About 250 Music Schools Sued JASRAC—The Reason the Supreme Court Said "Student Performances Are Safe"
Imagine a piano lesson. The teacher says, "Alright, let's play the assigned piece from last week," and the student begins to awkwardly play a famous pop song. This is a very ordinary scene that repeats every day in classrooms everywhere.
So, in this case, does the school have to pay "copyright royalties" for the song the student played?
Regarding this question, about 250 music school operators, including the Yamaha Music Foundation and Kawai Musical Instruments Manufacturing, filed a lawsuit against JASRAC (the Japanese Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers), a copyright management organization. The Supreme Court ruling on October 24, 2022 (Reiwa 4), settled the matter.
To put the Supreme Court's conclusion in a nutshell—"The school is not in a position to pay royalties for performances played by students during lessons".
In this article, I will introduce this "Music School Case" while breaking down the legal terminology as much as possible.
In the first place, why does it become a matter of the "school" paying?
Copyright law includes a right called the "right of public performance." Roughly speaking, it is a rule that "performing a song for the purpose of letting everyone (the public) hear it can only be done by the person who created it." This is why organizers pay royalties when performing songs at concerts.
But you might think, "Wait, the ones actually playing in the lesson are the teacher and the student, not the company that is the school, right?" This was the biggest point of contention in this trial.
In fact, there is a legal precedent thatconsiders the business operator who manages the venue and profits from it, rather than the person actually singing or playing, to be the "subject of the performance". A famous precedent, often called the "Karaoke Doctrine," established that even though it is the customers singing at a karaoke snack bar, it is the shop that must pay the royalties.
JASRAC argued that based on this line of thinking, "The subject of the performance during lessons is the music school itself. Therefore, the school should pay the royalties."
In response, the music schools argued that performances in lessons are completely different in nature from the operations of a karaoke bar. About 250 operators joined together as plaintiffs and filed a lawsuit, asking the court to "confirm that we have no obligation to pay royalties to JASRAC." It was a somewhat unusual type of lawsuit called a "declaratory judgment of non-existence of a claim," where they went to the court to have the matter settled before being billed.
The court's answer changed with each instance
In this trial, the conclusion actually wavered across three courts.
Round 1: Tokyo District Court (2020): Both the teacher's performance and the student's performance were collectively considered to be "the school as the subject of the performance." A total defeat for the school side.
Round 2: Intellectual Property High Court (2021): Here, for the first time, the courtseparated the teacher's performance from the student's performanceto make a judgment. The teacher's performance was deemed to have the "school as the subject," but the student's performance was deemed to have the "student themselves as the subject." A partial reversal in favor of the school side.
Round 3: Supreme Court (2022): JASRAC appealed only the part regarding "student performances." The Supreme Court dismissed this, and the judgment of the Intellectual Property High Court became final.
What is important here is that the Supreme Court only deliberated on"student performances". Regarding the teacher's performance, the Intellectual Property High Court's judgment that "the school is the subject and it is subject to royalties" remains final.
The deciding factor for the Supreme Court was "what the performance is for"
The Supreme Court provided a yardstick for determining the subject of a performance, stating that it would consider "various circumstances such as the purpose and manner of the performance, and the content and degree of involvement in the performance." It then analyzed the performances played by students in lessons as follows.
First, the purpose. Students play assigned pieces in lessons to improve. In the words of the judgment, the student's performance is carried out for the purpose of acquiring and improving skills, and "playing the assigned piece is merely a means to that end." It is not intended to be heard and enjoyed by others like a concert.
Next, regarding the involvement of the school. The teacher selects the music and instructs on how to play, but that is merely assisting the student's improvement. The judgment states that students 'perform entirely voluntarily and autonomously, and are not forced to perform.' Whether or not to play is ultimately up to the student. Even if the teacher provides accompaniment on the side or plays a practice CD, these were positioned as 'merely auxiliary to the student's performance.' The protagonist is, throughout, the student themselves who is playing.
And then, the flow of money. The school receives tuition from students, but according to the judgment, 'tuition is the consideration for receiving instruction in performance techniques, etc., and cannot be considered the consideration for performing the assigned piece itself.' The arrangement is that what the student is paying for is the fee for 'being taught,' not the fee for 'playing the song.'
Synthesizing these points, the Supreme Court concluded that 'regarding student performances, the school cannot be considered the subject of the use of copyrighted works.' The purpose of the performance and the meaning of the money are different from a karaoke bar doing business based on customers' singing, so to speak.
Note that this is not a 'complete victory for music schools'
Looking only at the news headlines, it reads as 'Music schools won against JASRAC,' but to be precise, it is a settlement close to a draw.
To repeat, the judgment that the teacher's performance (model performance or accompaniment) is 'the school's responsibility and subject to performance rights' has been finalized. The Supreme Court did not make any judgment on this part. Please be careful, as the understanding that 'the Supreme Court made all lesson performances safe' is incorrect.
Also, there are many things this judgment did not decide. How lesson fees will change in the future, how JASRAC's collection methods will change—such things are not written in the judgment at all. What the judgment answered was strictly the legal question of 'who is the subject of the student's performance.'
A story that also relates to 'lessons' other than music schools
The yardstick shown by this judgment—looking at the purpose and manner of the performance, and the content and degree of the business operator's involvement in total—provides hints for the entire lesson business where students 'perform' something, not limited to music schools.
For example, vocal schools, dance schools, culture center courses, etc. The separation of 'who is performing that act,' 'for what purpose is it being done,' and 'to what extent is the business operator involved' becomes the starting point for thinking about rights processing.
However, what I want to note is that even in the same school, the conclusion can change if the situation changes. For example, performances aimed at letting an audience listen, such as recitals, have different premises than performances during lessons, which are 'a means for improvement.' Reading this judgment as 'everything that happens at a school is free' is an over-interpretation.
Summary
Regarding performances played by students in lessons, music schools are not in a position to pay usage fees—this is the Supreme Court's conclusion
The deciding factor is the analysis that 'student performances are a means for improvement' and 'tuition is the consideration for being taught'
Teacher performances remain 'the school's responsibility and subject to performance rights.' The Supreme Court did not judge that part
An important precedent for the entire lesson business where students/trainees 'perform' something, not limited to music schools
It might be said that the reason students can play assigned pieces freely is thanks to the court carefully separating 'whose performance it is.'
Source: Supreme Court First Petty Bench, October 24, 2022 (Reiwa 4) Judgment (Case on confirmation of non-existence of claim related to use of copyrighted works in music schools) Judgment text PDF, Court website
※ This article is for general information purposes and does not provide legal advice. Please consult a lawyer regarding individual cases.
▼ For a more detailed explanation of this judgment (with citations of articles, case numbers, and the three-instance judgment texts), click here
Are copyright usage fees charged for songs played by students in music school lessons? — JASRAC Music School Case, Supreme Court October 24, 2022 Judgment (chosakukenhou.jp)