"Japan moves to criminalize exploitative photo voyeurism"

Text from Japan Today, 5/2/23.

A bill has been submitted to an ongoing session in the Japanese Diet targeting a crackdown on people who take surreptitious photographs, a move that would make it illegal nationwide to snap voyeuristic images of a sexually exploitative nature.

While the issue is particularly serious for young athletes targeted by people engaging in "sneak photography" at fields and courts around the nation, the situation remains unresolved as proving sexual or malicious intent in photos taken of athletes competing in sporting attire is difficult.

At a symposium on April 15, lawyers working on the issue and former national volleyball team member Kana Oyama, among others, stressed the need for legislation, saying it is a "remaining issue" for sneak photography, especially for competitive athletes.

"You cannot say that just because photos are taken of someone who's clothed that it isn't a problem," said lawyer Yoji Kudo. "We shouldn't give up on legal controls simply because it is difficult to draw a line of distinction," he said.

Kudo spoke of his determination to have clear legislation after pointing out the damage caused when images of athletes' bodies are posted and proliferated on the internet.

He gave examples of other countries where clandestine photography is punishable by law.

Oyama says she first learned the reality of photo voyeurism in junior high school when, while changing out of her uniform at a venue with no locker room, her coach warned that photos of her were being snapped.

"I feel a responsibility to create an environment where children can genuinely engage in sports," Oyama, now a mother of two, said about her call for stronger legislation.

Until now, people caught by police taking photos without the subject's consent fell under the purview of prefectural anti-disturbance ordinances. But ordinances differ from municipality to municipality regarding the acts they cover and the penalties involved.

Along with legislation related to "photography crime" prohibiting surreptitious pictures of a person in postures that might be construed as sexual in nature, supplying or disseminating sexually explicit images or video are also included as punishable offenses.

Such voyeurism cases have occurred more frequently in recent years, with a corresponding uptick in arrests made. Under the new law, violators would face imprisonment of up to three years or a fine of up to 3 million yen.

The new regulation, however, does not include photography of athletes in sporting attire at competitions, except in cases when an infrared camera that can see through clothing is used. It would prohibit the taking of such photos of athletes in training, though.

According to the National Police Agency, the number of arrests for surreptitious photography reached 5,019 cases in 2021, roughly three times the 2010 figure.

One major cause for the increase was the spread of smartphones but perpetrators say that no matter how they do it, they treat it like a game which allows them to find satisfaction with little regard for guilt or risk.

There is a common psychology to men who take photos of athletes or others with sexually exploitative intent. Some view it as "dependence syndrome" because people carrying out such activities tend to do it on a regular basis, making it a deeply-rooted issue.

"It was curiosity. I tried it and snapped the photo. It was almost like a game," a former junior high school teacher in his 40s who began taking voyeuristic photos in college told Kyodo News in an interview about his first time committing the offense.

As he was able to capture more and more images, he became increasingly absorbed in "the game," and his methods became increasingly daring.

"I never imagined I'd be caught," but in 2019, a train passenger spotted him placing his smartphone under the skirt of a female high school student. He was referred to prosecutors on suspicion of violating an anti-disturbance ordinance.

He felt guilty about his actions as a teacher responsible for children. But he added, "When I was doing it, all my inhibitions flew away. When the switch turned on, I forgot everything and couldn't see anything around me."

About 2,000 voyeuristic images were found stored on his phone when he was caught.

The man believes that photographing athletes for sexual gratification can be considered the same as doing it on a train or the street. "It is a value that pervades our society. There is a Japanese view that sexualizes women," he said.

Akiyoshi Saito, a social worker who treats and supports sex addicts, says that photo voyeurism, like gambling, "has an aspect of dependence on the act."

Although the new legislation will undoubtedly impose penalties in hopes of preventing the crimes, the former teacher said, "It's not that simple. There are people who would do it even if they were sentenced to death."

In March, an aviation trade union released a survey suggesting that about 70 percent of flight attendants in Japan have reported photos being taken of them surreptitiously.

Akira Naito, chairman of the Japan Federation of Aviation Industry Unions, called the number "astonishing," stressing the need for strict penalties through legislation.

Although flight attendants primarily answered that their entire bodies or faces had been photographed, some reported pictures of their breasts, buttocks or other regions being taken in the close confines of an aircraft, demonstrating it is an all-pervasive issue.

Sakura Kamitani, a lawyer and expert on victims of photo voyeurism, said, "The trend toward making it a crime to photograph is a big step forward, but it is unfortunate that athlete voyeurism is not punishable."

"I am aware that it is difficult to put the law into writing, but it is still a crime that requires legislation," Kamitani said.

Source: https://japantoday.com/category/crime/focus-japan-moves-to-criminalize-exploitative-photo-voyeurism

So-called Manga Artist Mocks Syrian Refugee

Photo by Jonathan Hyams 

From The Japan Times, October 8, 2015.

Manga artist removes illustration mocking Syrian refugee

A manga artist behind a Facebook illustration labeling a refugee from Syria a selfish freeloader has taken it down at the request of a photographer who criticized her for distorting his work.

On her Facebook account Thursday, artist Toshiko Hasumi refused to apologize, claiming her illustration, based on a photo of a girl at a refugee settlement in Lebanon taken by Canadian documentary photographer Jonathan Hyams, did not constitute copyright infringement.

Hasumi, however, explained she deleted the illustration at Hyams’ request early Wednesday because “the fact remains I have caused him enormous trouble.”

“But I will not apologize no matter what,” she said. “Because unlike in Japan, you’re destined to lose in a court battle overseas once you’ve admitted to your fault.”

The illustration contains a thought bubble that says: “I want to live a safe and clean life, have a gourmet meal, go out freely, wear pretty things and luxuriate. I want to live my life the way I want without a care in the world — all at the expense of someone else.

“I have an idea. Why don’t I become a refugee?” it concludes.

Hasumi rejected accusations it was racist, claiming she did not seek to denigrate Syrians, she told The Japan Times.

Instead, she said, it was meant to ridicule economic migrants “pursing a safer, more comfortable life in a foreign land under the guise of pitiable asylum seekers.”

For his part, Hyams was quick to express shock at the illustration on Twitter: “Shocked + deeply saddened anyone would choose to use an image of an innocent child to express such perverse prejudice,” he said.

“What a shameful misrepresentation of the plight of the Syrian people,” he continued, adding the photo was taken for the independent charity organization Save the Children.

An online furor has broken out in response to Hasumi’s illustration, with the number of Change.org signatures calling on Facebook to recognize it as racism totaling more than 10,000 as of Thursday.

Source: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/10/08/national/social-issues/manga-artist-removes-illustration-mocking-syrian-refugee/

A BBC report provides more information and context. It reports that Japan has offered to donate $810 million to help Syrian and Iraqi refugees but refuses to take in any of these refugees. Last year Japan accepted only 11 of 5,000 potential asylum seekers.

The so-called manga artist also posts anti-Korean posts on her Facebook page.

While there has been discussion of copyright infringement of the photographer, what about the image rights of the girl? Or better yet, did the so-called manga artist get permission from the girl's parents? Why did this so-called manga artist need "inspiration" from an underage girl? Was there any research done on the actual situation of the girl?

VAOJ will not show the problematic illustration.

Read more at BBC.com (and see the ugly image if you want...): http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-34460325

Update: "Monkeys, ghosts and gods 'cannot own copyright' says US"

From The Telegraph, 8/21/14:

In the wake of controversy over Wikipedia’s free and worldwide distribution of a monkey ‘selfie’ against the wishes of the man who claims to own copyright, the US has issued new guidance that says monkeys, ghosts and gods are all banned from possessing image rights.

The US Copyright Office has published a draft update to its rules regarding ownership of creative works like photographs, text and art – the first changes in more than two decades – which explicitly state that it will only recognise pieces produced by a human.

Among the 1,222 pages of updated rules and regulations are explicit bans on works produced by “nature, animals, or plants” or “purportedly created by divine or supernatural beings”.

In a list of examples of prohibited applications is “a photograph taken by a monkey” - an apparent nod to the recent Wikipedia case.

Wikimedia, the US-based organisation behind Wikipedia, has refused a photographer’s repeated requests to remove one of his images which it uses online without his permission, claiming that because a monkey pressed the shutter button there is no copyright on it.

The group has included the image in its database of royalty free images, which it offers for use worldwide, but the photographer claims it is his to sell and licence.

British nature photographer David Slater was in Indonesia in 2011 attempting to get the perfect image of a crested black macaque when one of the animals came up to investigate his equipment, hijacked a camera and took hundreds of selfies.

Slater has since complained that Wikimedia’s distribution of the image is affecting his ability to make a living from his work. He incurred costs of several thousands of pounds to arrange the photo shoot, which required the use of his own expensive equipment.

Also prohibited under the new US copyright rules would be “a mural painted by an elephant” or “a claim based on the appearance of actual animal skin”.

Despite the bans on works created by gods and ghosts, the Office may register a work where the application states that the work was “inspired by a divine spirit”, it says.

The update will “set the stage for a number of long-term improvements in the area of registration” of copyright, claims the Office. It is described as a “comprehensive overhaul that makes the practices and standards of the Office more timely and transparent”.

The draft will remain on review until it takes official effect some time around December 15 this year. The practices within it are not law, but do inform future legislation and set out how the Office makes internal decisions.

In the UK, under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, a photographer can claim rights over an image even if he or she did not press the shutter button if the results are their “intellectual creation” – for example, they came up with the concept of a monkey taking a “selfie”.

However, such a case has never been tried in court and the outcome would be uncertain.

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11048695/Monkeys-ghosts-and-gods-cannot-own-copyright-says-US.html

Original story: http://visualanthropologyofjapan.blogspot.jp/2014/08/who-owns-this-monkeys-selfie.html

"Who owns this monkey’s selfie?"

Image and text borrowed from MSN News, August 7, 2014.

When a monkey commandeered a nature photographer’s camera on a small Indonesian island a few years ago, the results were extraordinary. Among the images captured by the crested black macaque were a few amazing images of himself.

Those monkey selfies made headlines back in 2011, and two of the photographs made their way to the Wikipedia page for the monkey’s species, which is endangered. Wikipedia only uses images that are in the public domain, but the feeling was that, since the monkey snapped the photo, no one could claim the copyrights to it.

“This file is in the public domain, because as the work of a non-human animal, it has no human author in whom copyright is vested,” Wikipedia’s collective band of editors explained.

The nature photographer, David Slater, felt otherwise. He sent a takedown request to the Wikimedia Foundation, which operates Wikipedia, claiming that the photographs belong to him because they were taken with his camera.

“We didn’t agree, so we denied the request,” Wikimedia said in a new report about takedown requests it has received. The organization clearly highlighted the monkey selfie dispute in an effort to draw attention to its broader campaign against censorship.

See the whole story and related video: http://news.msn.com/offbeat/who-owns-this-monkey%E2%80%99s-selfie-1

VAOJ took up similar issues in the Japanese context in 2009 that included information from North American Coordinating Council on Japanese Library Resources. In their Image Use Protocol which suggests "Best practices for locating and using Japanese visual images for teaching, research, and publications," the following are rights holders to a particular image: copyright holders, owners of objects (in the image), image owners and subjects in the photos. So for the self portrait (I hate the term "selfie") of the monkey, can we ask permission for image use from the monkey (does the monkey know sign language?)? Does the photographer automatically have copyright because it was his camera and his efforts that brought the photo to the attention to the public? Did the photographer have permission from the Indonesian government or other agencies where the monkey is located? Why didn't Wikipedia ask the photographer in the first place? Does Wikipedia have the right to establish what is public domain on their own?

These are complex questions and issues that illustrate current copyright ideas/practices are no simple monkey business...

North American Coordinating Council on Japanese Library Resources: http://guides.nccjapan.org/content.php?pid=195789&sid=1645699#5364144

VAOJ Shooting Culture in Japan project: http://visualanthropologyofjapan.blogspot.jp/2009/02/ethics-of-visual-anthropology-in-japan_12.html

"Unauthorized Komukai striptease photos highlight copyright dilemma in Japan"

Another interesting article in today's Japan Today dealing with photography, image rights and permission...

Many stood in the long queue and paid 8,000 yen to see the nude performance by Minako Komukai in Asakusa. Those who couldn’t go to the striptease were in glee to see the spy photo published in the June 26 edition of the weekly Friday, of Komukai exposing her breasts to the audience.

But the question is, what happens when someone takes a photo of such performances without permission? A sign at the entrance of Asakusa Rock-za clearly states that the theater will impose a penalty of 3 million yen for unauthorized taking of photos, and the same announcement is made in the theater prior to performances.

Obviously, taking such photos are a problem if the theater explicitly prohibits it, which, legally speaking, is about the theater’s right to maintain and manage the facility. Attorney Kensaku Fukui, who specializes in copyright laws, explains, “The theater has the right to prohibit activities it deems to be an obstruction of the performance.”

So what happens when someone in the audience secretly films or photographs the performance?

“There are several possibilities,” Fukui says. “If the theater staff witness someone taking photos, they have the right to stop the act or tell the particular individual to leave the theater.”

The penalty of 3 million yen may not have legal effect, since the prerequisite is the existence of an agreement between the party notifying the penalty and the party being notified. On the other hand, if the theater does incur damages due to such actions, it is entitled to make claims for the damage, even though the amount may be limited.

However, the case of Friday, which profited by publishing an image owned by one audience member, is a different matter altogether. From the perspective of Rock-za, the publication would be considered an obstruction of business. Indeed, it appears that the theater is considering the option of filing a lawsuit against the weekly magazine, which in turn may develop into further complications involving the violation of Komukai’s privacy and portrait rights.

Other businesses face the problem of similar infringement of copyrights, an example being pirated DVDs. In 2007, a special law went into effect to protect movies—with a penalty of 10 million yen or up to 10 years’ imprisonment for any violation. However, the law only applies to movies.

Theaters that offer a range of performances such as dramas, musicals and kabuki have no choice but to devise their own methods of “self-defense.” Kabuki-za, Shiki Theatre and Honda Theatre in Shimokitazawa say that if they catch someone in the act of taking photos or filming a performance, they confiscate the camera, delete the data and then hand it back to the individual. But they say they do not consider lawsuits as an option.

One organization known for its aggressive protection of copyrights is Tokyo Disneyland, which regards everything from taking photos with Mickey Mouse to the facility and attractions as copyrighted. Whether posting on one’s personal blog, the uploading of films and images is defined as “an unpermitted news-gathering act” and they request the individual to delete such data. In fact, a group in Chiba was arrested two years ago for selling DVDs showing parades at Disneyland.

In other words, unauthorized shooting applies to motion pictures only, and from this perspective, theaters do not have the legal means to protect their business from damages resulting from pirated copies. In effect, the publication of Komukai’s nude photo in Friday has unexpectedly called into question this copyright dilemma.

Royal Privacy? Or Privacy Standards For All?

(Photo borrowed from http://tsuhangoods.blog123.fc2.com/blog-entry-329.html)

Story from the Mainichi Daily News, 5/28/09:

Suspected photo of Princess Kako leaked onto Internet

A photograph believed to be of Princess Kako, the second daughter of Prince Akishino and Princess Kiko, was posted on a member-based community site and leaked over the Internet, it has been learned.

Gakushuin, the educational institution that Princess Kako attends, said that a student at Gakushuin Boys' Junior High School apparently posted the photograph without permission. The school has reportedly spoken to the boy about the issue. The photograph has already been deleted.

Leaked was one photograph apparently showing Princess Kako wearing a Gakushuin Girls' Junior High School uniform. It was posted on sites including the 2-channel bulletin board, where it received attention.

The leak was uncovered after a Gakushuin office worker noticed the photo posted in a diary on the member-based social networking site Mixi on Tuesday.

The student reportedly introduced the photograph saying that he had been a classmate of Princess Kako at Gakushuin Primary School, and said that the boys' and girls' junior high schools often got together at school festivals and other events.

"It has not been confirmed whether the photo actually is of Princess Kako," said a Gakushuin public relations official commenting on the leak. "We cannot provide any information on how the boy obtained the photograph."

Noriyuki Kazaoka, Vice-Grand Steward of the Imperial Household Agency, said he hoped there would be no recurrences.

"We cannot confirm that it is (Princess Kako), but from the perspective of protecting private information, we think that generally, going ahead and posting photographs on the Internet without consent cannot be called appropriate behavior. We hope that this sort of thing does not happen again in the future."

So is it appropriate behavior to post photos of your friends and family on Mixi and Facebook without their consent? And exactly what kind of consent is needed?

I've been participating in an interesting discussion about the privacy and image rights of geisha over at tokyo photojournalist - check it out.

Link to Geisha "image rights"
http://tonymcnicol.com/2009/05/17/geisha-image-rights/