About Intellectual Property IP Training Respect for IP IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships AI Tools & Services The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars IP Enforcement WIPO ALERT Raising Awareness World IP Day WIPO Magazine Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Webcast WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO Translate Speech-to-Text Classification Assistant Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
Laws Treaties Judgments Browse By Jurisdiction

Japan

JP003-j

Back

2018 (Ju) 1412, Minshu Vol. 74, No. 4

1. The process wherein "the work is made available or presented to the public" as referred to in Article 19, paragraph (1) of the Copyright Act is not required to be carried out through the exploitation of the work regarding which any of the rights prescribed in Articles 21 to 27 of the same Act exists.

2. Where a person made a post, via an information network on the internet, with an image of a photograph, which is another person's work, and this image was displayed, with its part containing the indication of the author's name having been cut off, on the terminals of the viewers of the webpage of that post, the person who made the post cannot be deemed to have indicated the author's name, even if the viewers could have viewed the original image accompanied by the indication of the author's name, under the following circumstances (1) and (2) described in the judgment:

(1) the original image accompanied by the indication of the author's name can be viewed only on the webpage that is different from the abovementioned webpage; and

(2) there are no such circumstances where it can be said that the abovementioned viewers would normally click the displayed image.

3. Where a person who seeks the disclosure of identification information of the senders 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 suffered infringement of his/her right of attribution regarding a photograph which is the person's work, due to a post containing an image of the photograph made via an information network on the internet, it can be said under the following circumstances that the person who made that post falls within the category of "senders of infringing information" referred to in that paragraph, and has infringed the right of the person who seeks the disclosure of identification information of the senders, "by the distribution of infringing information" referred to in item (i) of that paragraph: when that post was made, data including HTML (a language for describing the structure, etc. of a webpage) data concerning the link to the file of that image and the designation of the manner of displaying the image was recorded on the recording medium in a specified telecommunications facility and transmitted to the terminals of the viewers of the webpage of the post, causing the data of that image to be transmitted from the server of the linked page to those terminals, thereby causing the image to be displayed on the terminals with its parts having been cut off as designated, due to which the indication of the author's name attached to the image was not displayed and the author's right of attribution was infringed.

(There is a concurring opinion concerning 2.)