The case is about X, the designer of a public art museum in the town of Y (which has received various awards as an exemplary building that has been preserved over a long period of time in the museum – hereinafter “the Museum”) and the garden on the premises of the Museum (which constitutes a part of the park, hereinafter “the Garden”). X sought an injunction against Y to prohibit (i) the expansion and renovation of the Museum (to integrate it with the neighboring Museum) and (ii) the expansion and renovation of the Garden (part of the performance maintenance work).

The main issues are (1) whether the Museum and the Garden have copyrightable works and (2) whether the right of preservation of identity is infringed in the extension and reconstruction of the Museum and the Garden. The Japanese Copyright Act contains the following article which restricts the right to Integrity of architectural works:

Article 20 (Right to Integrity)

(1)The author of a work has the right to preserve the integrity of that work and its title, and is not to be made to suffer any alteration, cut, or other (1)The author of a work has the right to preserve the integrity of that work and its title, and is not to be made to suffer any alteration, cut, or other modification thereto that is contrary to the author’s intention.

(2)The provisions of the preceding paragraph do not apply to the following modifications:

(ii)the modification of an architectural work by means of extension, rebuilding, repair, or remodeling;

* The photos of the exterior and the interior of the Museum can be viewed from the below links:

https://hanga-museum.jp/english/greeting
https://japantravel.navitime.com/en/area/jp/spot/02301-1405326/

The Tokyo District Court held that (1) the copyrightability was recognized for the Museum, but not for the Garden, and (2) Article 20(2)(ii) of the Copyright Act applied to the addition and remodeling of the Museum, and thus the right to integrity was not infringed.

(1) Copyrightability of the Museum and the Garden

When judging the copyrightability of an architectural work, “the standard is whether or not the part with aesthetic characteristics that is the object of art appreciation can be grasped separately from the structure related to the functions necessary to achieve the practical purpose of the building,” and with regard to the Museum, at least the exterior walls, the structure connecting the pond to the museum, and the atrium of the entrance hall were considered to be copyrightable as they have aesthetic characteristics, and “creativity” is recognized. Therefore the Museum, as a whole, is considered “works of art”.

On the other hand, as for the copyrightability of the Garden, the court held that “a garden, like a ‘building,’ is usually established on land and is very close to a ‘building’ in terms of location or function, and some of the designer’s ideas or feelings may be evaluated as having been expressed in a creative manner. However, the court denied copyrightability of the Garden on the grounds that the part of the Garden with aesthetic characteristics that could be the object of art appreciation could not be grasped separately from the composition related to the functions necessary to achieve the practical purpose of the garden.

(2) Whether or not the extension and remodeling of the museum infringes the right of preservation of identity

Regarding Article 20(2)(ii) of the Copyright Act, which restricts the right of preservation of identity, the court stated, “It is not reasonable to conclude that any rebuilding or remodeling to the work is an extension or alteration that is necessary from an economic or practical viewpoint, and that the said item is applicable to any extension or alteration. However, the court refused to find infringement of the right of preservation of identity in the case of the addition and remodeling of the museum because it did not find that the alterations were based on personal taste or that they exceeded the scope of necessity.