1. Introduction

Recently, the boundary between legal protection and free use of game records, or “kifu”, has become a controversial issue worldwide. A kifu is a record of the moves played in strategy board games such as shogi (Japanese chess), Go (known as weiqi in Chinese and baduk in Korean), and chess, showing the progression of a game move by move. Game records are usually expressed in numerals, letters, and other standardized symbols, and are generally understood as records of facts. For that reason, they are generally considered unlikely to be protected under Japanese copyright law. However, with the growth of online streaming and AI-based analysis, this once relatively technical issue has become commercially significant, giving rise to disputes between streamers and the broadcasting operations of tournament organizers. This newsletter examines recent Japanese court cases concerning the use of shogi game records.

2. Background

In recent disputes, two types of online content have been particularly important to this issue. First is an “evaluation stream” which displays numerical evaluation scores generated by shogi AI, indicating the relative advantage or disadvantage of each side. Second is an “AI commentary stream” which goes a step further by using a kifu to provide AI-based position evaluation, move analysis, and predictions regarding future developments in the game.

3. Japanese Case Law

A. Real-Time AI Evaluation Streams and Copyright Takedown Notices (Osaka District Court R4(Wa) No. 11394; Osaka High Court R6(Ne) No. 338, No. 1217)

The plaintiff was a video streamer, and the defendant was Igo & Shogi Channel, a company involved in the broadcasting of professional Go and shogi tournaments. The plaintiff obtained game-record information from the defendant’s official broadcast, recreated the board position on his own screen, and streamed the game in real time on platforms such as YouTube, together with AI-generated evaluation scores. The defendant then sent copyright-based takedown notices to the platforms.

At first instance, the Osaka District Court ruled in favor of the streamer. It held that information contained in game records generally falls within the domain of free use, and therefore treated the takedown notice as a false statement of fact. The court awarded approximately JPY 1.19 million (about USD 7,500) in damages.

The Osaka High Court, however, took a very different approach. Rather than focusing solely on whether game records themselves were copyrightable, it emphasized the organizers’ business model. The court reasoned that the organizers and official broadcaster had invested substantial resources and effort in creating and operating the tournament and its distribution scheme, whereas the streamer obtained real-time game-record information as a viewer at relatively low cost, reproduced it without authorization, and monetized the stream. The court viewed this as wrongful free-riding that could divert viewers from the official broadcast and undermine the tournament business model. It therefore held that the streamer’s conduct exceeded the bounds of fair competition and was tortious. As a result, the profits derived from such streaming did not constitute legally protected business interests, and the streamer’s claims were dismissed.

This reasoning suggests that, even where game records themselves may not be protected by copyright, their real-time commercial use may still give rise to tort liability if it unfairly interferes with a business model established through substantial investment and effort.

This approach is consistent with the Supreme Court’s precedent (Dec 8, 2011), which left room for tort liability where non-copyrighted material is used in a manner that infringes interests outside copyright law.

As of the date of writing, the Osaka High Court judgment does not appear to be final, and a further appeal to the Supreme Court has been reported.

B. Post-Game AI Commentary Videos and Copyright Takedown Notices (Tokyo District Court R5(Wa) No. 70052; Tokyo High Court R6(Ne) No. 10025, No. 10039)

This case also concerned copyright-based takedown notices. The plaintiff operated an AI commentary channel and uploaded videos using the game records of Osho title matches—one of the major title competitions in professional shogi in Japan—after the relevant games had already ended, rather than streaming them in real time. The Igo & Shogi Channel submitted takedown notices, and the streamer sought damages. The Tokyo District Court ruled in favor of the streamer and awarded a small amount of damages for reduced advertising revenue during the period in which the videos were unavailable. The Intellectual Property High Court affirmed the decision upon appeal. However, the courts declined to recognize a broader tort claim based on personal interests such as freedom of expression, holding that an individual’s interest in disseminating information on a privately operated platform such as YouTube does not automatically qualify as a legally protected interest under tort law.

C. Same-Day Streaming of Title Match Game Records (Tokyo District Court R5(Wa) No. 22169; High Court judgment not yet published)

The last case involved a direct tort claim against the same-day use of game records. The defendant uploaded YouTube videos reproducing the game record of the Ryuo title match without authorization. The plaintiffs were The Yomiuri Shimbun, one of Japan’s largest newspapers and the organizer of the title match, and the Japan Shogi Association. They argued that the defendant infringed their business interests in a tournament operated through substantial expense and effort. The Tokyo District Court partially upheld the claim, holding that even non-copyrighted game records may give rise to tort liability where their use free-rides on an investment-backed business model and interferes with a competing business. According to media reports, the Tokyo High Court affirmed tort liability, although it reduced the damages. The courts treated the same-day reproduction of the entire game record as a particularly serious form of free-riding.

As of the date of writing, the Tokyo High Court judgment and case number were not publicly available, and the above description is based on media reports, including The Yomiuri Shimbun.

4. A Brief Comparative Perspective

A brief comparison with foreign cases highlights the distinctive nature of the recent Japanese approach. In the United States, the Agon v. Chess24 dispute concerning chess moves was resolved on the basis that move information, like sports scores, constituted factual information rather than copyrightable expression. Similarly, in South Korea, both the district and high courts in a recent Go game-record case emphasized that game records were factual information in the public domain and cautioned against restricting their use through unfair competition law. By contrast, while the recent Japanese cases do not necessarily protect game records through copyright law, they show a willingness to consider tort liability where same-day or real-time commercial use of game records interferes with an organizer’s investment-backed broadcasting business.

5. Conclusion

The recent Japanese cases do not necessarily recognize copyright protection in game records. Rather, they suggest that in certain circumstances, the commercial exploitation of game records may be restricted through tort law where it interferes with an organizer’s investment-backed business model.