[ad_1]
Appeal decision in a lawsuit in which the music school operator and JASRAC are disputing whether it is necessary to pay the copyright fee to JASRAC (Japan Society for Music Authors’ Rights) when teachers and students perform at the music class. Was it intellectual property? Superior Court on the 18th. It was decided that the first instance sentence would extend the copyright to both the instructor and the student’s performance, but the first instance sentence was changed and it was decided that the copyright does not extend to the performance of the student. student.
JASRAC commented: “We cannot accept this result, so we will review the sentence and consider appropriate measures, including appeals.”
Since 2003, JASRAC has applied to the larger Yamaha Music Foundation (at the time) and other musical instrument manufacturers operating music classes to apply for licenses for performances in music classes, but no agreement was reached.
Subsequently, in 2017, the “Music Education Protection Association” was established, which is made up of music classroom operators, but no agreement was reached in discussions with the association. On June 7, 2017, JASRAC notified the Commissioner of the Agency for Cultural Affairs of the usage fee regulations regarding performances in music classes.
In response to this, in the same month, an operator of a music school charged JASRAC and raised it to confirm that JASRAC does not have a right of claim (copyright does not extend) for the interpretive use of musical works in music class. the case this time.
The music classroom operator insists that the main user of the music work in the music classroom business is not the owner of the music classroom business, but the “teacher or student”, and the JASRAC side says “the mode performance usage (the teacher plays or students. Regardless of whether the music is played or played), the main users of musical works in the music classroom are the music classroom operators. ” In the first instance, the JASRAC complaint was approved.
On the other hand, although the appeal decision this time pointed out that “the music room operator is the main user of the teacher’s interpretation and the reproduction of recorded material,” “the music room operator is the main user of the student’s interpretation “. No, students who perform physically are the main users, “and the original judgment of this part was changed.
[ad_2]
