Does the "Rights Information Registration System for Individual Creators, etc." create risks of being used in ways unintended by the rights holder?

Yes, there are certainly points to be aware of.

While the "Rights Information Registration System for Individual Creators, etc." launched by the Agency for Cultural Affairs is itself a mechanism for clarifying the intentions of rights holders, it is not without risks or unintended usage.

Let's break down the background and concerns.

■ What exactly has started?

On February 26, 2026, the Agency for Cultural Affairs launched the operation of:

・ "Rights Information Registration System for Individual Creators, etc."
・ "Cross-Sectoral Rights Information Search System"

This is a mechanism that allows individual creators to register rights information for their works and whether or not third-party use is permitted once rights holder information is available, prospective users can search for it and get in touch.

This system is linked to the "Arbitration System for Unmanaged Copyrighted Works" starting in April 2026, and it is expected that indicating the rights holder's intentions in advance will help avoid disadvantages.

■ What kind of risks are anticipated?

● 1. Possibility of leading to unintended use of works

Once registration information is made public, there is the aspect that it becomes easier for others to search for and discover the work or its rights without the creator's intent. While this is the purpose of the system, in some cases, it could lead to the risk of providing a route for the work to be used in unexpected ways.

For example, there is a concern that a third party who does not fully understand the intent or conditions, but reads the usage requirements or licensing status, might initiate inquiries about using the work or negotiations for provisional use.

In this sense, it can be said that rights holders themselves need to properly manage and update their information.

● 2. The "incentive structure" for rights information is not yet in place

With the new system, there is the benefit that registered rights information becomes easier to search for, but conversely, there is also the possibility that misunderstandings or misconceptions may arise when a rights holder registers insufficient information.

Also, while the availability of use is indicated by options such as "Consultation Required/Not Permitted/Permitted," depending on how the user interprets this, cases of unintended use could also be considered.

● 3. Risk of misunderstanding due to "not expressing intent"

Behind the Arbitration System for Unmanaged Copyrighted Works is the issue of "how to handle copyrighted works for which the rights holder's intent cannot be confirmed." By operating a registration system, rights holders will be able to express their intent regarding usage, but if unregistered works are left as they are, there is a possibility that users may proceed with the application of arbitration on their own. In other words,

"Being used without permission because no intent was expressed"

is the opposite problem that we must also be careful to avoid.

● 4. Notes on Terms of Use

In examples of published terms of use, it has been confirmed that there are descriptions stating that the administrator may anonymize information provided by registrants for statistical use. While this is not a major risk, it indicates that one needs to be conscious of how rights information is handled and of privacy.

■ Preventive measures

To reduce such risks, things that rights holders can do include:

・Accurate management of registered information
・Clarification of terms of use
・Explicit contracts with users
・Understanding the limitations of anonymous information use

These are some examples. The system itself has positive aspects in the sense that it creates a point of contact between rights holders and users, but if rights holders do not manage their information appropriately, the possibility of it leading to unintended use certainly remains.

■ Conclusion

The "Rights Information Registration System" has the benefits of:

・Linking to the arbitration system for unmanaged copyrighted works, and
・Serving as a mechanism that makes it easier to indicate the intentions of rights holders

However, due to the nature of searching and publishing rights information, there is a possibility of unintended use or misunderstanding, so the rights holder's own information management and caution are important.

That is a very important concern.

To start with the conclusion—depending on the system design, that concern is theoretically possible. However, it is not a structure where it is "used freely at the discretion of the Agency for Cultural Affairs."

Let me organize this a bit more carefully.

■ The system in the background

The rights information registration started by the Agency for Cultural Affairs is linked to the "arbitration system for unmanaged copyrighted works" that begins at the same time. The arbitration system for unmanaged copyrighted works is...

・Rights holder is unknown
・Cannot be contacted
・No management organization exists

It is a mechanism that allows use after certain procedures in cases such as these. In other words, it is a system to ensure that "works whose owners are unknown" are not left completely neglected.

■ The Core of the Concern

The anxiety you point out follows this structure.

1. Not registered

2. Treated as "unmanaged"

3. Third party applies for an arbitration

4. Use becomes possible through administrative judgment

The concern is that this flow might approach "silence equals consent to use." This is indeed a point that requires caution in the system design.

■ However, Important Points

Under the current system,

・Users have an obligation to conduct a "diligent search"
・Arbitration requires the deposit of compensation
・If a rights holder appears later, they can make a claim

In other words,

it is positioned not as the legalization of unauthorized use, but as a provisional use system with compensation

.

■ Structural Risks That Still Remain

Even so,

・Not registered = more likely to be a target for searching
・Possibility that individual creators are unaware of the system
・Concerns about the transparency of administrative judgment

Anxieties such as these do not disappear. What can become a particular problem is

"disadvantage due to lack of knowledge"

That is correct. As long as a system exists, it cannot be denied that information asymmetry can have an impact.

■ Was it a bad move?

Opinions are divided.

● Positive perspective
・Promotes the utilization of buried works
・Resolves the orphan works problem

● Critical perspective
・Disadvantageous to those who remain silent
・Substantially weakens the freedom not to register

Systems always fluctuate between the balance of "protection" and "distribution." This mechanism might be described as a design that places a bit more weight on the distribution side.

What is a "diligent search"?

And can it really be proven?

I will explain in order.

■ What is a "diligent search"?

Under the arbitration system for unmanaged works,

it is required to exhaust searches within the scope normally expected to find the rights holder

is required. Typically, this includes:

・Checking names or contact information displayed on the work
・Inquiries to publishers or production companies
・Inquiries to copyright management organizations
・Searching public databases
・Internet searches

and so on. In short, the structure is such that "applying without doing anything" is not permitted.

■ Is it possible to provide proof?

Yes, formally it is possible. The applicant submits the following as documentation:

・When
・Where
・By what method
・What the results were

For example,

・Copies of inquiry emails
・Records of search results
・Written responses from management organizations

The administration reviews these and only issues a ruling if it determines that "the investigation has been exhausted."

■ So, is there no problem?

This is the important part. The issue is not an "absolute standard," but rather

that what constitutes "reasonable" effort varies on a case-by-case basis

In other words,

・Is the standard the same for small-scale and large-scale use?
・To what extent is it necessary to search for rights holders living overseas?
・Should one even track down SNS accounts?

Ambiguities like these remain. It is a fact that there is room for administrative judgment rather than a completely objective standard.

■ Can it be overturned later?

If a rights holder appears later and

"The investigation was insufficient"

claims this, it is possible to dispute it. However,

・The use has already proceeded
・Proof of damages is required

there are hurdles such as these.

■ Conclusion

There is a mechanism to prove "reasonable investigation" through documentation. However,

It is not a completely objective or mechanical standard.

That is where the institutional instability lies.

To start with the conclusion—simply 'choosing not to respond' does not immediately result in free use.

However, if certain conditions are met, there is a possibility that use will be permitted with compensation.

Let me organize this in order.

■ Premise: Structure of the system

The arbitration system for unmanaged copyrighted works is a mechanism where:

・The rights holder is unknown
・Contact is impossible even after reasonable investigation

In these cases only, use is permitted through an arbitration by the Commissioner of the Agency for Cultural Affairs. It is not a system to legalize unauthorized use, but rathera provisional use permit granted upon depositing compensation.It is.

■ What happens if someone 'chooses not to respond'?

This is the core of the matter.

1. If the contact information is public but there is no response

This is a case where, as a result of the investigation, it is confirmed that the contact was received but there was no response. In this case,

・The investigation has been exhausted
・No expression of intent can be confirmed

Therefore, it is possible to proceed to arbitration. In other words,silence is not automatically treated as a 'refusal of use'.

2. When you explicitly state "do not grant permission"

For example,

・Explicitly stating "unauthorized use prohibited" on the site
・Having received a refusal after contacting the rights holder

In these cases, it will not be subject to arbitration. If there is a clear refusal, use is not permitted.

■ Structural issues

As you are concerned, it cannot be denied that a passive attitude of "not responding" could eventually lead to use via arbitration. This is because the system is designed to avoid the state of:

・Social use being halted while the intent remains unknown

Therefore,

silence is not an absolute veto

is the reality of the system.

■ So, is it free to use without permission?

No.

・The scope of use is limited to the arbitration content
・Compensation is deposited
・The rights holder can claim it later

There are these constraints. It is not a complete "seizure."

■ Essential point of discussion

What is being questioned here is:

"Is copyright in principle opt-in (requiring consent)?"

or

"Is it treated in an opt-out manner under certain conditions for social use?"

This is a philosophical design concept. This system has steered somewhat toward the latter.

To start with the conclusion, there are certainly aspects of the system design that can be disadvantageous to rights holders.

However, it is not structured in a way that leaves you "completely defenseless and vulnerable to having your work taken." Let me break it down calmly.

1) Why it "looks disadvantageous"

• Silence does not equal automatic refusal
  If you remain unreachable or your intentions remain unclear, your work may become subject to an arbitration decision.

• Possibility of being unable to claim compensation if you don't notice
  Compensation is deposited, but if the rights holder does not come forward, the receipt process will not proceed.

• Impact of the information gap
  There is a structural issue where individuals who are unaware of the system are more likely to be at a disadvantage.

In this sense, it cannot be denied that active information management by the rights holder is required.

2) Why it is still not "unlimited"

• Arbitration is limited and includes compensation
  It is not free, indefinite, unrestricted use; the scope is specified, and the deposit of compensation is a prerequisite.

• You can appear later and make a claim
  Rights do not expire, and if you come forward later, there is room to receive compensation or review the conditions.

• Requirement for diligent search
  You cannot apply without doing anything; submission of research materials is required (this is where the strictness of operation is tested).

In other words, it is structured as "conditional, provisional use" to ensure that social distribution is not halted.

3) The essential problem of balance

Copyright is, in principle, an opt-in right that requires consent. On the other hand, situations where works cannot be used forever because the rights holder is unknown (the so-called orphan work problem) are also considered a social loss.

It can be said that this mechanism is designed to prioritize distribution slightly over protection. Because of that, silence or indifference can work to your disadvantage—this is the greatest point of tension.

4) Practical measures to reduce disadvantages

• Display clear terms of use and refusal of consent on works and websites

• Update contact information to increase reachability

• Utilize registration systems to clearly express intentions

• Regularly check for published arbitration information

Regardless of the merits of the system, these are effective as practical defensive measures.

Summary

As you pointed out, there is a risk that unnoticed silence can lead to disadvantages. However, at the same time, it is not a mechanism for uncompensated seizure, and channels for compensation and retroactive relief remain.

Ultimately, this is a matter of value judgment regarding "to what extent the principle of consent should be treated as absolute" versus "to what extent the distribution of culture and industry should be prioritized."

To start with the conclusion, it is because the copyright system itself does not exist solely for the protection of rights holders.

I will explain in order.

■ 1. The original purpose of copyright

Japanese copyright law states in its purpose clause that it contributes to the development of culture. In other words,

・Protecting creators

at the same time

- Enabling the utilization of works in society

This is a system that balances these two aspects. Protecting rights holders is a goal, but it is also a means to develop culture.

■ 2. Why is "distribution" emphasized?

If,

- The rights holder is unknown
- Cannot be contacted
- There is no management organization

If a large number of such works exist, libraries, researchers, and video producers will be unable to use them. This is a situation known as the "orphan works problem," which means that cultural assets are effectively frozen.

This is a significant loss for society as a whole.

■ 3. Rights are not "absolute"

Property rights are respected, but they are also subject to restrictions based on "public welfare" under the Constitution. Copyright is no exception.

- Quotation
- Private reproduction
- Library use
- Educational use

There are already many restrictive provisions such as these. The current arbitration system is also an extension of this.

■ 4. Policy judgment

The thinking of the system designers is generally as follows.

"There are works buried in an unusable state"
↓
"It is more socially beneficial to allow limited use with compensation than to make them completely unusable"

In other words,

conditional use has higher cultural benefits than zero use

is the policy judgment.

■ 5. So, are rights holders being treated lightly?

That is the main point of tension. From a critical standpoint,

- The principle of consent is weakening
- Silence becomes a disadvantage
- The burden falls on individuals

There are such points being raised. From a positive standpoint, it is argued that:

・There is a compensation system
・Rights do not disappear
・It can prevent social stagnation

are considered.

■ Summary

The reason for prioritizing social distribution is that the copyright system is not just a "system for creators," but a "system for the development of culture."

However, to that extent, the extent to which distribution should be prioritized is always a subject of debate.

[PR] Tales of Berseria Remaster - PS5

AI-generated, for reference only.