Episode 28

In Episode 27, we explained the division of roles between Copyright Act and Design Act when it comes to protecting images in virtual space. This time, we will compare the protection of applied art under Copyright Act and Design Act.
The Copyright Act states, "The enjoyment of moral rights and copyright shall not require any formal performance" (Article 17, Paragraph 2). This means that the enjoyment of moral rights and copyright does not require administrative procedures such as registration.
Therefore, the enjoyment of moral rights and copyright is determined by the court, a judicial body. A person claiming copyright infringement must first file a lawsuit, asserting and proving the existence of the copyright and their identity as the author, in order to have their claim recognized.
Regarding the application of the Copyright Act to applied art, the Intellectual Property High Court ruled, "In light of the provisions of Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Copyright Act, even in the case of applied art for practical purposes, if a portion possessing aesthetic qualities that are subject to aesthetic appreciation can be identified separately from the components necessary for practical purposes, it can be deemed objectively identical to a '(pure) work of art that is a creative expression of ideas or emotions,' which is clearly included in Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 1, and therefore that portion should be protected as a work of art under Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 1.
On the other hand, even in the case of applied art for practical purposes, if a portion possessing aesthetic qualities that are subject to aesthetic appreciation cannot be identified separately from the components necessary for practical purposes, it cannot be deemed objectively identical to a '(pure) work of art that is a creative expression of ideas or emotions,' which is included in Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 1, and therefore should not be protected as a work under that paragraph." (Intellectual Property High Court Case 2013 (Ne) No. 10068, Judgment of August 28, 2014)
Furthermore, in copyright infringement lawsuits, "the reproduction of a work means the reproduction of something that relies on an existing work and is sufficient to make its content and form known" (Supreme Court, First Petty Bench, Case No. 324 of 1975 (O), September 7, 1978, Minshu Vol. 32, No. 6, p. 1145), so reliance must also be asserted, proven, and accepted.
In contrast, under the Design Act, which is an industrial property law, the Japan Patent Office, an administrative organ, will prove the enjoyment of rights. Proof of reliance is also not required.
For these reasons, design registration is a reliable way to adequately protect applied art, and as a result, it allows for protection at low cost.