Limitations of Rights under Japanese Copyright Law: Private Use and Library Reproduction

Japan’s Copyright Act aims to protect the rights of creators while ensuring fair use for cultural works to encourage further evolution of culture. To achieve this objective, the Copyright Act does not regard the copyright holders’ rights as absolute and provides specific limitations on rights that allow certain uses of copyrighted works without the copyright holder’s consent as an exception to the general rule. 

These limitations are narrowly and strictly defined to avoid unjustifiably harming the copyright holder’s interests and to prevent interference with the normal exploitation of works. They are a deliberate part of the statutory design—not a loophole.

This article explains two limitations that are frequently misunderstood in practice: 

(1) reproduction for private use in the context of corporate activity, and 

(2) reproduction in libraries, which can play an important role in research.

In particular, what many people casually think of as “private use” often does not qualify as “private use” under the law, especially in corporate settings—making this a key compliance point.

The Basic Concepts of Copyright Limitations Under Japanese Law

Unlike the United States’ broad, flexible fair use doctrine, Japan’s limitations on rights are structured as a set of specific, enumerated exceptions. Each exception is defined by statute for particular purposes and methods of use. As a result, the default rule in Japan is that using a copyrighted work requires the copyright holder’s permission, and permission is unnecessary only when the user’s conduct fully satisfies the requirements of a statutory limitation.

A core interpretive principle is that these provisions should not be applied in a way that unjustifiably harms the copyright holder’s interests. In practice, even if a use appears to fit the literal wording of an exception, a court may still reject the exception if the use materially undermines the work’s market value and substantially harms the copyright holder’s economic interests.

Reproduction for Private Use Under Japanese Copyright Law (Article 30)

Article 30, paragraph 1 of the Japanese Copyright Act permits reproduction of copyrighted works for “personal or family use or for any other use of a similarly limited scope.” This is commonly referred to as Reproduction for Private Use and is one of the most fundamental limitations on rights. In general, three key requirements must be met:

• The scope of use must be personal or similarly limited, such as within a household. This contemplates a very small, closed group—typically family members or close friends—and ordinarily does not include colleagues within a company.
  
• The reproduction must be made by the user. In other words, the person who will use the work should make the copy themselves; outsourcing reproduction to an external service provider will generally not satisfy this requirement.
  
• The purpose must be private use.

For corporate compliance purposes, the most important point is that reproduction for business purposes within a company does not fall within the scope of “Private Use” under Article 30. In the landmark copyright case: Tokyo District Court’s decision of July 22, 1977, the court held that reproducing copyrighted works within a corporation or other organization for internal business use cannot be treated as personal use, nor as use within a similarly limited scope as within a household

Source:  Tokyo District Court – July 22, 1977 (Case number 1973 (Wa) 2198) Summary of Judgement 

A corporation is a legal person, and its activities are not “personal” by nature. Moreover, because corporations exist for economic purposes and their members (employees) can be numerous and change over time, corporate use generally does not satisfy the “similarly limited scope” requirement.

Accordingly, even copies made solely for internal purposes—such as duplicating newspaper articles for meeting materials or reproducing technical literature for research and development—may require the copyright holder’s permission. Proceeding without permission can create copyright infringement risk, and this is a compliance issue that is sometimes overlooked in cross-border business operations.

Exceptions to Private Use: When Reproduction Is Not Permitted (Article 30(1)(i)–(iii))

Article 30(1) permits reproduction for “private use” (personal, family, or similarly limited scope). However, that permission does not apply in the following cases.

(i) Reproduction Using a Public Automated Duplicator (Article 30(1)(i))

The private-use exception does not apply when a user reproduces a work by means of an “automated duplicator” that has been set up for use by the public. In other words, even if the user’s purpose is private use, reproduction falls outside Article 30(1) when it is made using a publicly available automated copying device as described in the statute.

However, there is an important carve-out. Supplementary provision Article 5-2 provides that, “until otherwise provided for by law”, automatic copying machines used exclusively for reproducing documents or drawings—such as the copiers commonly found in convenience stores—are excluded from this restriction. As a result, under current Japanese law, individuals may reproduce parts of books for private use using convenience store copiers.

This reflects a policy judgment that distinguishes, for example, between the market impact of complete digital copies of music or video and the social convenience of everyday document copying. That said, the phrase “until otherwise provided for by law” signals that this approach could change through future legislative amendments.
Reference: Copyright Law of Japan Supplementary Provisions

(ii) Reproduction Made Possible by Bypassing Technological Protection Measures (Article 30(1)(ii))

The private-use exception also does not apply where the reproduction has become possible due to the user bypassing “technological protection measures”, or where a barrier placed to prevent such reproduction no longer exists as a result of that bypass, and the user knowingly reproduces the work despite this.

A key element in this article is the extent of the user’s awareness: the exemption of private use does not apply when the user unlawfully reproduces the work while aware that technological protection measures were bypassed.

Article 2, paragraph 1, item 20 defines “technical protection measures” as electric or magnetic measures, that are imperceptible to humans that placed in order “to prevent or deter a person from engaging in an action that constitutes infringement of an author’s moral rights or copyright”

For example, decrypting copy protection on DVDs or Blu-ray discs, or disabling encryption using specialized devices, is outside the private use exception even if the intent is personal viewing. Under this framework, legality is defined upon the method of reproduction, not merely the purpose or downstream use.

Furthermore, Article 120-2 imposes criminal penalties for acts such as making available to the public devices or programs that enable bypassing, reflecting the statute’s strict approach not only toward end users but also toward those who facilitate bypasses.

(iii) Digital Recording from an Infringing Automatic Public Transmission (Article 30(1)(iii))

Finally, the private-use exception does not apply when a work is received via an automatic public transmission that infringes copyright (including an automatic public transmission made abroad that would infringe if transmitted in Japan), and the user records the sounds or visuals of the work in digital format, knowing that the transmission is infringing.

Here too, the statutory trigger is not only the fact of infringement in the source transmission, but that the user records the work in the knowledge of that fact.

Reproduction in Libraries and Similar Facilities Under Japanese Copyright Law (Article 31)

Separate from private use, Article 31 provides a limitation on reproduction rights for certain public facilities. The provision reflects libraries’ role as social information infrastructure and is intended to support public research activity.

Covered institutions include the National Diet Library, public libraries, and university libraries, as defined by the Copyright Act Enforcement Ordinance. Corporate resource rooms and school libraries are generally not included within a “library or similar facility” for purposes of this provision. Another critical point is that the subject of the reproduction right under Article 31 is the “library or similar facility”, not the individual user themselves.

The Tokyo High Court’s decision of November 8, 1995 indicated that users cannot compel a library to reproduce materials based on Article 31. The decision whether to reproduce, and the responsibility for compliance, rests with the library. In this sense, libraries are not merely providers of copiers; they function as gatekeepers responsible for ensuring that reproduction is made only when the legal requirements are met.

Source: The Tokyo High Court’s – November 8, 1995 (Case Number Heisei 7 (GyōKo)  63) Summary of Judgement 

Article 31, paragraph 1 limits reproduction without the author’s permission primarily to the following three categories:

1. Reproduction for users’ research (item 1). In general, only “a single copy of a part of a work that has been made public” may be reproduced, commonly understood as no more than half of the entire work. However, individual articles or papers published in periodicals (such as magazines or academic journals) may be reproduced in full if a substantial period has passed since publication.
   
2. Reproduction necessary for preservation (item 2). This includes, for example, converting old or deteriorating materials to microfilm, or migrating content from obsolete recording media (such as records) to newer formats when playback equipment becomes difficult to obtain.
   
3. Provision of copies at the request of other library-like facilities (item 3). Libraries may provide copies of materials that are generally difficult to obtain, such as out-of-print works, to support access through interlibrary cooperation.
   

These rules can provide a lawful route for corporate research and development teams to obtain materials for literature review. However, this is fundamentally different from in-house copying by companies: library reproduction is performed under the library’s strict procedures and management as a public institution.

Comparing Private Use and Library Reproduction Under Japanese Copyright Law

Both Article 30 (private use) and Article 31 (library reproduction) are exceptions that can allow reproduction without the author’s permission. They differ materially, however, in their legal basis, who may reproduce, the permissible purposes, and the allowable scope.

Private use is designed for small-scale use within a closed personal sphere. Library reproduction is a tightly controlled service conducted by designated public institutions for broader societal purposes. In corporate settings, the private use exception generally does not apply, while library services may be used for research and study within the statutory limits and procedures. Understanding these distinctions is essential for copyright compliance.

Conclusion

This article reviewed key limitations on rights under the Japanese Copyright Act, focusing on reproduction for private use (Article 30) and reproduction in libraries, etc. (Article 31). The most important compliance takeaway—supported by longstanding case law—is that the private use exception does not apply to reproductions made for business purposes within a company. Misunderstanding this point can lead to inadvertent infringement risk.

It is also important to recognize that copying by circumventing technological protection measures is unlawful regardless of the intended use, and that library reproduction is permitted only under strict, purpose-limited conditions administered by designated institutions. Because copyright law frequently evolves in response to technological and societal change, and because interpretation can be complex, companies often benefit from obtaining legal advice tailored to their specific use cases.

Our firm advises domestic and international clients on Japanese copyright compliance, including issues that arise in cross-border business operations and digital-content use.