JAPAN Trends and Developments Contributed by: Kenji Tosaki, Hiroki Tajima and Chie Komiya, Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu
Other Developments in 2024 On 19 April, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) released the AI Guidelines for Business Ver 1.0, which set out the AI govern - ance regime in Japan (find the English version here ). The guidelines are intended for all those who use AI in various activities and they set out the collaborative efforts of each entity, such as AI developers, AI providers and AI users. On 5 July, METI released the Guidelines for Utilization of Generative AI for Content Creation, which also set out points to keep in mind and measures to be taken for each setting of use of generative AI in each industry. On 31 July, the Cultural Agen - cy released the Checklist & Guidance on AI and Copyright, detailing checklists for AI develop - ers, AI providers, AI users, and non-professional (general) users, and how to deal with copyright infringement. Both the Guidelines for Utilization of Generative AI for Content Creation and the Checklist & Guidance on AI and Copyright are based on the Report on AI and Copyright Issues Although the above guidelines are not legally binding, checking and following them is of sig - nificant value, since there are no specific laws and regulations regarding generative AI. With regard to developments in respect of prec - edents, there have been no court decisions on AI or on copyright or trade mark rights, and no spe - cific cases of disputes have been reported (with respect to patent rights, Tokyo District Court ruled on 16 May 2024 that “inventor” as defined in the Patent Act of Japan is limited to natural persons and does not include generative AI, and the ruling was affirmed by the Intellectual Prop - erty High Court on 30 January 2025). In addition, the Government proposed a bill about research and development of AI related technologies and (see above). Conclusion
technology. However, the Interim Report notes that the use of such technology for the purpose of interference in the business of AI develop - ers and providers may constitute the crime of obstruction of business by damaging a com - puter. Fifthly, there is technology related to individual tracking and exclusion from learning source content and assimilating data. However, under the current technology, it is difficult for users of trained models to check the original data used to train the AI. Further discussion based on future developments of such technology is needed regarding whether it is appropriate for AI devel - opers to be obliged to exclude certain data at a copyright owner’s request. Contract The Interim Report notes that, to promote AI technologies and preserve IP rights, it is neces - sary to put in place measures by which creators (copyright owners) will be sufficiently compen - sated for the use of generative AI, and that pro - vide incentives for new creative activities. From this viewpoint, the Interim Report provides three examples of how creators can be compensated: • creators themselves provide training data for additional learning (fine-tuning) for profit; • creators themselves develop and provide generative AI; and • creators themselves use generative AI in their creative activities. To facilitate such measures for compensation, it would be beneficial for the parties involved to confirm the legal rules that guarantee the above examples of contractual measures, and to employ technical measures that, in turn, can guarantee contractual measures.
255 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook