Uygulamal\u0131 sanat eserlerinin telif hakk\u0131 niteli\u011fi \u00fczerinde tart\u0131\u015f\u0131lan bir dava olan “Akatonbo Davas\u0131”, davac\u0131 \u015firketin b\u00fcy\u00fck miktarda \u00fcretip satmay\u0131 ama\u00e7lad\u0131\u011f\u0131, “Akatonbo” adl\u0131 renkli seramik fig\u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn, al\u00e7\u0131 ile kal\u0131p al\u0131n\u0131p kopyalar\u0131n\u0131n \u00fcretilip sat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddias\u0131yla, daval\u0131 \u015firkete kar\u015f\u0131 telif hakk\u0131 ihlali temelinde \u00e7o\u011faltma ve sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n durdurulmas\u0131 talebiyle ge\u00e7ici tedbir ba\u015fvurusunda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Daval\u0131 \u015firket, s\u00f6z konusu fig\u00fcr\u00fcn end\u00fcstriyel kullan\u0131m amac\u0131yla seri \u00fcretim \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc olarak yarat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu nedenle bir telif hakk\u0131 eseri olamayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 savundu.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Yine de, mahkeme, “Akatonbo” fig\u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn, ayn\u0131 adl\u0131 \u00e7ocuk \u015fark\u0131s\u0131ndan al\u0131nan bir imaj\u0131 bir heykel olarak ifade etti\u011fini, fig\u00fcr\u00fcn \u015fekli, ifadesi, giysinin deseni ve renklerinden, duygusal yarat\u0131c\u0131 ifadenin kabul edilebilece\u011fini belirtti. Fig\u00fcr\u00fcn sanatsal de\u011fer ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve Japon Telif Hakk\u0131 Yasas\u0131’n\u0131n korumas\u0131 alt\u0131nda oldu\u011funu kabul etti.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nSanatsal bir eserin, seri \u00fcretim amac\u0131yla yarat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve ger\u00e7ekten seri \u00fcretildi\u011fi ger\u00e7e\u011fi, eserin telif hakk\u0131 niteli\u011fini reddetmek i\u00e7in tek ba\u015f\u0131na bir gerek\u00e7e olamaz. Ayr\u0131ca, s\u00f6z konusu fig\u00fcr\u00fcn bir yandan Japon End\u00fcstriyel Tasar\u0131m Yasas\u0131’n\u0131n korumas\u0131 alt\u0131nda olabilece\u011fi i\u00e7in end\u00fcstriyel tasar\u0131m tescili m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olsa bile, end\u00fcstriyel tasar\u0131m ve sanatsal telif hakk\u0131 eserleri aras\u0131ndaki s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131n hassas bir konu oldu\u011funu, her iki durumun da bir arada var olabilece\u011fini kabul etmek gerekti\u011finden, end\u00fcstriyel tasar\u0131m tescilinin olas\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bir eserin Japon Telif Hakk\u0131 Yasas\u0131’n\u0131n korumas\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda b\u0131rakmak i\u00e7in bir gerek\u00e7e olarak kabul etmek m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla, s\u00f6z konusu fig\u00fcr, Japon Telif Hakk\u0131 Yasas\u0131’nda belirtilen sanatsal el sanatlar\u0131 olarak korunmal\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\nNagasaki B\u00f6lge Mahkemesi Sasebo \u015eubesi, 7 \u015eubat 1973 (1973) karar\u0131<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\nSeri \u00fcretim amac\u0131yla yarat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ger\u00e7e\u011fi tek ba\u015f\u0131na bir gerek\u00e7e olarak telif hakk\u0131 niteli\u011fini reddetmek m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve uygulamal\u0131 sanat\u0131n da sanatsal el sanatlar\u0131 oldu\u011fu s\u00fcrece telif hakk\u0131 eseri olarak kabul edilebilece\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcnde bir karard\u0131r.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00d6te yandan, telif hakk\u0131n\u0131n kabul edilmedi\u011fi durumlar da vard\u0131r. Bu durumlar, d\u00fcnya \u00e7ap\u0131nda tan\u0131nan bir sanat tasar\u0131mc\u0131s\u0131 olan davac\u0131n\u0131n, kendi tasarlad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sandalyenin (Ni Chair) kopya \u00fcr\u00fcnlerini Tayvan’dan ithal eden daval\u0131ya kar\u015f\u0131, Japon Telif Hakk\u0131 Yasas\u0131’n\u0131n ihlali gerek\u00e7esiyle \u00fcretim ve sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n durdurulmas\u0131 talebiyle ba\u015flat\u0131lan “Ni Chair Davas\u0131”d\u0131r.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nJapon Telif Hakk\u0131 Yasas\u0131’nda “sanat” terimi, genellikle, sadece estetik de\u011ferlendirme konusu olan saf sanat\u0131 ifade eder ve uygulamal\u0131 sanat olan ve ayn\u0131 zamanda pratik bir amaca hizmet eden estetik yarat\u0131c\u0131 eserler, yaln\u0131zca yasan\u0131n 2. maddesinin 2. f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca \u00f6zellikle sanatsal telif hakk\u0131 eserlerine dahil edilen sanatsal el sanatlar\u0131 ile s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\nOsaka Y\u00fcksek Mahkemesi, 14 \u015eubat 1990 (1990) karar\u0131<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\nBu karar\u0131n ard\u0131ndan, davac\u0131, karar\u0131 Japon Y\u00fcksek Mahkemesi’ne temyiz etti, ancak reddedildi.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Bu \u00f6rneklerden de anla\u015f\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 gibi, geleneksel davalar\u0131n \u00e7o\u011funda, bir eserin tek par\u00e7a olarak \u00fcretilen sanatsal el sanatlar\u0131na m\u0131 ait oldu\u011fu, yoksa saf sanatla ayn\u0131 seviyede estetik de\u011ferlendirme konusu olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, telif hakk\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n temelini olu\u015fturmu\u015ftur. Uygulamal\u0131 sanat\u0131n telif hakk\u0131 niteli\u011fi kabul edilmesi i\u00e7in y\u00fcksek bir engel olu\u015fturulmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n\n\n\n