An act of creating a new work that allows those who come into contact with it to directly perceive the essential personalityistics of the existing work’s expression, by relying on an existing work, maintaining the identity of its essential personalityistics in expression, and adding modifications, additions, changes, etc. to the specific expression, thereby creatively expressing new thoughts or emotions.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
\nCreating a work that only has identity with an existing linguistic work in parts that are not the expression itself, such as thoughts, emotions, ideas, facts, or events, or parts that lack creativity in expression, does not constitute an adaptation of the existing work.<\/p>\nSupreme Court judgment, June 28, 2001 (2001 in the Gregorian calendar)<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\nFirstly, the Supreme Court stated:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nThe parts of the narration in question that have identity with the prologue, such as the fact that Esashi Town once prospered with herring fishing and was a prosperous town said to be ‘not even in Edo’, and that there is no trace of it now that the herring have left, belong to general knowledge and are common facts in the introduction of Esashi Town, and are only recognized as having identity in parts that are not the expression itself.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
And then:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nEven if the perception that the most bustling time in current Esashi Town is during the Esashi Oiwake National Convention is a unique recognition or idea of the author that differs from the general thinking of the residents of Esashi Town, this recognition itself is not an expression that should be protected under copyright law, and there is no reason to prohibit expressing the same recognition. In the narration, the TV program side expressed on the same recognition as the author that the Esashi Oiwake National Convention is held in September in Esashi Town, and once a year, the town regains its former bustle and becomes lively all at once, which only resulted in recognizing identity with the prologue in parts that are not the expression itself, and the specific expressions of both are different.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Therefore, although the narration in question was created based on the work in question, the parts that have identity with the prologue are parts that are not the expression itself or parts that lack creativity in expression, and it is not possible to directly perceive the essential personalityistics of the prologue’s expression from the expression of the narration, so it cannot be said to be an adaptation of the prologue.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
The court ruled this way and dismissed the author’s claim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This is a precedent that shows the specific judgment method for infringement of adaptation rights and that ideas are not protected under copyright law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>Summary<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\nEven if parts that are not expressions like ideas are similar, it is not considered copyright infringement unless the essential personalityistics can be directly perceived.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, determining this boundary is very difficult, so please consult with an experienced attorney.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Copyright is a right to protect creative works. According to the Japanese Copyright Law, it is defined as: “An expression of thoughts or feelings that is creatively expressed and falls within th […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":26,"featured_media":60347,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[18],"tags":[24,28],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/monolith.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60249"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/monolith.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/monolith.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monolith.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/26"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monolith.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=60249"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/monolith.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60249\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":60348,"href":"https:\/\/monolith.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60249\/revisions\/60348"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monolith.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/60347"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/monolith.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=60249"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monolith.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=60249"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monolith.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=60249"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}