Date of
Judgment: October 8, 2009
Issuing
Authority: Supreme Court
Level of
the Issuing Authority: Final Instance
Type of
Procedure:
Judicial (Civin( �b>
Subject
Matter:
Copyright
and Related Rights (Neighboring Rights)
Main
text of the judgment (decision):
1.
The
present final appeal shall be dismissed.
2.
Appellants
shall bear the cost of the final appeal.
Reasons:
Reason No. 1
of petition for acceptance of final appeal by the attorney of the final appeal,
●●●●
1 . This case is a case in which
Appellee made a claim against Appellants for injunction of reproduction and
distribution of DVD goods and disposal of the stock thereof and digital linear
tape pursuant to Article 112, paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Copyright Act and a
claim for compensation for damages pursuant to Articles 709 and 719 of the
Civil Code and Article 114, paragraph (3) of the Copyright Act on the ground of
copyright infringement of Theatrical Movies 1 to 9 described in the "movie
list" (hereinafter, each of these movies shall be called the "Present
Movie 1" and the like in accordance with the number in the list and shall
be also collectively called "each of the Present Movies") attached to
the judgment in prior instance released before January 1, 1971, which is the
date of enforcement of the Copyright Act (the Act No. 48 of 1970). Appellants assert that the authors of
each of the Present Movies are only movie production companies which are
organizations, and even if it is not applicable, since each of the Present
Movies was made public under the authorship of organizations, Article 6 of the
Old Copyright Act (before revision by Act No. 48 of 1970. hereinafter, referred to as the
"Old Act") is applied to the duration of copyright by the Old act,
and the copyright of each of the Present Movies expires at the expiration of
the duration and disputes.
2. The outline of factual
relations legally finalized in the court of prior instance is as follows
(1) Each of the Present Movies is
a work of a movie having creativity and having been made public during a period
from June in 1919 to October in 1952.
(2) Original works, screenplays,
production or direction, leading performance, and the like of each of the present
movies were performed singularly by Charles Chaplin (excluding the Present
Movie 3), and most of the production activities from idea (excluding the
Present Movie 8) to completion was performed by him. In the contents thereof, too, his
thoughts/sentiments are markedly expressed through the performance of Chaplin
himself (excluding the Present Movie 3), direction and the like, and the person
who creatively contributed to the overall shaping of each of the Present Movies
is Chaplin.
(3) It is
indicated that Chaplin produced each of videos of the Present Movies 1 and 2 on
the basis of his original works, he directed the video of the Present Movie 3
on the basis of his original work, he performed the main role and directed each
of the videos of the Present Movies 4 to 7, and he performed the main role and
served as the general director of each of the videos of the Present Movies 8
and 9 under his real name.
Moreover, the video of the Present Movie 7 has indication that A company
is the owner of the copyright thereof, the video of the Present Movie 8 has
indication that B company is the owner of the copyright thereof, and the video
of the Present Movie 9 has indication that C company is the owner of the
copyright thereof.
(4) Regarding the Present Movies 1
to 6, Chaplin was registered as the author thereof at the US Copyright Office,
while regarding the Present Movies 7 to 9, A company, B company, and C company
were registered as the authors thereof, respectively.
(5) Appellee obtained all the
copyrights of each of the Present Movies in 1956.
(6) Chaplin died on December 25,
1977.
(7) Appellants reproduced each of
the Present Movies and made and distributed the DVD goods without approval of
Appellee.
3(1) Under the Old Act, a work is
interpreted to mean those with thoughts/sentiments which are products of
spiritual creative activities expressed to the outside. And since the movies are comprehensive
works created with involvement of a large number of persons such as
scriptwriters, producers, directors, actors, and technicians for photography,
recording and the like, the authors of the works of the movies under the Old
Act should be determined by who creatively contributed to the overall shaping
thereof as the reference. It is not
reasonable to understand that the authors are only the movie producers with one
thing that movies are works.
Moreover, under the Old Act, even if an organization, not a natural
person who actually performed the creative activity, can become the author, the
movie production company indicated as the author does not naturally result in
being the author of the work of the movie under Article 6 of the Old Act. The Article should be interpreted as the
provisions related only to the duration of copyright in view of the positions
of the wording and provision thereof, and there is no room to understand that
the Article prescribes the requirement and effects for an organization to be
deemed as the author.
By examining this for this case,
according to the aforementioned factual relations, regarding each of the
Present Movies, Chaplin creatively contributed to the overall shaping thereof,
and there seems to be no one involved in that other than Chaplin and thus, it
is obvious that Chaplin is the author.
(2) Under the Old Act, the
provisions of Articles 3 to 6 and Article 9 of the Old Act are applied to the
duration of copyright of the work of a movie having creativity (Article 22-3 of
the Old Act).
The Article 3 of the Old Act
prescribes the duration of copyright of the work on the basis of the time of
death of the author concerned on the premise that the author is a natural
person. However, the author of an
anonymous or pseudonymous work which is made public cannot be known to the
general public, and if the duration of the copyright thereof is determined on
the basis of the time of death of the author, the duration becomes vague, and
there is a concern that interests of the social public and legal stability are
undermined. The same applies to a
case where a work for which the author, who is a natural person, cannot be
known since it was made public under the authorship of an organization although
the author is a natural person.
Thus, Articles 5 and 6 of the Old Act are interpreted such that, from a
viewpoint of securing interests of the social public and legal stability, the
duration of copyright of these works shall be determined exceptionally on the
basis of the publication or performance, and when the author is granted
registration under the real name within the duration prescribed on the basis of
the time at which the work is made public, since the time of death of the
author can be grasped, it is determined on the basis of the time of death of
the author as in the principle (see the proviso to Article 5 of the Old
Act). Then, with regard to the
duration of copyright under the Old Act of a work whose author is a natural
person, when the fact that the natural person is the
author is indicated using the real name thereof, and the work is made public,
the time of death of the author can be grasped by that and thus, even if there
is indication that the authorship of the work is attributed to an organization,
it is reasonable to interpret that Article 3 of the Old Act, not Article 6 of
the Old Act, is applied, and the duration is determined on the basis of the
aforementioned time.
By examining this for this case,
each of the Present Movies is a work having creativity with Chaplin, who is a
natural person, as the author, and according to the aforementioned factual
relations, it is indicated that Chaplin performed direction and the like on the
basis of the original work of himself, respectively and thus, each of the
Present Movies is assumed to be made public with the indication with the real
name that Chaplin, who is a natural person, is the author. Therefore, regarding the duration of
copyright pursuant to the Old Act, Article 3, paragraph (1) of the Old Act, not
Article 6 of the Old Act, should be considered to be applied. The fact that the organization is
registered as the author or the indication that an organization is the author
on the image of the movie does not affect the aforementioned conclusion.
(3) Then, the durations of the
copyright of the Present Movies 1 to 7 are all at least until December 31, 2015
under the provisions of Article 3 of the supplementary provisions of Act No. 85
of 2003, Article 7 of the supplementary provisions of Act No. 48 of 1970, and
Article 22-3, Article 3, paragraph (1), Article 9, and Article 52 of the Old
Act, while the durations of the copyright of the Present Movies 8 and 9 are at
least until December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2022, respectively, under
Article 2 of the supplementary provisions of the Act No. 85 of 2003, Article 7
of the supplementary provisions of Act No. 48 of 1970, Article 22-3, Article 3,
paragraph (1), Article 9, and Article 52 of the Old Act, and Article 54,
paragraph (1) of the Copyright Act.
Therefore,
the copyright of each of the Present Movies cannot be considered to expire at
the expiration of the duration thereof.
4. The judgment of the court of
prior instance with the same purpose as above can be approved as
reasonable. The Judgment in the
Supreme Court 2007 (Ju) No. 1105, Third Petty Bench on December 18 of the same
year/Minshu vol. 61, No. 9, page 3460 cited in the statement is not premised on
the indication that a natural person is the author with the real name but only
holds application of Article 2 of the supplementary provisions of Act No. 85 of
2003 based on the copyright work with application of Article 6 of the Old Act
and is not appropriate for this case.
The gist cannot be employed.
Therefore, the judgment shall be
rendered as in the main text unanimously by all the judges.
(This translation is
provisional and subject to revision.)