[Copyright] Tokyo District Court, 2024 (Wa) 70080, “Action for Disclosure of Sender Information” <Nakashima>
Updated: 6 hours ago
Article information
Article type: Case note
Category: Copyright
Topics: Disclosure of sender information
First published on this website: 2026-11-01
Display and classification checked: November 2, 2026
Originally published on Ameblo: 2025-06-11 (Japan time). Full English translation.
[Copyright] Tokyo District Court, 2024 (Wa) 70080, “Action for Disclosure of Sender Information” <Nakashima>
The plaintiff alleged that posts stating age information such as “33 years old” on an anonymous message board infringed privacy, feelings of personal honor, copyright and even the right of attribution.
⇒ The court rejected infringement of privacy because the age was already widely known and the legal interest in its nondisclosure did not outweigh the reasons for disclosure. It also held that statements such as “You're just creepy” and “Act your age!” were opinions and were not clearly insulting acts exceeding socially acceptable limits.
It further concluded that posting an image link did not constitute direct infringement of the public-transmission right or infringement of the right of attribution, and dismissed the claim.
(Excerpts from the court's reasoning)
Sending the URL in Post 2 caused a coarse, reduced-resolution version of the original image to be displayed. The original image, however, would not be seen unless a user viewing Post 2 clicked the URL and then clicked the same URL again, alongside which was a notice that it would take the user to another site.
The facts found above also establish that the original image merely showed the plaintiff's clothing and the like without showing the face, and that a thumbnail was already displayed in Post 2. In light of those facts, circumstances sufficient to find that a user viewing Post 2 would ordinarily deliberately click the URL and then click it again despite the notice of moving to another site cannot be recognized.
Under these circumstances, the sender's transmission of the URL cannot be found directly to cause infringement of the plaintiff's copyright through the circulation of information.
Accordingly, Post 2 cannot be found clearly to constitute the above-mentioned “infringement of rights.”
Update history
The first-published date remains unchanged. Display maintenance, classification changes, related-article updates, and text corrections are recorded separately.
November 1, 2026: First published on this website.
November 2, 2026: Added article information, classification, topics, language navigation, related articles where the same case was confirmed, consultation guidance, and SEO. The original text and first-published date were preserved.
Comments