TOKYO: The Second Petty Bench of the Supreme Court on Friday (Oct 9) ordered a website operator pay about ¥169 million to a publisher of music scores in a lawsuit filed by the publisher alleging it suffered damages from the unauthorised copies of its work made available on the operator’s website.
“The unauthorised publication of the work went beyond the scope of free competition, interfered with business operations and constitutes an unlawful act,” said presiding Judge Mamoru Miura.
This is the first time the Supreme Court has ruled that the unauthorised use of works not protected by the Copyright Law — such as music scores — constitutes an unlawful act under the Civil Code.
The decision was unanimous among the four justices. The court upheld the Tokyo High Court’s ruling ordering damages, dismissed the defendant’s appeal and finalised the plaintiff’s victory.
The Tokyo District Court’s initial ruling had denied that the scores were copies and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims.
The plaintiff is Tokyo-based publisher Fairy Inc. With permission from the Japan Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers (JASRAC), the company had been selling music scores transcribed from audio recordings.
The defendant, Tokyo-based GLNET, had purchased Fairy’s scores and posted copies online from December 2011 to June 2018 to generate advertising revenue, causing the plaintiff’s sales to plummet.
The plaintiff sought ¥500 million in damages in the lawsuit.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2011 that the unauthorised use of works not protected under the Copyright Law constitutes an unlawful act if “special circumstances” exist.
The focus of the latest lawsuit was on determining would fall under this category.
The petty bench ruled that “when it can be viewed that the act deviated from the scope of free competition and business operations are obstructed, infringing business profits, ‘special circumstances’ exist and an unlawful act is constituted.”
Furthermore, the court noted that Fairy Inc. spent significant funds, labour and time to produce the scores and recovered those costs through sales.
It concluded that the defendant had copied scores of 579 pieces to generate advertising revenue, thereby poaching the publisher’s customers and “infringing upon its business profits through grossly unfair means.” - The Yomiuri Shimbun
