Copyright Act Article 27: Right of Translation, Right of Adaptation, etc.
The right of translation and the right of adaptation under this article are held by the author of the original work. In other words, the permission of the author of the original work is required as a prerequisite for the translation or adaptation of the work.
Translation refers to expressing a linguistic work in a language other than the language system in which it was originally expressed.
Adaptation refers to creating a work by adding new creative elements based on an existing work. Viewed from another perspective, adaptation means creating something that has different expression but the same essential characteristics; in other words, it is the qualitative transformation of the expression form of a work. Adaptation includes the act of creating a derivative work (Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 11 of the Copyright Act). Adaptation also includes small-scale changes that do not rise to the level of creating a derivative work.
The act of creating a derivative work (Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 11 of the Copyright Act) without permission constitutes an infringement of the right of adaptation, but copyright in the derivative work still arises. Note that the scope of adaptation varies depending on the type of work.
A judicial precedent known as the Esashi Oiwake Case (Supreme Court Judgment, June 28, 2001) defined adaptation of a linguistic work as the act of creating another work that allows a person who encounters it to directly perceive the essential characteristics of the expression of the existing work, by relying on the existing work and, while maintaining the identity of the essential characteristics of its expression, adding corrections, additions, deletions, or changes to the concrete expression, thereby creatively expressing thoughts or emotions. Furthermore, this precedent stated that the act of creating a work that merely shares identity with an existing linguistic work in parts that are not the expression itself, such as thoughts, emotions, ideas, facts, or events, or in parts that lack creative expression, does not constitute an adaptation of the existing work.
Furthermore, in another judicial precedent (Supreme Court Judgment, July 17, 1997), it was held that copyright in a derivative work arises only for the creative parts newly added in the derivative work, and does not arise for parts that are common to and share the same substance as the original work.
In other words, the act of reproducing an existing work after adding new creativity to it is an adaptation, which falls outside the scope of reproduction (Article 21 of the Copyright Act).
As another concrete example, creating a foreign language version of a linguistic work (Japanese) constitutes translation. Furthermore, creating a digest or summary of this foreign language version constitutes adaptation.
・Copyright Act Article 27: Right of Translation, Right of Adaptation, etc.
(Right of Translation, Right of Adaptation, etc.) Article 27: The author has the exclusive right to translate, arrange musically, or transform, or dramatize, cinematize, or otherwise adapt their work.
●References
・Ryu Takabayashi (Author), "Standard Copyright Law, 4th Edition" (Yuhikaku, 2019)
#PatentAttorney #PatentAttorneyExam #PatentAttorneyExamStudy #IntellectualProperty #IntellectualPropertyLaw #CopyrightLaw
#DailyNote #Column #DailyUpdate #note #DailyPost #noteDailyUpdate #Daily #RecentLearning #DailyUpdateClub #AnalysisColumn #Creative #ProfessionalServices