The Right of Integrity Under Japanese Copyright Law: How Far Does it Extend and What are its Limits?

Among the moral rights granted to authors under Japanese copyright law, the "Right of Integrity" (同一性保持権 - Dōitsusei Hojiken), enshrined in Article 20 of the Copyright Act, stands out as a particularly potent and often debated protection. This right safeguards an author's personal and artistic connection to their work by allowing them to preserve its wholeness and prevent unwanted alterations. Understanding the scope and limitations of this right is crucial for anyone involved in using, adapting, or presenting copyrighted works in Japan.

The Core Principle: Protecting Works "Against the Author's Will"

Article 20, Paragraph 1 of the Japanese Copyright Act states that an author "shall have the right to preserve the integrity of his/her work and its title, and shall not be made to suffer any distortion, mutilation or other modification thereto against his/her will" (その意に反して - sono i ni hanshite).

This provision establishes several key aspects:

• Scope of Protection: It covers both the "work" itself and its "title." While titles of works are generally not protected by copyright as independent creative expressions, their integrity as part of a specific work is protected under this moral right. For instance, the Osaka District Court in the Mainichi ga Splatter (Every Day is Splatter) Case (August 30, 2001) found that changing a game's title from 「毎日がすぷらった」 to 「まいにちがすぷらった！」 (a minor phonetic script change and addition of an exclamation mark) constituted an infringement of the right of integrity.
• Prohibited Acts: The right protects against "distortion, mutilation, or other modification." This is a broad concept covering various types of alterations, deletions, or additions.
• The "Against Their Will" Standard: This is the linchpin of the right. A modification infringes if it is made contrary to the author's intentions or wishes.

Interpreting "Against Their Will"

The phrase "against their will" introduces a subjective element, as it relates to the author's personal feelings about their work. However, its application by courts is not purely subjective:

• Objective Considerations: While an author's expressed will is paramount, courts may also consider whether a modification, viewed objectively, is of a nature that would typically be considered offensive or detrimental to an author's artistic vision or reputation, especially if the author's specific will was not clearly communicated beforehand. Social norms and customary practices in a particular field can also play a role.
• Explicit vs. Implied Will: If an author has explicitly forbidden certain types of changes, any such modification would clearly be "against their will." In the absence of explicit statements, courts might look for implied consent or lack thereof. The Tokyo High Court in the Haiku Correction Case (August 4, 1998) initially found implied consent to editorial corrections of haiku submitted to a magazine, based on established practices in that field, though this specific finding of implied consent was later overturned on appeal, with the appeal court instead finding a "factual custom" that permitted such corrections.
• Trivial vs. Substantive Changes: The severity of the modification matters. The Tokyo High Court in the Hosei University Prize Essay Case (December 19, 1990) famously found that even seemingly minor editorial changes to punctuation in a prize-winning essay, when made against the author's instructions, could infringe the right of integrity. This case illustrates the potential strictness of the right. However, other cases, such as the Tokyo District Court's Kyōkasho Junkyo Kokugo Test (Textbook-Compliant Japanese Language Test) Case (March 31, 2006), have suggested that purely functional additions like underlines or bolding in educational materials might not even constitute "modifications" affecting the work's creative expression.

What Constitutes a "Modification"?

The concept of "modification" can extend beyond direct physical alteration of the work. The Supreme Court of Japan, in the landmark Tokimeki Memorial Case (February 13, 2001), addressed a situation where cheat devices (specifically, altered memory cards) were sold that changed the gameplay parameters and story progression of a popular dating simulation game. The Court held that facilitating such alterations, which changed how users experienced the narrative and character development as intended by the game's authors, infringed the authors' right of integrity, even though the game's code on the original software was not directly altered by the sellers of the cheat device. This decision broadened the understanding of modification to include external factors that fundamentally alter the intended experience and expression of the work.

However, not every change in presentation is a modification. The IP High Court in the Himekuri Shashin (Daily Tear-off Calendar Photograph) Case (June 23, 2008) ruled that changing the mode of presentation of a collection of 365 photographs—from a daily tear-off calendar format to a weekly online distribution of one photo—did not constitute a "modification, cutting, or other alteration" of the photographic works themselves under Article 20(1).

Exceptions to the Right of Integrity (Article 20, Paragraph 2)

Recognizing that a strict application of the right of integrity could unduly hinder legitimate uses and necessary adaptations of works, Article 20, Paragraph 2 provides several specific exceptions where modifications are permissible, even if potentially against the author's will:

1. Modifications for School Education (Article 20(2)(i)): This allows for changes, such as altering terminology, orthography (e.g., updating old Japanese characters to modern equivalents), or expressions in works used in school textbooks or otherwise for school educational purposes, to the extent deemed unavoidable for pedagogical reasons (e.g., making content age-appropriate or aligning with educational guidelines).
2. Modification of Architectural Works (Article 20(2)(ii)): An architectural work may be modified by means of "extension, rebuilding, repairing, or remodeling." This exception acknowledges the practical realities that buildings, as functional structures, often require alteration by their owners for utilitarian, economic, or safety reasons over their lifespan.
   However, the scope of this exception is debated. While some might interpret it as giving broad latitude to building owners, others argue for a balancing of interests, considering the architectural work's artistic merit and the necessity and nature of the proposed changes. Arbitrary or aesthetically damaging alterations, especially to architecturally significant buildings, might still be challenged. The Tokyo District Court's provisional disposition in the Isamu Noguchi Room Case (June 11, 2003), concerning the dismantling and proposed relocation of a unique interior architectural work, suggested that modifications that are purely based on personal taste or go beyond necessary changes could infringe the right of integrity. It is often argued that this exception, like others in Article 20(2), should be read in conjunction with the general principle of "unavoidable modifications" in item (iv).
3. Modifications of Computer Programs (Article 20(2)(iii)): This permits modifications to a computer program work that are "necessary for enabling that work to be used on a particular computer on which it would otherwise be unusable, or for making more effective use of that work on a computer." This covers essential technical adjustments, debugging, porting to different platforms, or optimizations that do not alter the program's core expressive purpose against the author's will. It does not sanction arbitrary changes to a program's fundamental functionality or user-facing expressive elements.
4. Other Unavoidable Modifications (Article 20(2)(iv)): This is a general, catch-all exception covering modifications, other than those specified above, that are deemed "unavoidable in light of the nature of the work as well as the purpose and circumstances of its exploitation" (著作物の性質並びにその利用の目的及び態様に照らしやむを得ないと認められる改変 - chosakubutsu no seishitsu narabi ni sono riyō no mokuteki oyobi taiyō ni terashi yamu o enai to mitomerareru kaihen).
   This flexible provision allows courts to permit minor, necessary edits or alterations that do not substantially harm the author's artistic intent or reputation in specific contexts. It's particularly relevant when works are being used under other copyright limitations. For example, formatting changes necessary to include a quotation within a larger text, or minor edits for clarity or brevity in a news report, might be considered unavoidable if they are carried out respectfully and do not distort the original meaning or aesthetic. The Tokyo District Court in the Sweet Home Case (July 31, 1995), for example, found that trimming the sides of a widescreen film for standard television broadcast (changing the aspect ratio) was an unavoidable modification in that context.
   A crucial factor in applying this exception is often whether the modification prejudices the author's honor or reputation; if it does, it is far less likely to be deemed "unavoidable" or permissible.

The Right of Integrity vs. The Right of Adaptation

It's important to distinguish the moral right of integrity from the economic right of adaptation (Article 27). An author can license or transfer their right of adaptation, allowing others to create secondary works (translations, film versions, etc.). However, even when an adaptation is economically authorized, the adapter must still respect the original author's right of integrity. An adaptation that, while authorized in principle, results in a version that distorts the original work against the author's will (and isn't covered by an Article 20(2) exception) can still infringe the right of integrity.

This creates a practical tension, especially in licensing agreements for adaptations. Parties often negotiate "non-exercise agreements" (fukōshi tokuyaku) regarding the right of integrity. While a complete, prospective waiver of this inalienable moral right is generally considered invalid, authors can and do consent to specific, foreseeable types of modifications that are necessary for the adaptation process. Without such consent or a clear understanding, the adapter proceeds at some risk.

Modifications in the Private Sphere

Article 30 of the Copyright Act permits reproduction for private use, and Article 47-6 generally allows accompanying adaptations (like translation or transformation) for such private use. However, Article 50 clarifies that limitations on economic rights do not automatically limit moral rights. Thus, in theory, altering a lawfully made private copy against the author's will could still infringe their right of integrity.

Practically, whether such a private modification is actionable would depend on the circumstances. Modifying a unique, original artwork, even in one's own home, might be viewed more seriously than making minor personal annotations or alterations to a mass-produced, lawfully acquired copy of a book or a digital file for purely personal enjoyment without any public dissemination. In the latter case, an author's "will" might be interpreted more leniently, or implied consent to non-public, non-prejudicial personal alterations might be assumed. The Tokimeki Memorial case, while primarily about the commercial distribution of modification tools, touched upon the effect of numerous end-users making alterations in their private sphere, suggesting that if the cumulative effect of such private uses (facilitated by the tools) is a widespread deviation from the author's intended work, an infringement of integrity can occur.

Conclusion

The Right of Integrity is a powerful and deeply personal right afforded to authors under Japanese copyright law, reflecting the profound connection between a creator and their work. It provides authors with significant control over how their creations are presented and modified, ensuring that works are not distorted or altered in ways that violate their artistic vision or harm their reputation. While the "against their will" standard forms its core, this is balanced by a set of specific and general exceptions that allow for necessary and unavoidable modifications in various contexts. Navigating this right requires careful consideration of the author's intent, the nature of the work, the purpose of the modification, and prevailing fair practices, making it a continually relevant and often complex area of copyright law.