1971: Film director loses copyright 06

T:

Please look at Article 1 of the Copyright Act. It states the purpose of the law.
Article 2 describes the history of the law.
First, it asks "What is a work?"
If you read it, it says, "A creative expression of ideas or emotions, and something that falls within the scope of literature, science, art, or music."
These are what constitute works under the Copyright Act. Everyone, please keep that in mind.
Next, look at Article 10, item 2. It says, "Miscellaneous news and current affairs reports, which are merely the transmission of facts, do not fall under the work listed in item 1 of the preceding paragraph."
It says that reports of facts alone are not works.
As Article 2 says, if a work is not a creative expression, it will not be protected.
So, what about cinematographic works?
Look at Article 10 again. There are examples of works.
There is a clause that says, "Generally, they are as follows."
Item 7 says "cinematographic works," so it is basically a law that cinematographic works are protected by copyright law.
There are many types of films, such as theatrical films, television films, cultural films, animated films, and newsreels. All of these films are works and are protected by copyright law. Up to this point, there is no problem.
Look at Article 2, item 12.
There is something called a "work of joint authorship."
"A work created jointly by two or more persons in which the contribution of each person cannot be separated and used individually." This is what is written as a "work of joint authorship."
Considering the production process, isn't a film a work of joint authorship? Naturally, this was considered the case under the old Copyright Act.
So who should be granted the rights to a work of joint authorship, and how should the profits from a film (copyright property rights) be distributed? These have been the subject of much discussion and have become major issues up until now.