannot be readily conﬁrmed; measures aimed at
facilitating the internal transmission of works andother subject matter for use by legislative andadministrative organs; ﬁnally, it includes measures
to streamline the calculation of damages for
copyright and neighboring rights infringement.
The Council for Cultural Aﬀairs conducted
deliberations for two years titled “Regarding Ideal
Copyright Systems and Policies that Respond to
the Digital Transformation (DX) Era” in the form ofstudies in response to an inquiry from the Minister of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
in July 2021 From August to October 2021, interviews
with 33 diverse stakeholders, including copyrightand neighboring rights owners, such as creators,
individuals exploiting works, and service providers
PATENTS & LICENSING, March 2024

JCO Reportwere conducted. This group comprised 10 individuals
and 23 organizations and notably encompassed
online creators and representatives of the so-called
Generation Z. The aim was to explore desirable
directions for simpliﬁed and centralized measuresfor conﬁrming permission of the right holders, andregarding payment of consideration. In addition, apublic consultation was conducted. In December
2021, the Copyright Subcommittee compiled the“Interim Report: Regarding ‘Simple and Centralized
Rights Handling Measures and Payment ofConsideration’ and ‘Awareness-Raising and Education
about Copyright Systems and Policies.’ That Respondto the DX Era” which outlined the future direction to
be taken. Subsequently, the Council for CulturalAﬀairs undertook deliberations on the amendmentof the Copyright Act. These focused on the simple
and centralized rights handling measures andpayment of consideration, as well as deliberations on
the restriction of rights concerning the transmissionof works to the public within legislative andadministrative organs. Furthermore, the Council
reviewed methods for calculating damages inrelation to piracy. Interviews with stakeholders (22organizations) were conducted. In addition, public
opinions were solicited on a draft report of thesedeliberations. By February 2023, the content of these
discussions was compiled within the “First Report on
Ideal Forms of Copyright Systems and Policies That
Respond to the Digital Transformation (DX) Era”
(hereinafter referred to as the “Council Report”).
This document marked the conclusion on the eﬀorts
to amend the systems in question.

The Copyright Act was amended based on theﬁndings of the Council Report in relation to threeareas. First, a new compulsory license system for the
exploitation of works and other subject matter was
established, aimed at simplifying procedures. Privatesector organizations which have been designatedand registered by the Commissioner of the Agency
for Cultural Aﬀairs (hereinafter referred to as“contact organizations”) are now given oversight ofthese procedures. Secondly, amendments were madeto allow the transmission of works and other subject
matter to the public within legislative andadministrative organs. This includes the internaltransmission of works and other subject matter to the
public by legislative and administrative organs
utilizing cloud platforms or other transmission
PATENTS & LICENSING, March 2024

devices, as well as their transmission foradministrative procedures like patent trials. Thirdly,
revisions were made to the method for calculating
damages in order to achieve eﬀective relief fordamages resulting from piracy, etc. More concretely,
the damages caused by piracy may now include anamount equivalent to the license fee for the numberof reproductions made by the infringer. In addition,clariﬁcation was made on the factors to be taken into
account when determining this amount.
“Article XX of the New Act” indicates the
Article number of the Copyright Act (Act No. 48 of1970) after this Amendment Act comes into eﬀect in
the commentary below, whereas “Article XX of theAct” indicates the Article number of the CopyrightAct before the amendment.

II. Purpose and Outline of theAmendment
1. New compulsory license system for the
exploitation of works(1) Purpose of the amendment
With the advent of digitalization and DX,
content creation, publication, transmission andexploitation have become easily accessible toanyone. Unlike the professional content provided
via publishing companies or television stations,which had been the mainstream in the past, there
has been a surge of content created by thegeneral public, including amateurs, proliferatingon the internet and being exploited more
frequently. Such content is a mix of uses thatare freely exploitable and suchrequiringauthorization for use. In addition, there are
growing demand for exploiting old works in
new ways, such as digitizing archives andcreating commentary videos on platforms like
video-sharing websites.
The safe and conﬁdent exploitation ofcontent hinges on the authorization of the
copyright and neighboring rights owners.
However, there have been instances where thepermissibility of exploitation was unclear,

JCO Reporthindering smooth exploitation due to diﬃculties
in contacting or identifying the rights owner.
Furthermore, the costs for identifying andsearching for the right holders associated withthe authorization procedure often impeded theproper exploitation of content.
To address these issues while upholding
the Copyright Act’s principle of obtaining
authorization from rights owners, a mechanism
has been devised to facilitate the exploitation ofworks and other subject matter, along with thecorresponding payment of consideration. Thismechanism is particularly designed for cases
where the intent of the copyright or neighboringrights owner regarding the permissibility of
exploitation cannot be conﬁrmed.

(2) Outline of the amendment
The provisions on the new compulsory
license are applied mutatis mutandis under
Article 103 of the New Act. Therefore, what is
mentioned below on copyright and works also
apply to neighboring rights as well as subject
matters unless otherwise mentioned.

A. The new compulsory license system
Under the new compulsory license system,
if a work is unmanaged and has been madepublic, and it satisﬁes certain requirements, suchas the inability to conﬁrm the copyright owner’s
intention regarding its exploitation, a person
may exploit that work by receiving a compulsory
license from the Commissioner of the Agency for
Cultural Aﬀairs (hereinafter referred to as“Commissioner” unless otherwise mentioned.)and by depositing compensation, amountequivalent to the ordinary rate of royalties,
pursuant to the terms of the compulsory license.
While the new compulsory license systemfacilitates the exploitation of works when theintention of the copyright owner is uncertain, thecurrent compulsory license system applies when
the copyright owner is unknown or is presumed
not to exist (hereinafter referred to as the“current compulsory license system”). Thus, theexploitation under the new compulsory license

system is suspended, if the intention of the
copyright owner is conﬁrmed after the grant of
the compulsory license. In this manner, the new
system permits only a temporary exploitation
until the copyright owner’s intention is clariﬁed,prompting negotiations between the copyrightowner and the exploiters after the suspension of
the compulsory license. This prevents a loss oflicensing opportunities for the copyright owner
while creating new exploitation opportunities.
Moreover, for the purpose to simplify andfacilitate procedures, private sector entities
acting as contact organizations can be
designated to deal with certain tasks, such as
accepting applications, verifying compliancewith the requirements, and managing
compensation-related functions in connection
with the operation of the new compulsory
license system.
B. Work subject to the new compulsory license
systemA work subject to the new compulsory
license system is referred to as “unmanaged
work that has been made public” and is deﬁned
as follows: It refers to a work that has been
publicly disclosed or clearly been presented tothe public for a considerable amount of time(hereinafter referred to as a “work that has been
made public”), which neither falls within criteria[i] nor [ii] outlined below (Article 67-3,
paragraphs (1) and (2) of the New Act):[i] the copyright for the work is managed bya copyright management service (Article
67-3, paragraph (2), item (i) of the NewAct); or[ii] the information necessary to smoothly
conﬁrm the copyright owner’s intention
regarding the permissibility of exploiting
the work has been disclosed. Details ofnecessary information and the method of
disclosure are to be speciﬁed by theCommissioner (item (ii) of the same
paragraph).
In order to qualify under the new
PATENTS & LICENSING, March 2024

JCO Reportcompulsory license system, the case needs tosatisfy both [i] and [ii] criteria outlined below:[i]

Despite taking the measures for conﬁrming
the copyright owner’s intention regarding
the permissibility of exploiting theunmanaged work that has been madepublic as speciﬁed by the Commissioner,
the intention of the copyright ownerremains unconﬁrmed.
(Article 67-3,
paragraph (1), item (i) of the New Act);and[ii] it remains unclear whether the author
intends to cease printing or otherwise
exploiting the unmanaged works that has
been made public (Article 67-3, paragraph(1), item (ii) of the New Act).
Meanwhile, the intention of the copyrightowner includes an “opt-out,” meaning amanifestation by the copyright owner that theychoose not to be bound by this system.
The new compulsory license system
permits temporary exploitation for the period
where the intention of the copyright owner
cannot be conﬁrmed. If it is possible to contact
and to negotiate terms of exploitation of thework with the copyright owner, it is preferrable
to pursue negotiations instead of allowing
exploitation under this system.
Therefore, within the new mechanism, theCommissioner may revoke the compulsory
license at the request of the copyright owner.
This revocation may be granted when the
copyright owner of the relevant work takes thenecessary steps for accepting a request for
consultation from the licensee of the compulsory
license. Such steps include entrusting themanagement of the copyright for the work to a
copyright management service (commencementof centralized management) or publicly disclosing
contact information and any other necessary
information for receiving consultation requests
regarding the exploitation of the work.
Since the system adopts such a mechanism
which respects the copyright owner’s intentions
PATENTS & LICENSING, March 2024

regarding the exploitation of an unmanaged
work that has been made public, the durationof exploitation under a compulsory license islimited to a maximum of three years. Even incases where the copyright owner’s intentions
are unclear at the time an application is ﬁled
for exploitation, the possibility remains that
centralized management will commence or the
copyright owner’s intentions will become
apparent subsequently. Thus, this measure isprovided to ensure an opportunity forreconﬁrming the copyright owner’s intention.
In addition, when the Commissioner issues
a compulsory license, the Commissioner must
publicly announce the relevant informationnecessary for identifying the work, the methodof exploitation, and the duration of exploitation.
This can be accomplished through the internet
or by any other appropriate channel.
Meanwhile, provided that the requirements are met, a compulsory license under the
new system is eligible for renewal. If a person
wishes to continue exploiting the unmanaged
work that has been made public, they may also
opt for using the current compulsory license
system designed for cases where the copyrightowner is unknown, among other circumstances.
This system has no statutory limit on the periodof exploitation if the copyright owner, etc. remains
unknown.
C. Regarding compensation
The new compulsory license system,
although temporarily, enables exploitation of an
unmanaged work that has been made public
without the authorization of the copyrightowner. Consequently, payment of compensationis required for the exploitation of an unmanaged
work that has been made public under thissystem.
Similar to the current compulsory license
system in cases where the copyright owner is
unknown, etc., the determination of compensation
is bestowed upon the Commissioner and theCouncil for Cultural Aﬀairs must be consulted
on this matter.

JCO Report
If a compulsory license is revoked during
the stipulated period of exploitation speciﬁed by
the compulsory license, the copyright owner isentitled to reimbursement from the depositedcompensation. This reimbursement corresponds
to the period extending from the issuance of thecompulsory license to the date of the revocation
disposition (the amount equivalent to thecompensation as of the time of the rescission).
The procedures for calculating anddetermining compensation, as well as thesubsequent deposit thereof, have historicallybeencomplicatedandtime-consuming.
Consequently, the recent amendment aims tostreamline and expedite these processes byenabling contact organizations, private-sector
entities designated or otherwise involved by theCommissioner, to manage administrative tasks
related to calculating compensation equivalent
to ordinary royalty rates and ensuring proper
procedures. These contact organizations areprescribed as the following according to theoperations they perform and the functions of theorganizations: [i] a designated compensation
management organization which accepts andmanages compensation, etc., and [ii] registered
checking organizations which accept applications
for using the new compulsory license system,
verify compliance with the requirements, andcalculate compensation amounts equivalent toordinary royalty rates.
Both the designated organization andregistered organizations are to be designated orregistered by the Agency for Cultural Aﬀairs
based on applications.
Under the current compulsory license
system, a copyright owner has the opportunity
to receive compensation for the exploitation
conducted under a compulsory license.
However, in numerous instances, copyrightowners did not come forward, leading tosituations where compensation remained unpaid.
Therefore, an amendment was enacted toaddress this issue. Under the revised provision,
if the copyright owner fails to appear, aportion of the compensation ― calculated withconsideration for anticipated future payments― must be allocated to endeavors related tosafeguarding copyright and neighboring rights.
In addition, funds are directed towards initiatives
that facilitate exploitation and promote thecreation of works. This applies to both the current
and new compulsory license systems. Thismeasure ensures the eﬀective utilization ofcompensation associated with work exploitation
under the compulsory license systems, beneﬁting
copyright and neighboring rights owners,
exploiters, and others involved in the creationand protection of works.
Furthermore,theCouncilReporthighlights that the funds generated throughthese initiatives will be utilized for various
endeavors, such as creating a database that
aggregates information on rights for various
works and other subject matters and contributes
to both exploitation of works and the facilitationof payment of consideration.
Under the existing compulsory license
system, the amount of compensation isdetermined by the Commissioner based on
the materials submitted by the applicant forcalculating the compensation.
However,stakeholders, including individuals exploiting
works and rights-related service providers who
received inquiries, have pointed out thatcollecting such materials is laborious and entails
associated costs.
Thus, under the new compulsory license
system, registered checking organizations witha requisite level of expertise are tasked withthis responsibility. Such organizations gather
information and data relating to calculating theequivalent amount of royalties and develop
predeﬁned standards for such calculations. By
determining these standards in consultation
with the Council for Cultural Aﬀairs in advance,
individual applications for exploitation nolonger require further consultation with theCouncil for Cultural Aﬀairs.

PATENTS & LICENSING, March 2024

JCO Report
2. Transmission to the public of works inlegislative and administrative organs(1) Purpose of the amendment
Article 42 of the Act provided that it ispermissible to reproduce a work and othersubject matter without the authorization of the
copyright or neighboring rights owner, if and to
the extent that this is found to be necessary forjudicial proceedings or for internal use by alegislative or administrative organ. This provision
aimed to facilitate smooth and eﬃcientutilization of materials necessary for decisionmaking and enforcement by the State, considering
the public nature of ensuring appropriate
legislation and administration.
This article, however, only allowed
reproduction while it was not possible to store awork or other subject matter on a cloud
platform, attaching a work or other subject
matter to emails sent to multiple personnel
within a department, or displaying a work orother subject matter that has been transmitted tothe public on a monitor at work. As legislativeand public organizations increasingly embraced
digitalization and networking, the system failed
to suﬃciently respond to the exploitation of works
and other subject matters in these settings.
To address these limitations and advancethe infrastructure of digital society, theAmendment Act enabled two key provisions[i] The transmission to the public of works
and other subject matters for internal uses
by legislative and administrative organs,and[ii] the transmission to the public of a workand other subject matter for conducting
the administrative procedures, such as
patent examination, prescribed by laws,
without the authorization of the copyrightor neighboring right owner, to the same
extent as the extent to which reproductionis allowed under Article 42 of the Act, if it
does not unreasonably prejudice thePATENTS & LICENSING, March 2024

interests of the copyright or neighboringright owner.

(2) Outline of the amendment
The provisions below are applied mutatis
mutandis under Article 102 of the New Act.
Therefore, what is mentioned below on
copyright and works also apply toneighboring rights as well as subject mattersunless otherwise mentioned.
A. Transmission to the public of works forinternal use by legislative and administrative
organs by utilizing the cloud or othertransmission devices (Article 42 of the
New Act)
With the recent amendment, it is now
possible to store a work on a cloud platform
within a department or attach a work to an email
sent within a department for internal uses by alegislative or administrative organ, without
requiring authorization of the copyright owner.
However, the scope of the exploitation of awork enabled by this amendment is the same as
the scope of exploitation of a work “for internaluse” before the amendment. Therefore, “if theaction would unreasonably prejudice theinterests of the copyright owner,” such as
adversely aﬀecting an existing business, bymeans of, for instance, a clipping service, thetransmission to the public, etc. would
accordingly require authorization of the
copyright owner.
B. Transmission to the public of works for
conducting administrative procedures,etc., such as patent trials
The transmission of works to the public
for conducting judicial proceedings andadministrative trial proceedings (i.e. trials andother quasi-judicial proceedings conducted byadministrative authorities) diﬀers from that forinternal uses by legislative and administrative
organs since these provisions could also apply togeneral public using such procedures. Thus,

JCO Reportthese provisions were set up separately from
Article 42 of the Act.
On such basis, the recent amendment has
introduced a new provision allowing fortransmissions to the public during administrative
trial proceedings. This also clariﬁed that theseprovisions could be applied to administrative
trial proceedings under the provisions of the
Patent Act and other Acts speciﬁed by Cabinet
Order.
With regard to judicial proceedings under
the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedureand other Acts speciﬁed by Cabinet Order,
provisions allowing the transmission of works tothe public have been established by the Act for
Partial Amendment of the Code of Civil
Procedure, etc. in 2022 and the Act on theDevelopment of Laws to Promote the Utilizationof Information and Communications Technology
in Civil Proceedings in 2023. These legislative
activities align with the various amendments
aimed at digitalizing judicial proceedings.
Similar to the case of judicial proceedings,
etc., the transmission of works to the public for
conducting the administrative proceduresprescribed in Article 42, paragraph (2) of the Act
prior to amendment diﬀers in nature fromthat for internal uses by legislative andadministrative organs. These provisions could
also be applied to general public using theprocedures. Therefore, the Amendment Act sets
up provisions for transmission to the public
separately from Article 42 of the Act.
On such basis, transmissions to the public
were enabled for administrative procedures tothe extent as under Article 42, paragraph (2) of
the pre-amendment Act since the administrative
procedures to which the provisions are applicable
were already clearly set there. However, thetransmission to the public needs to be conductedin accordance with the provisions of therespective Acts
thatenableelectronic
applications, etc. and adhere to the information
security policies established by the respective
administrative organs.

In the respective procedures outlined
above, the transmission to the public under therespective Articles cannot be conducted “if theaction would unreasonably prejudice theinterests of the copyright owner,” for instance, byimpeding an existing licensing business. In such
instance, the authorization of the copyrightowner would be required, in accordance withthe principle.

3. Calculating damages from piracy, etc.
(1) Purpose of the amendment
The Copyright Act includes provisions fordetermining the amount of damages that a
copyright and neighboring right owner canseek for copyright and neighboring right
infringements as special provisions under
Article 709 of the Civil Code (Act No. 89 of 1896).
They serve to alleviate the burden of proof on
the copyright or neighboring right ownerconcerning damages.
In recent years, however, the damage
caused by piracy websites has escalated
signiﬁcantly. Particularly, piracy-related damage
concerning manga has seen a rapid rise,
exacerbated by the increased usage of piracy
websites during the COVID-19 pandemic. With
regard to claims for compensation for suchpiracy damage, there have been concerns raised
regarding the beneﬁts gained by infringers. It
was observed that such infringers were often
making proﬁts exceeding the legitimate sales
capacity of right holders. Additionally, instances
have occurred where the approved damages,
equivalent to royalties, were deemed low, resulting
in a substantial portion of the signiﬁcant proﬁts
acquired through infringement remaining with
the infringers.
In response to this, and with an aim to
implementing eﬀective measures against theescalating copyright infringements to address
the damage suﬀered by right holders, themethod for calculating damages under the
Copyright Act was revised in the same manner
PATENTS & LICENSING, March 2024

JCO Reportas for the Patent Act. Speciﬁcally, [i] the revision
now allows for the addition of the amountequivalent to the license fee to the damages
calculation for the portion exceeding the capacityof the copyright or neighboring right owner tosell, etc., and [ii] it explicitly states that in
calculating the amount equivalent to the licensefee, consideration must be made to the amount
likely to be determined through negotiations on
the premise that the copyright or neighboringright was infringed may be taken into account.
Under the Patent Act, which operates
within the same intellectual property law
system, a similar amendment was made in 2019.

(2) Outline of the amendment
A. Approval of the amount equivalent to thelicense fee in the calculation based on thenumber transferred, etc. by the infringer
Article 114, paragraph (1) of the Act
provides that the damage amount is determinedby multiplying the number of infringing objects
sold by the infringer (i.e., the number
transferred, etc.) by the proﬁt per unit of theoriginal objects (i.e., the proﬁt per unit of the
copyright or neighboring right owner). However,if the number of objects exceeds what is
proportionate to the copyright or neighboringrights owner’s ability to sell, or if there arecircumstances preventing the sale, thecorresponding number is deducted from thedamage amount. It was not explicitly clear fromthe Act’s provisions, nor was it established in
judicial practice, whether compensation for theamount equivalent to the license fee asprescribed in Article 114, paragraph (3) of the
Act would be approved for the deducted
portion.
In light of the fact that intellectual property
right holders can gain proﬁts not only fromexercising their rights by themselves but also
from licensing out their rights, an amendment
to the Patent Act was made in 2019. The
amendment explicitly states that the amountequivalent to the license fee may be claimed
PATENTS & LICENSING, March 2024

in such cases. Owing to the similar nature of
copyright and patent rights, a similar amendment
was subsequently made to the Copyright Act.
Article 114, paragraph (1), item (i) of the
New Act speciﬁes the calculation method for
determining the amount of damages resulting
from lost proﬁts due to a decrease in the numberof units sold. Additionally, Article 114,
paragraph (1), item (ii) of the New Act provides
the calculation for the amount equivalent to thelicense fee. This amount relates to instanceswhere the infringer transfers units exceeding theright holder’s capacity to sell or units that theright holder would have been unable to sell,
resulting in lost proﬁts due to a loss of licensing
opportunities. The total sum of these amounts
constitutes the damage amount calculated
pursuant to Article 114, paragraph (1) of the
New Act.
As for Article 114, paragraph (2) of the Act,
this paragraph initially presumes the amount of
the infringer’s proﬁts to be the amount ofdamages. However, in judicial practice, thispresumption under paragraph (2) has been
deemed to be rebutted for the portion exceeding
the right holder’s ability to sell, etc., similar to
the treatment under paragraph (1). Furthermore,concerning the portion for which the presumption
under paragraph (2) has been deemed to be
rebutted, the amount equivalent to the license
fee corresponding to that portion should beapproved as an amount of damage, akin to theprovisions in Article 114, paragraph (1) of the
New Act.
B. Clariﬁcation of the factors to be taken into
account in the approval of the amountequivalent to the license fee
Article 114, paragraph (3) of the Act allows
to claim an amount equivalent to the sum thatthe right holder should have received in relation
to the exercise of the copyright or neighboringright (the amount equivalent to the license fee).
This amount may be claimed as the amount ofdamages in cases of infringement.

JCO Report
The license fee in cases of copyright orneighboring right infringement is assumed to behigher in amount than the license fee under an
ordinary agreement. This is because the rightholder has lost the opportunity to determine
whether or not to authorize exploitation, andthat the infringer has exploited the work without
various restrictions that would typically havebeen imposed under a licensing agreement,
among other factors. Initially, the wording ofparagraph (3) was “the amount of money thatthe owner should have normally received” at thetime of the enactment of the Act. However, upon
the 2000 amendment of the Copyright Act, theterm “normally” was deleted. This deletion
aimed at clarifying that a reasonable amountequivalent to the license fee could be approvedin consideration of the speciﬁc circumstances
between the parties to the litigation, without
being bound by general amounts of license fees.
Despite this amendment, there have been
indications that it remained unclear whether anamount equivalent to the license fee whichadequately takes into account the speciﬁc
circumstances between the parties to thelitigation was consistently approved in actual
court judgments as a result of this amendment.
The Patent Act was amended in 2019 toclearly state that, in calculating the amountequivalent to the license fee, the amount thatwould
likelybedeterminedthroughnegotiations based on the premise that the right
was infringed may be taken into account. The
amendment to the Copyright Act, which mirrors
the Patent Act, explicitly states that speciﬁc
circumstances arising from copyright orneighboring right infringements may be taken
into account in determining the amountequivalent to the license fee under Article 114,
paragraph (3) of the Act. This amendment isanticipated to potentially increase the approved
amount equivalent to the license fee as damages
compared to the present state.

copyright or neighboring right as prescribed in
Article 114, paragraph (1), item (ii) andparagraph (3) of the Act, consideration may be
given to what the copyright owner, etc. would
receive if they agreed on compensation for the
exercise of the copyright or neighboring rightwith the infringer, assuming infringement
occurred.

4. Eﬀective dates
The eﬀective dates
amendments are as follows:

for

the

respective(1) January 1, 2024
Revision of the transmission to the public ofworks by legislative and administrative organs
and the method for calculating damages(2) Day speciﬁed by Cabinet Order within a period
not exceeding two years and six months from thedate of promulgation (the date of promulgation:
May 26, 2023)
Preparatory actions concerning designation,
etc.
of
the
designatedcompensation
management organization and registration, etc.
of the registered checking organizations(3) Day speciﬁed by Cabinet Order within a period
not exceeding three years from the date ofpromulgation (the date of promulgation: May 26,
2023)
The new compulsory license system
concerning exploitation of works (excluding thematters concerning (2) above)

Speciﬁcally, paragraph (5) was added to
Article 114 of the New Act explicitly stating thatin approving an amount equivalent to thecompensation that the right holder should havereceived in connection with exercising the
PATENTS & LICENSING, March 2024