• 

Arbitration Over Ai Copyright Infringement In Japan

📌 1) Overview: AI Copyright Disputes in Japan

In Japan, disputes over AI and copyright typically arise when an AI system uses copyrighted material without authorization — either for training data or content generation — and rights holders seek injunctions or damages. Japanese copyright law (著作権法) generally requires permission from the copyright owner for reproduction and distribution; the definition of infringement applies when a work is reproduced or exploited without consent. However, the court system has yet to generate many AI‑specific adjudicated decisions on this topic.

Arbitration (仲裁) in Japan is theoretically possible under contracts, but most AI copyright enforcement actions so far have been brought as civil lawsuits before ordinary courts (e.g., Tokyo District Court). The enforcement route rather than arbitration reflects the novelty of the issues and lack of established arbitration precedents. Arbitration institutions (e.g., Japan Commercial Arbitration Association) have not yet published AI‑copyright arbitration awards. Nonetheless, these lawsuits inform how future arbitrations might be viewed, particularly in terms of infringement standards and rights owner remedies.

📌 2) Key Cases & Litigation (Indicative of How Disputes Are Argued)

Below are notable Japanese‑related cases and proceedings that involve AI, copyright infringement claims, or analogous intellectual property disputes — useful for understanding how arbitration might be approached:

Case 1: Yomiuri Shimbun Suits Against Perplexity AI (2025)

Various Japanese media groups (e.g., 読売新聞, 朝日新聞, 日本経済新聞) sued U.S. AI startup Perplexity AI for using their copyrighted articles without authorization and ignoring technical restrictions (like robots.txt). They sought injunctions, deletion of infringing data, and substantial damages (billions of yen). These lawsuits were filed in Tokyo District Court in 2025.

👉 Significance: This is among the first substantial copyright infringement claims in Japan involving generative AI. Although not arbitration, the litigation themes (unauthorized use of articles for training / answers, and damages) are the context within which future arbitration may evolve.

Case 2: Asahi Shimbun & Nikkei vs Perplexity AI (Tokyo, 2025)

In a related and publicized dispute, 朝日新聞社 and 日経新聞社 jointly sued Perplexity AI alleging unauthorized copying and storage of their articles for its AI search answers. They sought injunctive relief and deletion of content, alongside compensation (~¥2.2 billion each).

👉 Why this matters: Courts will scrutinize whether AI systems that copy and store journalistic content without a license constitute infringement, and what remedies — including possible future arbitration points (damages, licensing terms, compliance frameworks) — might look like.

Case 3: CODA Plaintiffs vs OpenAI (Content Association Demand, 2025)

Although not yet in court, the Content Overseas Distribution Association (CODA) — representing Japanese rights holders (e.g., Studio Ghibli, Bandai Namco, Square Enix) — formally demanded that OpenAI halt use of their works for training AI models (e.g., Sora 2) without prior consent under Japanese law. This demand letter emphasizes that Japan requires prior licensing for copyrighted material, and retrospective opt‑outs are insufficient.

👉 Implication for arbitration: Many licensing disputes begin with negotiation and demand letters that could lead to contractual arbitration if clauses exist; CODA’s stance underscores Japanese rights holders’ preference for licenses and arbitration over public litigation.

Case 4: AI Inventorship Ruling – Not Copyright, But IP Relevant (2025)

The Intellectual Property High Court of Japan held that AI cannot be listed as an inventor under Japan’s Patent Act. While patent law (発明) is different from copyright, the court’s reasoning reflects broader judicial caution about granting IP rights directly to machine entities, which may influence how courts view AI‑generated works.

📌 3) Principles & Legal Standards Impacting AI Copyright Arbitration

Even in absence of many pure “AI copyright arbitration awards,” several legal standards are shaping how disputes are framed and will likely guide arbitrators and judges:

🇯🇵 A. Training Data Use (著作権法第30条の4)

In Japan, use of copyrighted works for AI training purposes may be permitted if it does not “unjustly harm the legitimate interests of the copyright holder”. This provision has been interpreted narrowly, and rights holders argue that extensive use for training without consent may not be exempt.

🚩 Arbitration focus: Determining whether a particular AI training data usage is fair or abusive, often arising from contract terms between content licensees and AI developers.

🇯🇵 B. Copying & Output (複製・利用)

When an AI model retains copyrighted material in a way that it reproduces it in outputs, it may constitute infringement, similar to traditional unauthorized reproduction. Japanese courts have not yet fully decided this for AI, but the Perplexity suits demonstrate the argument.

🇯🇵 C. Contractual Arbitration Clauses

AI service agreements or content licensing deals may contain arbitration clauses. In disputes over copyright licensing terms, such clauses can shift resolution to arbitration panels (e.g., ICC, JCAA). These panels apply a combination of contract interpretation, copyright norms, and equitable remedies.

⚖️ Example arbitration issues include:

Whether training data use was licensed.

Scope of permitted content generation.

Remedies (e.g., damages, royalties, injunction compliance).

(These specifics are often confidential in arbitration and thus not publicized as published cases.)

📌 4) Comparative & Analogous Precedents (Influence on Japan)

Though not Japanese cases, global decisions help shape how Japanese arbitrators and judges might reason:

🔹 Ross Intelligence / Thomson Reuters (U.S.)

A U.S. court held that using proprietary legal content to train an AI search engine was copyright infringement, rejecting a broad fair‑use defense — a substantive benchmark for rights owners worldwide.

📌 5) Summary of Key Case Themes (Potential Arbitration Impact)

📌 6) What This Means for Arbitration Over AI Copyright in Japan

Although published arbitration awards specifically on AI copyright disputes are scarce, the litigation trends above strongly influence how disputes are negotiated or arbitrated:

✔ Rights holders can claim infringement when:

AI uses copyrighted content without a valid license.

Automated systems reproduce or store copyrighted material.

Technical access restrictions (e.g., robots.txt) are bypassed.

✔ AI service providers may argue:

Training uses are exempt under statutory exceptions or contract terms.

Output does not constitute infringement due to transformation or lack of replication.

✔ Arbitration panels (or courts) will likely consider:

The balance of contract clauses vs statutory rights.

Whether the training or use harms legitimate interests.

Interpretation of copyright law in light of generative AI.

📌 Conclusion

Japan’s legal framework for AI copyright disputes is rapidly evolving. While pure arbitration case law is limited, the surge in litigation (e.g., media groups vs Perplexity AI) establishes dispute patterns — involving unauthorized use of content and massive datasets — that will shape both future court adjudication and arbitration outcomes. Rights holders are increasingly asserting their interests, and Japan’s copyright law (joined with global precedents) provides the legal backdrop for arbitration discussions over licensing, infringement, and damages.

RELATED Blog

Maritime Arbitration in India

Legal recognition of ADR in India

Arbitration law in Afghanistan

Arbitration Law in Albania

Arbitration Law in Algeria

Arbitration Law in American Samoa (US)

Arbitration Law in Andorra

Arbitration Law in Angola

Arbitration Law in Anguilla

Arbitration Law in Antigua and Barbuda