Background
Secure Lamil Co., Ltd. owned the copyright in computer-generated images created by D. The defendant reproduced images in an online post criticizing what the defendant understood to be D’s use of those works to defame E, a university student. Secure Lamil sought removal of the post and an injunction against further reproduction and automatic public transmission of the underlying image.
The Tokyo District Court found that the defendant had reproduced a creative portion of Secure Lamil’s work, but held that the use was a lawful quotation under Article 32(1) of Japan’s Copyright Act because it conformed to fair practice and remained within the scope justified by the critical purpose. It denied removal and dismissed the original injunction claim as insufficiently specific. On appeal, Secure Lamil reformulated the injunction request and added a removal claim concerning a second post that quoted two additional images and their original social-media posts.
The Court’s Holding
The Intellectual Property High Court dismissed the appeal and rejected the added removal claim. It held that both challenged uses qualified as lawful quotations. The works had already been published; the defendant used them to criticize what the defendant perceived as D’s defamatory conduct toward E; and the quoted material was clearly distinguishable from the defendant’s commentary and subordinate to it. In the second post, quotation markers and source URLs further identified the quoted material, while reproducing the full original posts was justified by the critical purpose.
The court rejected Secure Lamil’s argument that the quotations became unfair because the defendant allegedly misunderstood D’s intent, identified D by name, or used insulting language. A possible mistake about the creator’s intent did not itself preclude quotation, and, given the posts’ critical purpose, neither the comments nor disclosure of D’s name established use so seriously harmful to personal interests that the quotation fell outside fair practice.
The court dismissed the reformulated injunction action as procedurally defective because it did not identify the prohibited conduct and its objects with sufficient specificity. In particular, language barring reproduction or transmission accompanied by wording “associating” the works with E—including E’s name, social-media account, or other identifying language—was not unambiguous or definite. The substituted claim rendered the original injunction portion of the trial judgment ineffective.
Key Takeaways
- Reproduction of a copyrighted image may be lawful quotation under Article 32(1) when it supports criticism, is clearly separated from the commentary, and remains subordinate to that commentary.
- An alleged misunderstanding of the creator’s intent, identification of the creator, or harsh criticism does not automatically defeat the quotation defense.
- A copyright injunction must define the conduct and material to be restrained with concrete, unambiguous specificity.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that Japanese copyright law permits meaningful visual quotation for online criticism, including use of an entire post or image when the critical purpose reasonably requires it and the presentation preserves a clear principal–subordinate relationship.
It also underscores a separate procedural constraint: even where future infringement is alleged, a court will not entertain an injunction framed through vague associations or open-ended identifying language.