Case number: 2022(Wa)11394
Type: Request for Injunction against Unfair Competition
Plaintiff: YouTuber
Defendant: Igo & Shogi Channel Inc.
Relevant Law: Anti-Competition Act, Article 3(1), Request for Injunction
The above court case concerns whether deletion of a video clip replicating “kifu” (shogi record) on how players play shogi (Japanese chess) – is illegitimate in terms of copyright infringement. Plaintiff filed a request for compensation for damages at the Osaka District Court against defendant, who had requested YouTube to delete plaintiff’s video clip. The Court judged that a shogi record is a published objective fact and therefore, plaintiff’s video clip is deemed as within the scope of free use. The Court ordered the defendant to withdraw their request for the deletion and pay approximately 1.2 million JPY for the damages to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff created a video clip which captured shogi players putting a piece on the shogi board with index finger by replicating a live session broadcasted by the defendant, and then uploaded the video clip to YouTube. The defendant claimed that what the plaintiff had done is allegedly obtaining advertisement profit from free ride. The defendant requested the YouTube management company to delete the video clip on the ground that the plaintiff had infringed the defendant’s copyright. The YouTube management company suspended video streaming of the video clip.
Under the Japanese Copyright Law, any copyrighted work (work which can be granted copyright) is defined as “production in which thoughts or sentiments are expressed in a creative way….” In this sense, shogi record, “kifu” – is considered as an actual game record that describes how both players move the pieces on the shogi board. It becomes controversial whether the act is held to be an infringement when the record is replicated online.
In its judgment, Osaka District Court did not find copyright infringement in the case, stating that the shogi record used for the video clip is how players put a piece on the board, and therefore is an objective fact. The Court approved and stated that “despite the fact that the video clip created by the plaintiff does not infringe copyright, the defendant had announced content which is contrary to the fact.” The Court ruled that the defendant’s request for deleting the video clip is unlawful, and the defendant is liable for compensation for damages.