Is it illegal to post screenshots on Twitter? Learning and enlightenment shown in the judgment (ITmedia NEWS)-Yahoo! News
Delivery
4 4 commentsJudgment text
Over the controversy on Twitter, an individual filed an information disclosure request against NTT Docomo at the Tokyo District Court. I got out. According to the ruling, the plaintiff won and ordered the information disclosure of the sender. Twitter Service Terms of Use Listening to this alone, it seems like there have been many lawsuits for defamation and the like, but the point of contention was copyright, which had a major impact on general Twitter users. Such a judgment was included. It's not final, as the defendants are preparing to appeal, but I'd like to ask why the copyright law is being pulled out of the dispute on Twitter, and how we should respond going forward. I want to summarize.
Copyrightability at issue
The plaintiff's remarks on Twitter were posted as evidence in the judgment, and judging from the content, there was an argument between multiple people. It seems However, the remarks of both sides are limited to the part that was disputed in the court, so the details are unknown. However, prior to this trial, the plaintiff filed a provisional injunction requesting Twitter to disclose the other party's IP address and time stamp, and the Tokyo District Court issued a provisional injunction decision to accept this petition in May 2021. there is Then, in order to identify the person based on the disclosed IP address and time stamp, it is a flow that the carrier who has the information was requested to disclose the sender information. Therefore, the defendant in this trial has become a career. The issues in this trial can be divided into three main areas. 1: Applicability of "transmission information related to infringement of rights" stipulated in Article 4, Paragraph 1 of the Act on Restriction of Providers Presence/absence The key here is (2), "obviousness of infringement". This is a copyright issue, not a defamation issue. As for what was specifically asked, the other party attached a screenshot (screenshot) of the plaintiff's tweet and posted a question asking about the purport of the statement. That screenshot violated the right under the copyright law. Therefore, it was decided that: a: whether the plaintiff's remarks were copyrightable, and b: whether the other party's remarks met the requirements for citation. First of all, with regard to a. copyrightability, under the Copyright Act, a work is defined as "a work that expresses ideas or feelings in a creative way and that falls within the scope of literature, science, art, or music." It is The ruling examines the copyrightability of the plaintiff's four remarks taken on screenshots. To make it easier to understand, we will compare statements and judgments for each.
Next page: Remarks on Twitter and court decisionsPage 1/4
Last update: ITmedia NEWS
