How Far Can We Use Information on the Internet? Explaining Copyrights on the Web

Is it permissible to collect information from the internet, print it out, create copies of the printed material within a company, and distribute it? Furthermore, even without printing out the information, is it allowed to post it on the company’s intranet or project it on a screen?

In this article, we will explain the use of information on the internet and copyright issues.

Information and Works on the Internet

Information on the Internet also falls under the category of copyrighted works if it is a “creative expression of thoughts or feelings that belongs to the realm of literature, academia, art, or music,” as defined in Article 2 of the Japanese Copyright Law.

Therefore, when using these pieces of information for purposes such as duplication, it is necessary to obtain the permission of the copyright holder or the holder of neighboring rights, unless the use falls under the exceptions provided by the limitations on rights, such as duplication for personal private use (Article 30 of the Japanese Copyright Law) or citation (Article 32 of the Japanese Copyright Law).

However, even for things like news articles, very short news items or obituaries that merely convey facts and do not differ in expression no matter who writes them, and information that is not recognized as having the nature of a work (Article 10, Paragraph 2 of the Japanese Copyright Law), or announcements, instructions, and notices issued by the constitution, laws, administrative agencies, etc., and judgments of courts, etc., are not subject to protection even if they are works (Article 13 of the Japanese Copyright Law), so the use of such information does not pose a problem under copyright law.

Printing Out Information on the Internet, etc.

If the information on the Internet is recognized as having the nature of a copyrighted work, printing it out, even if it is only one copy for circulation or multiple copies, can be considered as “physically reproducing” it, which falls under the category of duplication.

Japanese Copyright Law Article 2: In this law, the meanings of the terms listed in the following items shall be as defined in those items.

15 Duplication: Refers to physically reproducing by printing, photography, photocopying, recording, filming, or other methods, and includes the acts listed in the following items for the respective items.
(Abbreviated)

Even if you do not print it out, if you post the information on a bulletin board on the intranet that is common to all branches of the company, there is a possibility that many people will see it, so it may not only be considered duplication, but also public transmission (Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 7-2 of the Japanese Copyright Law).

Japanese Copyright Law Article 2: In this law, the meanings of the terms listed in the following items shall be as defined in those items.

7-2 Public Transmission: Refers to the act of transmitting by wireless or wired telecommunications with the intention of being directly received by the public (excluding transmissions by telecommunications equipment where one part of the installation location is within the same premises as the other part (within the area belonging to the same occupier if the premises belong to two or more occupiers) (excluding transmissions of works of programming).

Also, the act of projecting information on the Internet onto a screen using a projector connected to a PC, or displaying it on a large monitor for many people to view, may be considered as screening (Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 17 of the Japanese Copyright Law) or public transmission (Article 23, Paragraph 2 of the Japanese Copyright Law).

Thus, the act of using information on the Internet may fall under duplication, public transmission, screening, or public transmission, etc. under the Copyright Law, so unless these uses fall under the limitations on rights provided by the Copyright Law, it is necessary to obtain the permission of the rights holder.

Permission by the Copyright Holder

If the copyright holder explicitly grants permission, there will be no issue of infringement of copyright or neighboring rights. On the other hand, if the copyright holder explicitly prohibits duplication, public transmission, etc. on the site, the intention to prohibit duplication, public transmission, etc. is clear, so unless the application of the limitations on rights applies, it is generally considered that it is not allowed to print out or post on the intranet, etc.

The issue arises when implicit permission can be recognized even if explicit permission from the copyright holder cannot be recognized. In this case, it is not considered an infringement of copyright or neighboring rights, and depending on the content of the work and the manner of use, implicit permission from the rights holder may be recognized.

For example, what about the case where the copyright holder posts information on a site that anyone can access freely and without charge, and allows anyone who accesses the site to freely view the information? In this case, the act of duplicating the information on the site by printing it out for viewing on paper, or projecting it onto a screen with a projector or displaying it on a large monitor, is considered to have implicit permission from the copyright holder if there is no indication of an intention to prohibit these actions.

News articles and papers are also allowed to be freely viewed by anyone who accesses the site where the copyright holder has posted the information on a site that anyone can access freely and without charge. Therefore, the act of duplicating the information on the site by printing it out for viewing on paper, or projecting it onto a screen, etc., is considered to have implicit permission from the copyright holder if there is no indication of an intention to prohibit these actions.

However, even if you can access the Internet for free and view it, the act of duplicating and selling printouts of news articles and papers, distributing them as materials as part of business activities to people outside the company, projecting videos on the Internet onto a screen for viewing for a fee, etc., are considered to be beyond the scope of the rights holder’s prediction and are not considered to be within the scope of implicit permission.

Also, the act of printing out information from paid sites or member-only sites and making multiple copies for distribution, distributing it by email within the company, or making it available for viewing by an unspecified or large number of people, is often prohibited by the normal use contract. Even if there is no explicit prohibition clause, it is considered that there is no implicit permission for the use of what is originally paid for free.

Of course, if the information on the Internet is posted without the permission of the copyright holder, the posting itself is an infringement of copyright and neighboring rights, so it is impossible for the use of the information to be implicitly permitted, and it will infringe on copyright and neighboring rights.

Secondary Use of Posts and Uploaded Videos/Images on Internet Bulletin Boards

If website administrators or third parties wish to make secondary use of posts or uploaded videos/images on bulletin boards, they need the permission of the rights holder.

Just because you have posted on an online bulletin board or uploaded images or videos does not mean that you have given permission for secondary use of the posts or uploaded images/videos. Also, it is not possible to assume that copyright has been waived by the act of posting.

However, if the terms of use for secondary use by the operator are established on the bulletin board where posts or images/videos are uploaded, and if these terms are recognized as binding, it is possible that permission for the secondary use in question may be considered to exist.

Secondary Use and Copyright

There is no particular problem with the copyright of uploaded images/videos, etc., so unauthorized copying is a copyright infringement.

On the other hand, the “creativity” of posts on online bulletin boards can be a problem. There have been cases in the past where the use of posts by bulletin board administrators was disputed.

The defendants were the administrator of a homepage called “Hotel Junkies,” which posted questions and reader responses about hotels and tourism to help hotel users choose a hotel, and a publisher. The plaintiffs were 11 posters on the homepage, who claimed for the cessation of publication and payment of damages against the defendants’ act of reproducing (reposting) part of the posts on the bulletin board, creating a book, and publishing, selling and distributing it.

The defendant, the administrator, argued that most of the posts on the bulletin board on the Internet are of a level of content that does not earn a reward in many cases. Furthermore, they argued that the copyright envisaged by the Copyright Law is a system in which the creator declares to the public that this is an expression of opinion that he or she has created, asserts his or her rights and assumes responsibility to a wide range of unspecified persons, and does not fit with anonymous statements on the Internet where the person’s true identity is hidden.

In the appeal trial following the first instance victory for the plaintiff, the court stated that it is insufficient for the protection of expression to unduly limit the scope of protection by copyright, and

The requirement of creativity for the recognition of copyright should not be strictly interpreted, but rather, it is sufficient if the individuality of the expresser is manifested in some form, and in making a concrete judgment on the copyright, it is appropriate to judge in the direction of recognizing the copyright, except for cases where it is clear that there is no creativity, such as greetings of the season by set phrases.

Tokyo High Court Judgment of October 29, 2002 (Heisei 14)

and recognized the copyright more broadly, including parts that were denied copyright in the first instance because “the sentences are relatively short and there is no room for creative expression.” Regarding the fact that it was done anonymously, it is said that this is true not only for posts on the Internet but also for expressions in other fields, and it does not hinder the affirmation of copyright.

For posts on bulletin boards and uploaded images/videos on posting sites, if there are terms and conditions for the secondary use of posts made on the bulletin board in advance, and if the site operator and users are objectively recognized to be bound by the content of the agreement, and if a contractual relationship regarding secondary use is established between the site operator and the user, it is considered that the posts and uploaded videos and images can be used in accordance with the provisions of the secondary use terms and conditions.

Summary: Exercise Caution When Using Online Information Due to Potential Copyright Issues and the Complexities of Anonymity

One should exercise caution when utilizing information on the Internet.

While the use of posts, uploaded images, and videos does not infringe on copyrights if they are not recognized as copyrighted materials, this interpretation is loosely applied and widely accepted. Furthermore, postings on bulletin boards and uploads of images and videos are often done anonymously under pseudonyms. However, it is important to note that anonymity does not negate the possibility of copyrighted material.

Guidance on Measures by Our Firm

Monolith Law Office is a legal office with high expertise in both IT, particularly the internet, and law. In recent years, intellectual property rights surrounding copyrights have been attracting attention, and the need for legal checks is increasingly growing. Our firm provides solutions related to intellectual property. Details are described in the article below.