Main text of the judgment (decision)
The final appeal is dismissed.
The cost of the final appeal shall be borne by
the appellant of final appeal.
Reasons
I. Outline
of the case
1. In this case, the appellee, who is the author
of the photograph indicated in the list of photograph attached to the judgment
in first instance (hereinafter referred to as the "Photograph"),
alleges that the appellee's right of attribution (hereinafter referred to as
the "Right of Attribution") and other rights for the Photograph have
been infringed by the posts on the websites of Twitter (an information network
via which users can post messages, etc. called tweets using the internet), and
demands the appellant, the company operating Twitter, to disclose the
identification information of the senders of these posts under Article 4,
paragraph (1) of the Act on the Limitation of Liability for Damages of
Specified Telecommunications Service Providers and the Right to Demand
Disclosure of Identification Information of the Senders (hereinafter referred
to as the "Provider Liability Limitation Act").
2. The outline of the facts lawfully determined
by the court of prior instance is as follows.
(1) The appellee is a photographer and the
author of the Photograph. The appellant is a U.S. company operating Twitter.
(2) In 2009, the appellee posted an image of the
Photograph with a copyright mark, alphabetic characters representing the
appellee's name and other elements (hereinafter referred to as the
"Indication of the Name") attached to its corner (hereinafter
referred to as the "Image of the Photograph") on his/her own website.
(3) In December 2014, a tweet containing an
image, which was a copy of the Image of the Photograph, was posted on the
Twitter account specified as "Account 2" in the list of accounts
attached to the judgment in prior instance, without the appellee's permission.
As a result, the image specified in 2(2) of the list of distributed information
attached to the judgment in first instance, which was a copy of the Image of
the Photograph, was saved on the server as an image file with the URL specified
in 2(2) of the same list (hereinafter the image and URL specified in 2(2) of
the same list are referred to as the "Original Image" and the
"URL for Saving the Image File").
(4) After that, retweets ("retweet"
means a second or subsequent post made by a user by introducing or quoting a
third party's tweet) of the tweet mentioned in (3) above were posted respectively
on the Twitter accounts specified as "Accounts 3 to 5" in the list of
accounts attached to the judgment in prior instance (hereinafter these accounts
and these retweets are referred to as the "Accounts" and the
"Retweets," respectively, and the messages, etc. posted by the
Retweets are referred to as the "Retweeting Articles"; the persons
who posted the Retweets are referred to as the "Retweeters"). As a
result, the images specified in 3 to 5 of the list of distributed information
attached to the judgment in first instance (hereinafter referred to as the
"Displayed Images") were displayed as part of the Retweeting Articles
on the timelines ("timeline" is a page on which a user's tweets are
displayed in chronological order) of the Accounts, which can be viewed by
unspecified persons. The Displayed Images were displayed in the trimmed form of
the Original Image with its upper and lower parts having been cut off, due to
which the Indication of the Name is not displayed.
(5) The Displayed Images are displayed on the
timelines of the Accounts because, when the Retweets were posted, a link
(generally called an "inline link") to the file of the Original Image
saved in the URL for Saving the Image File was automatically created on the
webpages for these timelines (the webpages on the URLs specified in 3 to 5 in
the list of distributed information attached to the judgment in first instance;
hereinafter referred to as the "Webpages").
In other words, when the Retweets were posted,
data in which the information indicating the link mentioned above and the
information designating the manner of displaying the image on the linked page
(the size, position, etc.) is described using HTML (a language for describing
the structure, etc. of a webpage) (hereinafter such data is referred to as the
"Linked Image Display Data") was automatically recorded in the
recording medium on the server of the Webpages (the webpages providing the
link). When persons who view websites using the internet (hereinafter referred
to as "users") access the Webpages, the following steps are performed
automatically: (i) the Linked Image Display Data is transmitted to the users'
terminals from the server of the Webpages; (ii) as a result, the data of the
Original Image (data of the file on the linked page) is transmitted to these
terminals from the server related to the URL for Saving the Image File, without
operation by users; and (iii) the image in question is displayed on the screens
of the terminals in the designated manner. On the system of Twitter provided by
the appellant, images that are different from the original image on a linked
page in terms of the horizontal and vertical size or images created by trimming
the original image are displayed depending on the designation by HTML, etc.
regarding the manner of displaying the image on the linked page. In the present
case as well, the Displayed Images were displayed on the screens of the
abovementioned terminals in the trimmed form as mentioned in (4), due to which
the Indication of the Name was not displayed.
II. Reason 3-2 for a petition for acceptance of
final appeal stated by the counsel for final appeal, NAKAJIMA Toru, et al.
1. The counsel argue that the court of prior
instance that found infringement of the Right of Attribution by the Retweets
erred in interpreting and applying the Copyright Act, on the following grounds:
(i) since the Retweeters, when posting the Retweets, did not engage in
exploitation of the work, which constitutes copyright infringement, they did
not have the "work made available or presented to the public" as
referred to in Article 19, paragraph (1) of the Copyright Act; and (ii) since
the users who view the Webpages can view the Original Image containing the
Indication of the Name by clicking the Displayed Images contained in the
Retweeting Articles, the Retweeters can be deemed to have "indicated the
name of the author in accordance with how the author has already done so"
(paragraph (2) of the same Article) in connection with the Photograph.
2. (1) Regarding the counsel's argument (i)
Literally, Article 19, paragraph (1) of the
Copyright Act does not limit its applicability to cases where a work, regarding
which any of the rights prescribed in Articles 21 to 27 of the same Act exists,
is made available or presented to the public through the exploitation of the
work. In addition, Article 19, paragraph (1) of the same Act is considered to
be intended to protect moral interests based on the relationship between the
work and its author, and this holds true regardless of whether exploitation of
the work that infringes any of the abovementioned rights is involved in the
process wherein the work is made available or presented to the public.
Therefore, it is reasonable to consider that the process wherein "the work
is made available or presented to the public" as referred to in that
paragraph is not required to be carried out through the exploitation of the
work regarding any of those rights.
Consequently, even if the Retweeters did not
engage in exploitation of the work that could infringe any of those rights when
posting the Retweets, they can be deemed to have presented the work to the
public as referred to in Article 19, paragraph (1) of the Copyright Act when
they caused the Displayed Images, which are works under the Copyright Act, to
be displayed on the screens of the terminals of the users who viewed the
Webpages.
(2) Regarding the counsel's argument (ii)
According to the facts mentioned above, the
appellee attached the Indication of the Name to the corner of the Image of the
Photograph in order to indicate the author's name. However, because the
Retweeters transmitted the Linked Image Display Data by posting the Retweets,
the Displayed Images were displayed in trimmed form and the Indication of the
Name was not displayed (this manner of displaying an image is based on the
system specification of Twitter, whereas the Retweeters, while knowing or not
knowing it, posted the Retweets using such system, and hence, it is objectively
obvious that the situation mentioned above was actually caused due to such act
of the Retweeters). In addition, the Retweeters did not indicate the name of
the author of the Photograph in any other way on the Webpages on which the
Displayed Images were displayed by posting the Retweets.
Even though the users can view the Original
Image containing the Indication of the Name by clicking the Displayed Images
contained in the Retweeting Articles, the Indication of the Name exists only on
a webpage that is different from the webpages on which the Displayed Images are
displayed, and the users who view the Webpages never see the indication of the
author's name unless they click the Displayed Images. As well, there are no
such circumstances where it can be said that the users would normally click the
Displayed Images. Therefore, it should be said that the Retweeters cannot be
deemed to have indicated the author's name only based on the fact that the
users can view the Original Image containing the Indication of the Name by
clicking the Displayed Images contained in the Retweeting Articles.
(3) For the reasons stated above, it should be
said that the Retweeters infringed the Right of Attribution by the Retweets.
The determination of the court of prior instance to the same effect is
justifiable and can be accepted.
III. Reason 4 for a petition for acceptance of
final appeal stated by the counsel for final appeal, NAKAJIMA Toru, et al.
1. The counsel argue as follows. The
transmission of the Linked Image Display Data performed by the Retweeters does
not meet the requirement of infringement of a person's rights "by the
distribution of infringing information" as referred to in Article 4,
paragraph (1), item (i) of the Provider Liability Limitation Act because the
distribution of the relevant data does not in itself infringe the appellee's
rights. Furthermore, in terms of the image data that is information directly
infringing the appellee's rights, the Retweeters did not record any such data
on recording media of specified telecommunications facilities, and hence, they
do not meet the requirement of "senders of infringing information"
referred to in the same paragraph. On these grounds, the counsel argue that the
court of prior instance erred in interpreting and applying the Provider
Liability Limitation Act as it determined that the two requirements mentioned
above were satisfied with regard to the infringement of the Right of
Attribution by the Retweets, although these requirements could not have been
satisfied concurrently.
2. Based on the facts mentioned above, by
posting the Retweets, the Retweeters, irrespective of how they subjectively
recognized their behavior, recorded the Linked Image Display Data, which
pertains to the link to the file of the Original Image and the designated
manner of displaying the image as described in I. 2. (5), on the recording
medium of the server of the Webpages, a specified telecommunications facility,
and transmitted that data to the users' terminals, thereby causing the data of
the Original Image to be transmitted to these terminals from the server related
to the URL for Saving the Image File, which is a linked URL, and causing those
terminals to display the Displayed Images in trimmed form according to the
designated manner, thus bringing about a situation in which the Indication of
the Name was not displayed, and infringing the Right of Attribution.
Accordingly, the transmission of the Linked Image Display Data performed as
described above should be considered to have directly led to the infringement
of the Right of Attribution, and in this case, it can be said that the
appellee's rights have been infringed due to the distribution of the Linked
Image Display Data, and the Retweeters can be regarded as persons who recorded
the Linked Image Display Data, which is the "infringing information,"
on the recording medium in a specified telecommunications facility.
For the reasons stated above, with regard to the
infringement of the Right of Attribution by the Retweets, it should be said
that the Retweeters fall within the category of "senders of infringing
information" referred to in Article 4, paragraph (1) of the Provider
Liability Limitation Act, and that they infringed the appellee's rights
"by the distribution of infringing information" as referred to in
item (i) of the same paragraph. The determination of the court of prior
instance regarding the points argued by the counsel can be upheld.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, none of the
counsel's arguments can be accepted.
Accordingly, the Court unanimously decides as set
forth in the main text of the judgment, except for the dissenting opinion by
HAYASHI Keiichi. There is a concurring opinion by Justice TOKURA Saburo.
The concurring opinion by Justice TOKURA Saburo
is as follows.
I agree with the majority opinion, but I would
like to give some supplementary comments in consideration of the facts of the
case.
1. When the tweet in which the Image of the
Photograph was shown without the author's permission (hereinafter referred to
as the "Original Tweet") was retweeted by the Retweeters, the
Displayed Images, in which the Indication of the Name was not shown as a result
of cutting off the upper and lower parts of the Image of the Photograph (the
Original Image), were displayed as part of the Retweeting Articles on the timelines
of the Accounts, due to the specifications of the system of Twitter. The image
contained in the Original Tweet was also displayed in a trimmed form of the
Image of the Photograph (the Original Image) with its upper and lower parts
having been cut off due to the specifications of the system of Twitter in the
same manner, due to which the Indication of the Name was not displayed. By
posting the Retweets, the Retweeters caused the Displayed Images, in which the
Indication of the Name was not contained, to be newly displayed on the
timelines of the Accounts, thus failing to indicate the name of the author
although the appellee had done that for the Photograph. Therefore, the
Retweeters should be considered to have infringed the Right of Attribution.
It cannot be denied that if the claim of
infringement of the right of attribution is upheld in such case, this would
cause a certain amount of burdens on Twitter users in that when they retweet
tweets in which images are contained (hereinafter referred to as the
"original tweets"), they would need to check the sources of the
images, indication of the author's name, and the author's consent, etc., and
this would also cause psychological burdens on them due to the risk of
infringement of the author's rights. However, such burdens necessarily arise in
association with the care that is required to be taken in order to avoid
infringing the author's rights under the existing Copyright Act when making
posts on the internet, including those containing other persons' works. Even if
people who have easily used Twitter and posted retweets feel that these are
heavy burdens on them, this would not be a reason for considering infringement
of the right of attribution by retweets differently from infringement by
publications or by posts on the internet using other systems.
In the first place, if it is obvious that the
image contained in the original tweet is a photograph taken by the person who
posted the original tweet, it seemed that the author of the photograph, when
posting the tweet, seems to have consented to the retweeting of his/her tweet
by other persons. Then, a problem would arise only in the case of retweeting
the original tweet containing an image which poses the risk of unauthorized
posting because its source is uncertain. In addition, in some cases where the
author's name is not indicated on the original image, it is found that the
author of the work has chosen not to indicate his/her name for the work. In the
case where the indication of the author's name contained in the original image
is trimmed off in a retweet, if there are circumstances such as where users who
view the timeline of the person who retweeted would normally click the
displayed image in the retweeting article, the fact that the original image can
be accessed by clicking it may possibly be proof that the author's name has
been indicated (whether there are such circumstances is supposed to be
determined by comprehensively taking into consideration such factors as the
content of the displayed image and how it is displayed, whether there is any
notice that encourages viewers to click the image, on the basis of the normal
level of care of ordinary users who view the timeline and their manner of
viewing). In addition, there may be cases where the indication of the author's
name may be omitted pursuant to Article 19, paragraph (3) of the Copyright Act.
Assuming as such, it cannot be said that the burdens that would be caused on
people who retweet would become excessive.
2. On the other hand, the posting of the
retweets caused the Displayed Images, in which the Indication of the Name was
not shown as a result of cutting off the upper and lower parts of the Image of
the Photograph, to be displayed on the timelines of the Accounts, because the
specifications of Twitter's system were designed to perform such processing,
and the Retweeters were unable to change the manner of displaying the images.
In that case, there is a possibility that people who will retweet, while not
knowing such specifications of Twitter's system, might unintentionally infringe
other persons' right of attribution, depending on the shape of the original
image, the position of the indication of the author's name, and the layout of
the image in the original tweet (if they are aware of such specifications of
the system, they would be able to take measures such as checking the indication
of the author's name by clicking the displayed image in the article of the
original tweet and viewing the original image, and then posting a retweet with
a comment in which this information is added). Twitter is used widely by people
at all levels of society and has now become one of the important information
distribution tools. It is reportedly being used by as many as around 45 million
people in Japan alone, and it seems that not a few of them use it while not
knowing the situation explained above. In addition, the rights that might be
infringed by retweets are related to technical knowledge of law regarding moral
rights of author. In consideration of these points, it may not be appropriate
to leave this issue to be dealt with by individual Twitter users while
expecting improvement of their awareness or their independent responses. Not
only from the perspective of protecting moral rights of author and avoiding the
imposition of burden on Twitter users, but also from the perspective of
requesting the provider of the information distribution services, which have
become an important social infrastructure, to fulfill its social
responsibility, the appellant is expected to take appropriate measures such as
raising awareness among Twitter users.
The dissenting opinion by Justice HAYASHI
Keiichi is as follows.
Contrary to the majority opinion, I consider
that the Retweeters cannot be found to have infringed the Right of Attribution
by posting the Retweets, and that the part of the judgment in prior instance
that upheld the claim for disclosure of the identification information of the
Retweeters as senders should be quashed, for the following reasons.
1. The court of prior instance found
infringement of the moral rights of the author (right to integrity and right of
attribution) by the Retweeters, on the grounds that the Displayed Images were
displayed in the form in which the Image of the Photograph (the Original Image)
had been trimmed (hereinafter this trimming is referred to as the
"Modification") and as a result the Indication of the Name was not
displayed. However, the Modification and the failure to display the Indication
of the Name resulted from the specifications (mechanisms) of the system of
Twitter, and it is the appellant that decided the method of displaying images
that caused this situation. On the other hand, the Retweeters, when retweeting
the Original Tweet, were unable to delete the image contained in the Original
Tweet or change the manner of displaying it.
While the infringement of moral rights of the
author as described above becomes an issue when an image is posted without the
author's permission, the person who uploaded the image in question without the
author's permission was not the Retweeters but the person who posted the
Original Tweet.
Taking all these circumstances into account, I
consider that the Retweeters cannot be deemed to be the persons who committed
infringement of moral rights of the author.
2. Social networking services including Twitter
have become an important infrastructure in society because of their
capabilities to disseminate and spread information. At the same time, as a
matter of course, disseminating and spreading information via social networking
services must be accompanied by social responsibility. In this sense, if an
image itself is legally and socially inappropriate and therefore it is clear
that the image should not have been disseminated by the initial post (the
original tweet) but should have been deleted (e.g., obscene images and abusive
images), needless to say, it is impermissible not only to post a tweet
containing such image but also to retweet that tweet, and the original tweet
and its retweets do not deserve protection. However, in the present case, the
Original Image itself does not seem to ordinary people as being inappropriate
for dissemination, and hence, from the perspective of Twitter users in general,
it poses an issue that is different in nature from an obscene image or the
like. According to the view supported by the majority opinion and the court of
prior instance, persons who intend to retweet a tweet that contains any such
image, including an accidental image that has no relevance with the subject of
the tweet, would have to investigate and check the source of the image, the
consent of the author, and other matters. In my view, this would inevitably
impose a heavy burden on Twitter users and could even lead to a situation where
people would refrain from posting retweets when it is difficult to immediately
judge whether their retweets would infringe other people's rights. To avoid
such situation, I adopt the conclusion mentioned in 1. above.
(This
translation is provisional and subject to revision.)