no copyright violation! infringement judgment

Posted by santillano at 2020-03-03

"What is the similar work"?

I think that there are many access to the article about copyright infringement in this blog, and it is a point that many people mind it.

Copyright infringement can be easily and easily blackened if you violate the right of reproduction or the right to transfer.

It is likely that it is an infringement of the right of reproduction and the right of the public transmission if it is an act of copying the PC software that is uploaded to the YouTube without permission of the television broadcasting, and the photograph picked up on the net in the blog. This is because it is obvious that it is replicated, the public transmission and the transmission.

Unlike that, it is related to changes, such as "similar and not similar".

If you look at blogs or SNS, you may probably think many are "similar = piracy", but you need to be careful because it's not really simple.


There was a problem of the emblem of the Tokyo Olympics in 2020, however, it was greatly marked that it was similar and not similar.

Why are you similar Is the problem of "adaptation"?

The idea is to create new works based on existing works. The copyrighted works of the nickname and the manga are the work of the secondary work in the nickname animation and the cohabitation activity, and the copyright is dedicated to the copyright in the article 27 of the copyright act.

In other words, the creation of a new work based on the work of the right holder without the permission of the copyright holder may be an infringement of the right to take over the right.

Because it is usually based on the fact that there is usually the work that "the thing that is similar" is called "making a similar work", it is the validity of the infringement of the right to take over the right.

Because the idea is to create a new work based on the work, even if it is based on an existing work, it becomes a problem of "duplication" rather than "adaptation" in the case where the creativity is not expressed in the made work.

Chance coincidence

As has been described above, copyright infringement is created based on existing works.

Conversely, if it is not based on an existing creation, it does not constitute copyright infringement.

In other words, it is not a violation of the rights that the thing which does not know each other works accidentally creates the similar work, and both sides have copyright to their work.

The point of copyright is "the idea is not protected" and "common expression is not protected".

Therefore, for example, "personification of sushi" is an idea of "personification of sushi" is an idea. In addition, because the common expression is not protected, the sushi and the "man" have the possibility that the expression itself becomes a common thing at the point of the idea of the personification of sushi, and the shape which is expressed as a character that combines them as a result is squeezed to a certain extent Want to be among the first to wish you every happiness. (there is a face for sushi, a limbs, etc.)

What is "common expression" becomes a dispute.

Therefore, even if a character "personified sushi" is announced from a separate person, it cannot be concluded that it is copyright infringement.

Can you rely on dependent & essential features?

Then, in what case, is the infringement of the right to change?

In this regard, the criteria indicated in the "egojitsubon incident" (the Supreme Court of June 28, 2001) have been applied in many subsequent trials, and in fact, the requirements for the infringement of the right to make the right to apply.

The requirement is

It is said that it becomes an infringement of the right of the conversion if it creates the work which meets this requirement in two.

So called "pakari"

As a requirement for the infringement of the right to make the right way, it is necessary to use the existing works without permission, and it is necessary to rely on "the basis" in the technical term, and the "slang" in slang.

As mentioned above, if it does not know the work of the affected side, it doesn't depend, and it doesn't become infringement of the right of conversion.

In other words, if you are an emblem, you know the logo of the theatre on the side of the accused, and based on it, you must know that the character of the opponent is the character of the opponent, and that it has created it based on it.

In the actual trial, the other party was "praised!" It seems that there are many cases in which indirect evidence is proven to be proven because it is hard to think white.

Do you have any essential features

Is it possible to directly understand the essential features of the expression?

Conversely, even if it is based on a certain work, it does not become an infringement of the right to the right of the copyright if the feature of the original work cannot be felt because it has taken a lot of original creativity.

In the actual trial, what is the "essential characteristic of this expression" is a big point, but it is verified in detail for each case, and there is no clear line that is out or safe.

In the first place, there is a difference in the meaning of "the essential characteristic of expression" by the work which is contested, but the judgment of what is safe and what is out is different according to the trial.

As a case of infringement of the right to make the right, the "commemorative tree case" (September 6, 2002, the Tokyo High Court decision) became a problem, and the case where the infringement was denied is a case of the "fishing game case" (judgment of the Satan and the defendant's high court decision) on August 8, 1995, but the original and the defendant's copyright are not mentioned It is compared with a slight, and the existence of an essential characteristic is judged.

There are many types of infringement

Not only works of art but also works in existing business, such as illustrations, photographs, blog articles, competitors' products and designs, and so on.

In other words, the risk of connecting to the infringement of the right to the right is hidden.

You need to be careful to add your own creativity and create a new work so that you can't end up with just a simple clip.

Also, because it is a little similar, it is immediately "crispy!" It is not necessary to say that it is necessary to carefully examine whether it is actually an infringement of the right of conversion.