"Self-Cooking" Books in Japan: Copyright Implications of Digitizing Physical Books for Personal Use and Cloud Storage

Japanese Attorney at Law - Bengoshi L.L.

• 7 min read

In an increasingly digital world, the desire for convenience and portability has led many book lovers in Japan to "Jisui" (自炊), a term literally meaning "self-cooking" but colloquially used to describe the act of personally scanning physical books to create digital copies. This practice allows readers to carry vast libraries on tablets or e-readers, saving physical space and making texts searchable. However, as individuals and businesses explore various methods of digitization and storage, complex questions under Japanese copyright law arise. When does personal book scanning remain a permissible private act, and when does it, or services facilitating it, cross the line into copyright infringement, especially with the advent of cloud storage solutions?

Personal Copying in Japan: The Private Reproduction Exception (Copyright Act Article 30(1))

The foundation for "Jisui" lies in the private reproduction exception provided by Article 30(1) of the Japanese Copyright Act. This article generally permits the user of a copyrighted work to reproduce it for "personal use, family use, or other similar uses within a limited circle" without needing permission from the copyright holder.

For an individual scanning their own legitimately acquired book for their own reading on their personal devices, this exception seems directly applicable. However, Article 30(1) itself has an important exclusion, and that exclusion, in turn, has its own exception, creating a somewhat layered legal landscape:

  1. The General Rule (Art. 30(1) main paragraph): Reproduction by the user for private purposes is permitted.
  2. The Exclusion (Art. 30(1)(i)): This permission does not apply if the reproduction is made using "automated reproducing equipment (meaning equipment having a reproduction function and the whole or a major part of which is automated) which is installed for public use." A photocopier or scanner in a publicly accessible convenience store would typically fall under this definition of "automated reproducing equipment installed for public use."
  3. The Exception to the Exclusion (Supplementary Provision Art. 5-2): Crucially, this supplementary provision states that, "for the time being," the aforementioned exclusion in Article 30(1)(i) does not apply to automated reproducing equipment that is "exclusively for reproducing documents or drawings."

Application to Self-Scanning at a Public Location:
Consider an individual who takes their own books to a convenience store and personally operates a specialized book scanner (e.g., a non-destructive overhead scanner that doesn't require cutting the book's spine) to create digital copies for their private use, saving them to a USB drive.

  • The scanner is an "automated reproducing equipment installed for public use," so Article 30(1)(i) would normally exclude this act from the private copying permission.
  • However, since a book scanner is designed "exclusively for reproducing documents or drawings," Supplementary Provision Art. 5-2 applies. This means the exclusion of Article 30(1)(i) is itself excluded.
  • The result is that the general permission for private reproduction under Article 30(1) (main paragraph) remains applicable. Thus, an individual personally scanning their own books at such a publicly available scanner for their own private use is likely engaging in permissible private reproduction.

Outsourcing the Scan: The Legality of "Jisui Daikō" (Scanning Agency Services)

The convenience of "Jisui" led to the emergence of "Jisui Daikō" services – businesses that, for a fee, would scan books provided by customers and return digital files. This practice, however, faced significant legal challenges.

The critical legal question became: who is the party performing the act of reproduction – the customer who owns the book and requests the service, or the business operator who performs the scanning?
Japanese courts, in prominent cases concerning these scanning services (e.g., Tokyo District Court, September 30, 2013, and a subsequent appeal at the Intellectual Property High Court, October 22, 2014), consistently held that the business operator (the scanning agency) is the entity responsible for the act of reproduction.

The IP High Court's reasoning emphasized that:

  • The service provider makes the business decision to offer scanning services, determines the methods and equipment, and advertises to the public.
  • The provider controls the entire scanning process, including physically handling the books (often disbinding them), operating the scanners, and delivering the digital files.
  • The provider receives remuneration for this service.
    The customer's role was seen as merely initiating the request and providing the physical books.

Consequences for Scanning Services:
If the service provider is deemed the reproducer, the private reproduction exception of Article 30(1) cannot apply to their activities because:

  • The reproduction is not for the service provider's own personal or family use.
  • The service is offered to the general public, not a "limited circle" related to the service provider.
    Therefore, commercial "Jisui Daikō" services that scan entire copyrighted books without authorization from the copyright holders have been consistently found to constitute copyright infringement by the service provider in Japan.

The evolution of "Jisui" has naturally intersected with cloud storage services. What are the copyright implications when users store their self-scanned digital books in the cloud, or when cloud services themselves facilitate access to such files?

Consider a technology company ("TechServe") that offers a cloud storage service. TechServe then introduces a new type of book scanner that integrates with its cloud service, offering two distinct functionalities:

Scenario 1: User Uploads Self-Scanned Files to Their Private Cloud Storage via an "Upload Function"
A user scans their own legitimately owned book using TechServe's scanner, and the scanner allows them to directly upload the resulting digital file to their personal, private storage area within TechServe's cloud.

  • Initial Scan: As discussed, the user's initial act of scanning their own book for personal use is likely permissible under Article 30(1).
  • Upload to Cloud: The act of uploading the file to a cloud server creates another reproduction of the work on that server. Is TechServe, the cloud provider, liable for this server-side reproduction?
    • This situation differs from the "Jisui Daikō" scenario because the user is initiating the upload of a file they (presumably permissibly) created, to their own designated private space.
    • The legal analysis often draws parallels with, and distinctions from, landmark Japanese cases concerning online service provider liability, such as the MYUTA Case (Tokyo District Court, May 25, 2007 – music locker service) and the Rokuraku II Case (Supreme Court, January 20, 2011 – remote TV recording service). In both those cases, the service providers were found to be the normative subjects of reproduction or making available, due to their high degree of control over the systems, their active role in inputting or managing the content flow, and, in MYUTA, enabling a new type of utility for users.
    • For a standard user-initiated upload to a private cloud locker, where the provider's role is largely passive infrastructure provision, it's less clear that the provider would be deemed the normative reproducer under the Rokuraku II "pivotal acts" test or the MYUTA multi-factor test. The provider is not selecting the content or initiating the copy in the same way. As long as the user is uploading a permissibly made private copy to their own space for their own continued private use, the cloud provider's role as a host of that copy might not, in itself, constitute direct infringement by the provider. (Liability for hosting infringing content uploaded by users, e.g., pirated books, would fall under different rules, often related to ISP liability limitation and notice-and-takedown procedures).

Scenario 2: Service Provider Facilitates "Sharing" by Copying Files Between Different Users' Cloud Spaces
TechServe offers a "share function": User A wishes to scan a popular book. TechServe's system first checks if any other user has already scanned and uploaded that same book to their private cloud space managed by TechServe. If a copy exists (e.g., in User B's space), instead of User A having to scan their physical book, TechServe's system automatically copies the digital file from User B's space to User A's private space. User A pays TechServe a fee for this expedited "sharing" service.

  • Provider as Reproducer: In this scenario, TechServe itself is unequivocally performing the act of reproduction. Its servers are actively locating a file and creating a new copy for User A.
  • No Private Copying Exception for the Provider: This server-side copying by TechServe is not for TechServe's own private use, nor is it a reproduction made by User A themselves in the sense of Article 30(1). It's a new reproduction made by the service provider for the benefit of User A, using User B's previously uploaded file as a source.
  • Likely Infringement: This act of reproduction by TechServe, if done without authorization from the copyright holder of the book, would constitute direct copyright infringement by TechServe. Each such server-side copy made for a new user is a fresh act of reproduction.

Broader Issues of Cloud Provider Liability:
Even if a cloud provider is not deemed the direct normative subject of a reproduction (as might be the case for simple user-initiated uploads to private storage), they are not entirely immune from copyright concerns. If their platform is used by users to store or share clearly infringing materials (e.g., commercially pirated e-books), the provider could face secondary liability or obligations under Japan's ISP Liability Limitation Act if they fail to take appropriate action (like removing or blocking access to the infringing content) upon receiving proper notification from copyright holders.

The question of whether injunctions can be issued against entities that merely facilitate copyright infringement by their users, without being direct infringers themselves, is a developing area of Japanese law. While some lower courts have shown a willingness to grant injunctions against such "enablers" under specific, egregious circumstances (e.g., the Hit One Case, Osaka District Court, February 13, 2003; Sentaku Miroku Case, Osaka District Court, October 24, 2005), other courts have been more restrictive, preferring to limit liability to acts explicitly covered by the Copyright Act's direct or "deemed" infringement provisions, especially given that Article 113 already specifies certain acts that are deemed infringements.

The practice of "Jisui" and the use of related services operate within a nuanced copyright framework in Japan:

  • Personal "Jisui": An individual scanning their own legitimately possessed physical books, for their own purely personal use, using their own equipment or even publicly available document scanners (thanks to Supplementary Provision Art. 5-2), is generally permissible under the private reproduction exception of Article 30(1).
  • Commercial "Jisui Daikō" Services: Businesses that scan books on behalf of customers are considered the reproducers and are engaging in copyright infringement if they do so without authorization from copyright holders.
  • Cloud Storage:
    • User-initiated uploads of personally (and permissibly) scanned books to a private cloud storage account for personal backup and access: The cloud provider is less likely to be considered the direct infringer for the server copy, though they may have obligations if the uploaded content is itself infringing (e.g., a pirated scan).
    • Cloud services that actively copy files between different users' accounts or otherwise engage in server-side reproduction or distribution of copyrighted works without authorization are likely to be found directly infringing copyright.

As technology continues to reshape how we interact with copyrighted content, the balance between user convenience, technological capabilities, and the rights of creators will continue to be tested and refined by Japanese courts and potentially by legislative updates.