What is a citation?
What do you think of when you hear the word "citation"?
If it's used or pulled from somewhere else, is it a citation? Is it a reprint?
Like a summary or something?
"Citation" in the broadest sense means different things to different people. What is explained here is only a "citation" under the Copyright Act. Please note that the term "citation" used in a broader sense has a different meaning.
Article 32(1) of the Copyright Act states:
Article 32 (Citation)
(1)A published work may be quoted and used. In this case, the citation shall conform with fair practice and within the scope justifiable for news reporting, criticism, research, and other citations.
To use a copyrighted work as a citation under Article 32(1), all of the following requirements must be met:
- A published work.
-
A "citation".
- Distinctiveness: the cited part must be clear (e.g., brackets, separator lines, etc.).
- Master-subject relationship: the text is the "master" and the cited part is the "subject" in both quantity and quality.
-
Use by citation is consistent with "fair practice" and "within the legitimate scope for the citation"＊1.
- It should not cause significant financial damage to the copyright owner, such as adversely affecting the sale of the copyrighted work, and the question is whether the portion of the entire work that is cited and used is reasonable in scope.
- Indicate the source＊2.
- The cited part must not have been altered＊3.
Memo ＊1
The purpose, method, and manner of the use of another person's work, the type and nature of the work to be used, and the existence or non-existence and degree of influence on the copyright owner of the work in question should be comprehensively considered. Tokyo District Court, February 21, 2018 (2016 (wa) 37339) [Okinawa Urizun no Ame Case].
Memo ＊2
To be precise, the indication of the source (Article 48(1)(i)) is not a requirement for citation, but a court considers it in determining whether it conforms to "fair practice" (Intellectual Property High Court, August 23, 2018 (2016 (ne) 10023) [Okinawa Urizun no Ame Case]). In any case, it is important to understand that the source must be indicated.
Memo ＊3
Although not strictly a requirement for citation, we also add that the cited part has not been altered because of the need to consider the integrity right.
What does it mean that "it must be a citation" is among the requirements for applying a citation?
You want to reproduce a third party's work for some purpose＊4. At that time, it must be clear which part of your work is being reproduced (distinctiveness), and your work must be qualitatively and quantitatively the "master" (master-subject relationship). These are the minimum requirements for a "citation" rather than a mere reprint [difference between citation and reprint].
I see. So, if it is a "citation," and all the other requirements, such as the source indication, are met, then Article 32 can apply.
Your understanding is correct＊5.
Memo ＊4
There is no definition of "reprint" in the Copyright Act. According to Nobuhiro Nakayama, Copyright Law, 4th ed., Yuhikaku, 2023, p. 428, "Reprint means publishing a work in whole or in part as is. The citation is also a type of reprint".
Memo ＊5
There are various opinions on understanding the requirements for citation, especially regarding distinctiveness and the master-subject relationship. Regardless of the understanding, as long as these requirements are met, it will be a legitimate citation.
Column
There is also an opinion that the necessity of citation is a requirement. For example, Moriyuki Kato, Commentary on the Copyright Act 7th revised ed., CRIC, 2021, p. 302, and the Tokyo District Court, February 9, 2011, pointed out that the lack of necessity of citation is one circumstance that is consistent with "fair practice" and does not fall "within the legitimate scope" for citation. However, the prevailing view is that the necessity of citation is not required (Nobuhiro Nakayama, Copyright Law, 4th ed., Yuhikaku, 2023, p. 421).
It is often not a legitimate scope for citation to include illustrations for liveliness because the margins of prints, slides, etc. are blank. However, if you need to study or critique a certain character, you can cite and use a picture of that character.
If it was a study of Pikachu, you could use Pikachu's picture.
You need to fulfill all the requirements for citation, so it does not mean that you can use any picture of Pikachu if you are researching Pikachu.
What is the source ... ?
Haha, the usual way to say it is "show the source".
If it's a sentence, it has to be written as is, right? Even if there are typos in the original text?
The cited part should be written as it is. If there are typos or omissions in the original, it is best to write "as is" or something similar. Translated citations are allowed under the Copyright Act＊6.
What should I do with images and such? Do I crop a portion of the image with the minimum necessary or use it in its original form without alteration?
The basic rule is to use the image as is. However, if you wish to refer to a part of the image with particular attention, you must indicate that it is a part of the image and make it clear that it is a citation [example of citing an image]＊7.
Memo ＊6
While translation citations (Article 47-6(1)(ii)) are permitted under the Copyright Act, a summary citation is not permitted under the Copyright Act and is left to interpretation (a court permitted summary citation, see Tokyo District Court, October 30, 1998, HANREI TIMES No. 991, p. 240 (Blood Type and Personality in Social History Case)).
Memo ＊7
Nobuhiro Nakayama, Copyright Law, 4th ed., Yuhikaku, 2023, p. 428, states, "In the citation, the issue of the integrity right inevitably arises unless the citation is full, but as long as a partial citation is the norm and the citation is legal, the author is unlikely to be misled as to its connection with the work. As long as the citation is lawful, there is little risk that the author will be misled as to the connection with the work. The court concluded that the integrity right is not infringed.
What should I do with a video? I know you said not to alter it, but don't you want to mention just a particular scene?
For videos, it is possible to cut out the part of the video to be cited to the extent necessary or to use screen captures. Again, the citation must be clear and meet all requirements for citation.
The extent of using only what is needed is well understood, but what is the master-subject relationship like?
In the case of text, the part you are writing must be more than the cited part. In the case of images, if the image is used in such a way that it has the main meaning, it does not count as a citation. For example, a half-page spread in an art book is a high-quality image.
In many cases, a slide page can only contain the image and a little explanatory text. Then the image will inevitably be larger.
I think you are usually using slides when you are giving a presentation, so you are explaining verbatim. If you
do so, your content together with the teacher's explanation would be the "master" content, and the image would
be the "subject" content, then I think you can apply the citation.
However, if only this slide material is
distributed, the teacher's verbal explanation will be lost, and when the entire slide is image-centered and
one's explanation part is thin in both volume and content, the master-subject relationship may be NG＊8.
Hmmm, harsh ...
Point
"Citation" under the Copyright Act must meet all requirements.
Memo ＊8
The quantity of the master-subject relationship is not formally determined. For example, it was held that it is not appropriate to compare the number of works cited with that of the cited work by taking only the pages where the work is cited in a book (Tokyo High Court, April 25, 2000, HANREI JIHO No. 1724, p. 124 [Datsu Gomanizumu Sengen Case]).
