Copyright Protection for Applied Arts in Japan: When Do Dolls, Stuffed Animals, and Book Covers Qualify and How is Similarity Judged?

"Applied art" (応用美術 - ōyō bijutsu) refers to works that possess artistic features but are also designed for utilitarian purposes. This category can include a wide array of items such as uniquely designed furniture, textiles, pottery, toys like dolls and stuffed animals, and graphic designs like book covers. In Japan, the extent to which these functional yet artistic creations are protected by copyright has been a subject of considerable legal discussion and evolving judicial interpretation, primarily centering on the standard of creativity required and how similarity is assessed.

The core tension lies in balancing the desire to protect artistic ingenuity embedded in everyday objects with the traditional domain of design law (意匠法 - ishō-hō), which specifically protects novel industrial designs for a shorter term and requires registration. Copyright, offering a much longer term of protection without formal registration, could, if applied too broadly to functional items, stifle competition and innovation in product design.

The Traditional High Bar: "Aesthetic Quality Comparable to Fine Art"

Historically, Japanese courts often applied a relatively strict standard for granting copyright protection to works of applied art. The prevailing view was that for an object with a utilitarian function to be copyrightable as an artistic work, it needed to possess an aesthetic quality that could be appreciated independently of its practical use, and this aesthetic quality had to be "comparable to that of fine art" (純粋美術と同視し得るような美術性 - junsui bijutsu to dōshi shiuru yōna bijutsusei).

This "comparable to fine art" standard set a high bar. It meant that many industrially produced items, even those with pleasing aesthetics, might not qualify for copyright if their artistic elements were deemed inseparable from their function or did not achieve a perceived level of artistic merit equivalent to "pure" paintings or sculptures.

Several notable cases reflect this traditional approach:

• The Puchi Holder case (Tokyo District Court, July 4, 2008) involved a small pouch combined with a poodle plush toy. The court, explicitly applying the "comparable to fine art" standard, denied copyrightability. It reasoned that the aesthetic appeal of the poodle plush (its "cuteness") was a general characteristic of such toys and that the overall item did not demonstrate the high artistic quality required to meet the standard.
• In the Furby case (Sendai High Court, July 9, 2002, a criminal copyright infringement case concerning the interactive electronic toy "Furby"), copyrightability was also denied. The court found that the toy's external appearance was largely dictated by its internal electronic components and its intended interactive functions. As such, it was deemed to lack the requisite aesthetic quality to be considered comparable to fine art and was primarily a functional object. The fact that this was a criminal proceeding may have contributed to the strict application of the copyrightability standard.

However, even under this traditional view, some items of applied art did receive protection. The early Hakata Doll Akatonbo case (Nagasaki District Court, Sasebo Branch, February 7, 1973) affirmed copyright for a traditional Hakata doll, a type of ceramic doll. The court found that, despite being a craft item capable of mass production, the doll possessed sufficient artistic expression and aesthetic value to warrant copyright. This case also acknowledged the possibility of cumulative protection under both copyright and design law.

Evolution and Newer Judicial Approaches

The strict "comparable to fine art" standard, particularly for three-dimensional functional items, faced criticism for being overly restrictive and potentially misaligned with modern design principles where aesthetics and function are often intricately intertwined. It also risked leaving many creatively designed functional items in a protection vacuum if they failed to meet the novelty and registration requirements of design law.

More recent judicial trends, particularly from the Intellectual Property High Court, suggest a potential shift or refinement away from this stringent requirement, moving towards an assessment more aligned with the general copyright standard of "creative expression."

• A significant indicator of this shift is the TRIPP TRAPP case (Intellectual Property High Court, April 14, 2015), concerning the design of a well-known adjustable high chair. While the case ultimately turned on other issues, the IP High Court, in its obiter dicta, expressed reservations about applying a special, heightened standard of "high creativity" for applied art. It suggested that the focus should instead be on whether the creator's personality and individual choices are expressed in the design, beyond what is solely dictated by function—an analysis more akin to that for other types of copyrighted works.
• The concept of "separability" has also emerged in discussions, though not always explicitly adopted as a formal test in the same way as in U.S. law. This idea considers whether the artistic features of a utilitarian object can be identified and appreciated independently of its functional aspects. If aesthetic elements are conceptually or physically separable from the object's utility, those artistic features might be copyrightable even if the object as a whole serves a practical purpose. The Fashion Show case (Intellectual Property High Court, August 28, 2014), while not purely an applied art case, referenced the idea of aesthetic characteristics being graspable separately from practical purpose.

The evolving trend seems to lean towards applying the general copyright criterion: does the work, in its aesthetic aspects not solely dictated by function, embody the creator's personality and creative choices? If so, it may be copyrightable without needing to meet an exceptional "fine art" threshold. This is particularly evident for two-dimensional designs.

Copyright in Specific Categories of Applied Art

Dolls, Stuffed Animals, and Toys

This category has seen varied outcomes:

• As mentioned, the Hakata Doll Akatonbo case and the Tonttu Doll case (Tokyo District Court, January 31, 2002, concerning small, artist-created Finnish elf-like dolls) affirmed copyrightability based on the creative expression in their form, features, and attire.
• Conversely, the Puchi Holder and Furby cases saw copyright denied under the stricter, traditional standard due to perceived dominance of function or lack of "fine art" level aesthetics.
• In the Neko no Nuigurumi (Cat Plush Toy) case (Osaka District Court, February 25, 2010), copyrightability of the cat plush toy itself was not the primary contested issue. However, in assessing similarity, the court focused heavily on the facial expression as the "essential expressive feature," downplaying similarities in body posture (which it considered common for depictions of cats or dictated by the need for the plush to sit). This suggests that for such items, courts will dissect the design to find specific, original aesthetic features.

Book Covers (装幀 - Sōtei)

Book cover designs serve the utilitarian functions of protecting the book's pages and conveying information (title, author). However, they are also a prominent medium for graphic art and design.

• Japanese courts generally recognize that book covers can be copyrightable if their design elements—including illustrations, photographs, typographic arrangements, and overall layout—exhibit creative expression.
• In the Nyūmon Kanpō Igaku (Introduction to Kampo Medicine) case (Tokyo District Court, July 8, 2010), the cover design of a medical textbook, which featured a distinctive arrangement of abstract geometric shapes, lines, and specific color choices, was found to be copyrightable. The court notably classified it as a "pure artistic work," thereby sidestepping the potentially stricter criteria for "applied art." An allegedly infringing cover of another medical textbook that replicated this distinctive abstract arrangement and style was found to be similar and infringing.
• The Kankoku Mini Bunko (Kadokawa Mini Bunko) case (Tokyo District Court, September 28, 2000) involved an original feather illustration created for a book cover. The publisher later used a scanned and reduced portion of this illustration as a series logo on other books. The court upheld the copyright in the original illustration and found its use as a smaller symbol to be an infringing reproduction and adaptation, implicitly recognizing the copyrightability of the artistic element of the book cover.
• However, not all book cover similarities lead to infringement. In cases like the Makudake Diet (Just-Wrap Diet) case (Intellectual Property High Court, February 25, 2015) and the Kanzen Jisatsu Manual (Complete Suicide Manual) case (Tokyo District Court, Provisional Disposition, November 8, 2012), claims of infringement based on cover similarity were denied. The courts found that the shared elements (e.g., a photograph of a woman with a band wrapped around her torso for the diet book; a particular color scheme and a central hexagonal motif for the "suicide manual") were either unprotectable ideas, commonplace design choices for those types of books, or that the concrete expressions were sufficiently different.

Assessing Similarity for Applied Art

Once an applied art object is deemed copyrightable (whether under a traditional or more contemporary standard), the assessment of similarity with an allegedly infringing item follows the general Japanese copyright principle: whether the "essential expressive features" of the original are "directly perceivable" in the subsequent work.

In this analysis, courts will endeavor to:

1. Filter out purely functional elements: Aspects of the design that are solely dictated by the object's utilitarian purpose and offer no room for aesthetic choice are generally not considered part of the protectable expression.
2. Filter out commonplace design features: Standard or generic design elements commonly found in that particular type of applied art object will also be excluded from the protectable expression.
3. Exclude underlying ideas: The basic concept or function of the object (e.g., "a doll representing a traditional Finnish elf," "a book cover for a diet manual") is an unprotectable idea.

The comparison then focuses on the original aesthetic choices made by the creator in the work's non-functional aspects—its specific shape, form, ornamentation, color scheme, and overall visual appearance. If these creative aesthetic features are reproduced in the defendant's product, similarity may be found.

As with other types of works, if the applied art object is deemed to have only "thin" copyright protection due to limited originality or a narrow scope for creative aesthetic choices beyond its function, then only very close, near-identical copies are likely to be found infringing.

The Interplay with Design Law

It's worth noting that many works of applied art, particularly industrially produced items with novel aesthetic designs, may also be eligible for protection under Japan's Design Act (ishō-hō). Design rights require novelty and registration and offer protection for a shorter term (currently 25 years from the filing date) than copyright (generally life of the author plus 70 years).

Historically, there was significant debate in Japan regarding the relationship between copyright and design protection for the same object—specifically, whether protection should be "cumulative" (allowing both) or "separated" (mutually exclusive). The prevailing view, supported by early cases like Hakata Doll Akatonbo, is that cumulative protection is possible: an object can be protected as a design under the Design Act and, if it also meets the criteria for a copyrighted work, by copyright law simultaneously. The differing criteria, terms, and mechanisms of these two IP rights mean that the question of copyrightability for applied art remains highly relevant, especially for creators of artistic functional items who may or maynot have sought or obtained design registration.

Conclusion: An Evolving Landscape for Artistic Utility

The copyright protection of applied art in Japan represents an evolving area of law. While a traditional, somewhat stringent standard requiring "aesthetic quality comparable to fine art" was historically prominent, particularly for three-dimensional utilitarian objects, there is a discernible trend in more recent jurisprudence, especially from the influential Intellectual Property High Court, towards applying a more general copyright creativity standard. This involves assessing whether the work's aesthetic aspects, not solely dictated by its function, embody the creator's personality and original expressive choices.

This shift, particularly evident for two-dimensional designs like book covers and potentially extending to three-dimensional objects where artistic features can be conceptually or physically distinguished from utility, aims to provide appropriate protection for creative design efforts without unduly monopolizing functional elements or commonplace forms. Once copyrightability is affirmed, the assessment of similarity will focus on whether the defendant's product has reproduced the plaintiff's original, creative aesthetic features, with the breadth of protection varying in accordance with the level of that creativity. Navigating this landscape requires a careful analysis of both the functional and aesthetic dimensions of the work in question.