1971: Film director loses copyright 09

T:

There are two main types of copyright.

The first is the moral right of the author. The second is the copyright property right.

The moral right of the author is the right to maintain the integrity of the work, as stated in Article 18, paragraph 1.

For example, if a TV station were to take out 30 minutes from a two-hour movie and broadcast it, it would be completely different from the author's intention.

Also, TV stations may insert commercials into the most important scenes, or cut out scenes on the pretext that there is not enough broadcast time.

Isn't this a violation of the right to maintain the integrity of the work? 　*1

The author puts together his or her own opinions or feelings into a two-hour piece to create a work. If the broadcaster cuts out parts of it or inserts commercials in the middle, isn't this a violation of the right to maintain the integrity of the work, which must be protected?

However, in this case, people who have personal rights can complain. This is written in Articles 17 to 28.　*2

"Reproduction rights" are a bit tricky.

For example, let's say I have written a 200-page manuscript.
I, the author, will decide which publisher to contract with and how many copies to make. This is my right.
If someone were to take the manuscript and sell it without permission and make a profit, it would be an infringement of my reproduction right.

Other rights such as performance rights, musical rights, screening rights, and distribution rights are written in the Copyright Act.
Up to this point, it is not so much of a problem in terms of the Copyright Act.

Now, take a look at Article 29.

Article 17 clearly states that "The author shall enjoy the moral rights and copyright."
It also states that "The copyright shall belong to the filmmaker when the author has promised the filmmaker to participate in the production of the film work."
This is a difficult legal provision to read. (laughs)
Actually, the "filmmaker" here is a "company."

The legal provision states that "The film work belongs to the filmmaker(製作者)."
Have you noticed?

Actually, there are two kanji characters in the word "Seisaku." There is one with "制" with "衣" underneath it, and one without "衣".　（製　/　制）

Article 16 says "production, director... "制" in "制作 (seisaku/ made)" does not have "衣".

However, Article 29's "製作 (seisaku/ made)" does have "衣".

The "制作 (seisaku/ made)" without "衣" in Article 16 is interpreted as referring to the (on-site) producer.

However, the "製作 (seisaku/ made)" with "衣" is first appears in Article 29 refers to a "film company".

In other words, it is a place that provides capital and money.

This became an issue in the Diet. People asked, "What does this mean?"

The word "製作/seisaku/production," which appears for the first time (in the new Copyright Law), refers to the five film companies (at the time).
That is to say, it is said that the five film companies forced this clause to be included.

*1 Excessive digital remastering, which is now rampant among companies, alters texture and color. Also, tampering with the aspect ratio is essentially a violation of the moral right of copyright.

The aspect ratio manipulation was legalized when the Content Law (2004/mentioned above) was enacted under the LDP Koizumi administration. The far-right government and big corporations only see movies as a way to make money.

*2 In reality, it's difficult.

Since its founding, the ruling Liberal Democratic Party has only supported large corporations.
During the administrative reform (Daini-rincho) of 1981, the LDP invited the large business group Keidanren into the government, and government support for large corporations accelerated.
The origins and problems of large corporations are explained in detail in the Canadian documentary film "The Corporation."