Reasons for Opposing the Extension of the Copyright Protection Period

This is because the expiration of the copyright protection period allows for re-creation—that is, the freedom to create new works based on that original work. For example, there are many movies, manga, anime, and TV series featuring Sherlock Holmes as the protagonist. The BBC TV series "Sherlock," which began in 2010 and starred Benedict Cumberbatch, was a masterpiece that added a modern flavor. The 2009 Hollywood film "Sherlock Holmes" was an action mystery that incorporated various new ideas while setting the stage in the late 19th century. In Japan, "Sherlock Hound," directed by Hayao Miyazaki, is considered a fine work known to those in the know among anime fans. These groups of works would likely never have seen the light of day if the Sherlock Holmes rights holders had refused permission or imposed specific demands on the content.

When the copyright protection period expires, other creators can inject new styles and ideas into a work, reviving a piece that has already concluded and providing the public with new creative output. Extending the protection period deprives the public of such opportunities. In this sense, the issue of the copyright protection period is a matter that concerns many people.

So, what are the arguments of those who believe the protection period should be extended? As I see it, there are two main arguments, but both seem weak. First, there is the opinion that creative activities are only possible if the creator's income is maintained and their livelihood is protected. This is a natural idea if we consider the purpose of copyright to be protecting the interests of the creator. However, the protection period occurs after the creator's death, and the creator no longer has a livelihood to protect. While the creator may have surviving family members, children will have reached adulthood after 20 years. I do not believe that extending the protection period to more than 50 years after death can be justified on the grounds of protecting the creator's livelihood.

Second, there is the opinion that extending the protection period is necessary as an incentive for creative activity. The idea is that if the protection period is extended, the income going to the surviving family increases accordingly, which serves as encouragement for the creator at the present time and stimulates creative activity. However, very few works continue to generate income 50 years after the author's death, and extending the protection period hardly increases income at all. According to my estimates, in the case of books, the rate of increase in revenue obtained by extending the protection period is limited to 1–2% (1). In terms of royalty rates, it is like 10% becoming 10.2%; I find it hard to believe that an increase of this magnitude would serve as a stimulus for an author to think about writing another book. Extending the protection period is almost meaningless as an incentive for creation.

The actual promoters of extending the protection period are not these individual creators, but American film companies. A famous example is Disney, which holds the copyright to Mickey Mouse and engages in lobbying activities whenever the copyright protection period is about to expire. Alternatively, it is various copyright organizations centered around industry groups. Since the job of a copyright organization is to expand copyright, they argue for the extension of the protection period almost automatically as part of their role. However, their views do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the individual creators who actually perform the creative work. In fact, when the extension of the copyright protection period was discussed by the Agency for Cultural Affairs in Japan around 2008, individual creators who opposed the extension formed a group and conducted an active opposition movement, leading to the extension being postponed. Because individual creators are also in a position to use the works of their predecessors for re-creation, many people emerge who oppose the extension.

Creation is something done by building upon and developing the achievements of predecessors. If you think about it, ancient classical works that are not even subject to copyright have been re-created by many people. For example, the musical "West Side Story" is based on "Romeo and Juliet," and if you look only at the plot, it could be said to be close to a rip-off. However, it was precisely because this was permitted that we were able to encounter a new "Romeo and Juliet" set in New York. If the copyright protection period expires, similar re-creations will occur everywhere. Classical works have not been demeaned by re-creation; rather, they have become familiar to many people around the world and have contributed to the development of culture. Classical works and modern works are the same; it might be better to treat creative works as the common property of humanity after a certain period of time, allowing everyone to use them as nourishment for the next creation. Wouldn't that foster a richer culture? This is the point where the reason for opposing the extension of the protection period lies.

(1) See Tatsuo Tanaka and Koichiro Hayashi, 2008, "Copyright Protection Period—Does Extension Promote Culture?", Keiso Shobo, p. 73.

*Affiliations and job titles are those at the time of writing.