Earned 350 Million Won in a Year by Posting Movie Plots... Guilty Verdict for "Copyright Infringement"

Court Warns of Potential Harm to Cultural Development

A ruling has been issued in Japan stating that so-called "spoiler articles," which provide detailed explanations of movie plots and scene developments, constitute copyright infringement.

According to NHK and the Asahi Shimbun on April 16, the Tokyo District Court sentenced a website operator, Mr. A (age 39), who was prosecuted on charges of violating copyright law, to 1 year and 6 months in prison with a 4-year suspended sentence, as well as a fine of 1 million yen (approximately 929,000 won).

From 2018 to 2023, Mr. A posted articles related to movies and animation—written by external contributors—on his website to generate advertising revenue. In particular, it was found that in just 2023 alone, he earned approximately 38 million yen (about 35.27 million won) in advertising income.

Japan. The photo is unrelated to specific expressions in the article. Pixabay

The main issue in this trial was whether spoiler articles that summarized movie content in detail could be considered adaptations. The problematic articles in question covered the movie "Godzilla Minus One" and the animation "Overlord III: The Sorcerer King’s Melancholy."

Prosecutors argued that the article on "Godzilla Minus One" exceeded 3,000 characters, explaining the work from beginning to end, and that the "Overlord III" article directly transcribed actual dialogue, making the degree of copyright infringement severe. Accordingly, the prosecution sought a sentence of 1 year and 6 months in prison and a fine of 1 million yen for Mr. A.

On the other hand, Mr. A's defense lawyer claimed that merely introducing the plot in writing does not allow readers to grasp the essential characteristics of the original work and therefore cannot be considered an adaptation, arguing for his acquittal.

In response, Judge Shimato Jun stated, "It can be said that another creative work was produced based on the original, allowing the essential characteristics to be felt," ruling that the spoiler articles constituted adaptations and infringed on copyright. The judge further pointed out, "There is a risk that the copyright holder could lose the opportunity to receive legitimate compensation, and it could undermine cultural development." Normally, when a movie is adapted into a novel, the copyright holder's permission is obtained and an appropriate copyright fee is paid. However, in this case, the court indicated that even though the spoiler articles amounted to adaptations, Mr. A did not receive any such permission.

The court particularly noted that the articles in question provided a level of detail sufficient to fully grasp the main storyline, included descriptions of settings, and even extracted distinctive lines of dialogue. The court stated, "Just by reading the article, one can clearly understand the characters’ names and actions, the settings, and the scene progressions, as if having watched the movie directly, so the essential characteristics of the original are conveyed." The court further criticized, "The defendant committed the crime with an independent and selfish logic regarding copyright for the purpose of obtaining advertising revenue, which severely infringed on the legitimate rights and interests of the copyright holder, and thus bears significant responsibility."

Meanwhile, in Japan, there has also been a previous conviction for "fast movies," which are short videos summarizing films.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.