Porn site operator arrested over female athletes' images on website

I am assuming that if a law is written, it will include men as well?

no law against nonconsensual filming or photographing in Japan, and such acts, including taking images of people in nude or sexual situations

but I read all the time about creeps getting arrested for taking up-skirt photos on escalators???

If several international Olympic and sporting organizations get their way, trans athletes will be replacing women so maybe this problem will go away.... Or get worse?

Is that really an arrestable offense in Japan? Would not a small claims court be more appropriate?

Is this simply government frustration because the operator is providing more damage to an already sinking ship of a 2020 Olympics campaign?

It is difficult to take legal action since there is no law against nonconsensual filming or photographing in Japan, 

So in essence, the only thing they will do is catch, take a few photo opportunities to show they are doing something, and then release?

Well they sure found that quickly.

To anyone dismissing this as nothing how would you feel if someone put a compromised photo of your daughter online for other people to get off on? Who cares if it's an arrestable offence or copyright infringement? It's just morally corrupt

The suspect was quoted by the police as saying during voluntary questioning that he knew what he had done was wrong, but did not expect to get caught. 

This is one thing I admire about Japan - criminals often admit to their crimes thus making it easier for them to be held accountable. That normally just doesn’t happen in most other countries.

That's shocking, let me see these images.

photos zooming in on breasts and buttocks 

YouTube is rife with 'athletics videos' doing just that, but moving-images, not stills.... I think those who are upset by this have their work cut out for them.

Bungle raises the interesting issue of what he has been arrested for. It does not sound like an actual criminal offence. What he has done may be very distasteful, but is covered by cease and desist then sue type legal measures. You cannot let the police arrest people who have not broken the law.

photos zooming in on breasts and buttocks 

As far as I remember, there's nothing sexual about pictures of this naturally occurring body parts.

It's the perverts that make ordinary things perverted.

Issue is the copyright.

The same images on a normal site, and nobody would have complained.

There are magazines in every convenience store that expose TV personalities and athletes showing more that they would intentionally intend... why are those OK but his are not??

Anyway, to the guy crying to the sky what if it was our daughters... the difference is he DID NOT take the pictures, the pictures are from mass media, he just commented on the attributes in display on such pictures. If our daughters chose public lifestyle, their pictures would be all over the place as well, and it would be impossible to control what men think, say or write about them. Let alone make it all a criminal offense. That doesn't mean I would agree with all that would be said about them. But hey, even you have to admit to vocalizing admiration to the physical attributes of a public female performer of any kind.

Not that it is a good thing what he did, perhaps posting the pictures without permission (not from the person in it, but from the owner of such media) IS the real crime, the "harassment" issue is just fodder.

My friend wants to know the name of the sites.

Recently LINE App. started showing  sexualized context on my timeline under the title Explore, have NO idea why? and without me subscribing to anything, or even giving them permission to do so, will LINE app. operators be arrested too???

BungleToday 04:21 pm JST

So, he uploaded some stills from a TV programme together with smutty captions.

Er, not my thing but so what? The images were already in the public domain and presumably the athletes were not “compromised”.

So what? He sexually harasses young women and you say "so what"?

This speaks volumes of your character.

ChikatiloToday 07:19 pm JST

There are magazines in every convenience store that expose TV personalities and athletes showing more that they would intentionally intend... why are those OK but his are not??

Because they did not consent.

Consent means they get to decide how their image is used.

No consent = sexual harassment.

That's why.

Who does that, who wants that what he did and who searches for someone who did that? That’s crazy in every scenario. lol

Athletes may be in public but they have a right to prevent their images from being used for someone else's profit (other than legitimate news media organizations, which sell ads based on clicks or subscribers). These athletes have a right to prevent their name and image being used to raise revenue on Mr. Koyama's nine websites.

And the photographers who took the original photos have a right to be compensated or even decline to let their creative work be used in a disreputable manner. But as @kohakuebisu wrote above, is copyright infringement really a crime in Japan? I also thought it was a civil offense that a plaintiff could complain for damages about.

The article says he was arrested and that he is not being charged with a crime. Sounds like they should let him go.

So, he uploaded some stills from a TV programme together with smutty captions.

Er, not my thing but so what? The images were already in the public domain and presumably the athletes were not “compromised”.

So what? He sexually harasses young women and you say "so what"?

This speaks volumes of your character.

People do that all the time with any picture though

Rule 34

Probably your picture is out there somewhere too (or any of us)

Being seen in public is a crime now? Does Japan really want to be a country where taking photos/videos of sports events requires a signed release first? What about "fair use?"

I don't see how the guy in this story violated copyright, unless he took long clips from the TV programs and posted those. Then it would be for the TV station/videographer to sue over copyright infringement.

If posting lewd comments was illegal, facebook should be shut down.

The images were accompanied by sexually explicit comments.

Comments were also the issue

'web designer, makes his living running nine porn websites'

That says it all. He makes a living by dubius means. And the porn business is run by dirtbags.

He makes a living by dubius means.

Building websites is dubious? How so? I know plenty of web designers who support themselves and their families with their work.

And the porn business is run by dirtbags.

Yes. These women who are directing porn are the bottom dredges of society: http://www.femaleporndirectors.com/

Carry on, no prudes here.

In any case, isn’t copyright infringement a civil tort rather than a criminal offence? Or is this instance classed as counterfeiting?

It is both. Japanese law is pretty strict in that regard, in addition to being sued for damages in a civil claim you can be imprisoned for up to 10 years and face a ten million yen fine for copyright infringement, though in practice I don’t think they’ve ever handed out sentences that harsh.

Does Japan really want to be a country where taking photos/videos of sports events requires a signed release first? What about "fair use?"

I'm pretty familiar with Japanese copyright law, and the thing is, in this country copyright law is very ambiguous.

The idea of "Personality rights" is a pretty popular one in Japan, and people do believe there is such a thing and most companies and publishers act as if there such a thing, and as if someone taking a photo of you in public is somehow "wrong".

Of course, as many legal beliefs in Japan, this has never passed the court test, and in fact, the Supreme Court of Japan has rejected the idea of Personality rights.

The article seems to imply it has something to do with personality rights, but this isn't what is going on in this case, this is a completely classic copyright case. This guy used photos that were taken by other people without their permission.

In the case of "fair use", there isn't a very clear fair use clause in Japanese copyright law, even thou there is something that can act as one which is the right to "quotation", which is the right to partially or fully "quote" or copy a work for some limited use. But since this isn't as clear as a proper fair use clause, it is actually not that easy to defend your use in court, and one of the reasons why there has been a movement in Japan calling for the creation of a proper fair use clause in the copyright law.

If violating and objectifying photos and videos was being done to men, it would be illegal by now. This comment section is repulsive. Try for a second to have some empathy and sympathy for these women.

If violating and objectifying photos and videos was being done to men, it would be illegal by now. This comment section is repulsive. Try for a second to have some empathy and sympathy for these women.

Any photo or video or visual art could be seen as "objectifying" by anyone. I've heard women say, "I only want this specific guy looking, not the other 20 guys."

So, I asked if it was allowed for me to look. Her response was, "yes, of course." So I asked what made it ok for me to look, but not the others? "You aren't creepy." So, every person is supposed to know if they are "creepy" before they look at another person.

Such is female logic, sometimes. Not always, just sometimes. I have no doubt that in her mind, these were 100% logical statements and defined clearly enough for the entire world to understand.

theFuToday 07:11 am JST

Any photo or video or visual art could be seen as "objectifying" by anyone. I've heard women say, "I only want this specific guy looking, not the other 20 guys."

So, I asked if it was allowed for me to look. Her response was, "yes, of course." So I asked what made it ok for me to look, but not the others? "You aren't creepy." So, every person is supposed to know if they are "creepy" before they look at another person.

Such is female logic, sometimes. Not always, just sometimes. I have no doubt that in her mind, these were 100% logical statements and defined clearly enough for the entire world to understand.

There is nothing illogical about women dressing up for a specific man, and then not wanting other men to hit on or oogle her.

If you don't know the difference between being friendly and simply checking a woman out, and being creepy and oogling her, then maybe you should simply leave all women alone, forever.

StrangerlandToday 12:09 am JST

He makes a living by dubius means.

Building websites is dubious? How so? I know plenty of web designers who support themselves and their families with their work.

And the porn business is run by dirtbags.

Yes. These women who are directing porn are the bottom dredges of society: http://www.femaleporndirectors.com/

Carry on, no prudes here.

Actually, the porn industry in Japan IS run by dirtbags. It's a patriarchal and sexist society, so why would the porn industry be any different?

Ask me how I know. Go on, ask. Then see if you can call ME a prude.

It's always entertaining to me that people think those who speak out about the misogyny in porn are prudes.

In fact, a lot of porn actresses speak out; are they prudes?

Rethink that, why don't you.

It is difficult to take legal action since there is no law against nonconsensual filming or photographing in Japan, 

That is surprising to me as I have known people to have been questioned over that

Lol. So the guy posts non-nude photos of female athletes that were already publicly available and then attaches lewd comments to the photo. It’s pretty sleezy and low but I can’t see how that can be a crime. Copyright infringement?

It's always entertaining to me that people think those who speak out about the misogyny in porn are prudes. In fact, a lot of porn actresses speak out; are they prudes?

Rethink that, why don't you.

Re-think what? You're criticizing something I didn't say, then telling me I should re-think that thing that you imagined I said.

I don't think I'm the one that needs to be re-thinking anything.

@girl_in_tokyoMay 11  08:14 pm JST

ChikatiloToday 07:19 pm JST

There are magazines in every convenience store that expose TV personalities and athletes showing more that they would intentionally intend... why are those OK but his are not??

Because they did not consent.

Consent means they get to decide how their image is used.

No consent = sexual harassment.

That's why.

Every time you comment directly to me, you seem to miss the point.

The magazines I am talking about are not the ones of gravure, where the models chose and appear intently in sexy outfits and poses.

I mean the magazines where stills from TV shows and the like show TV announcers, "talentos", sportswomen and the like in unintentionally revealing candid situations or poses, from the daily TV shows.

That is exactly the same as what he was doing. Except the fact the magazines obviously get the publishing rights from the owners of the TV shows. But not him.

That's all his REAL crime. He is also lewd and perhaps a pervert. But that is not in itself a crime. Not that I defend him for it, anyway.

My friend keeps pestering me to ask what site is it on! I want to know! I mean.....he wants to know!

This is from 2012 but it is a British newspaper asking readers to match male footballers' bums to their faces. It is written by a woman (of course) and has the tagline "match the bottie to the hottie". Do you think the individual footballers all consented to this? Is this more evidence of a (insert whatever) society?

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/match-footballers-bums-to-faces-to-welcome-1266471

I support "me too" and my way of doing that it is supporting victims of rape, groping, peeping, stalking etc. and giving less attention to victims of five-centimeter heeled formal shoes and snapshots of tv with "nice boobs" written on them. I think these minor issues trivialize the women's movement and turn people against it.

So opening your eyes and sharing thoughts is a crime ?

The only illegal thing is he is using photos he has no rights for. Could that be criminal ?

The athletes in sexy position is just click bait, as always.

And yes men love sexy positions, this is nature. How wrong ?

**The suspect was quoted by the police as saying during voluntary questioning that he knew what he had done was wrong, but did not expect to get caught. He has remained silent since his arrest. **This idiot guy has nothing more to say because he didn't think he would get caught. Eventually all good things come to an end too much of anything is bad and he should have known that this day was going to come. Perhaps he was too stupid to think good things last forever. He got caught so why expect him to say more? He is surprised!!!

Jonathan PrinMay 12 12:39 pm JST

So opening your eyes and sharing thoughts is a crime ?

The only illegal thing is he is using photos he has no rights for. Could that be criminal ?

The athletes in sexy position is just click bait, as always.

And yes men love sexy positions, this is nature. How wrong ?

Yes, it is wrong.

Perhaps ask yourself this:

Do men respect women who appear in porn? How are women in porn generally treated by society? When men look at women who are being presented as sex objects on a porn site do they see these women as respectable, hold them in high regard, admire them for their athleticism, and see them as having upstanding moral character?

Next ask yourself:

Do you think women who want nothing to do with porn would feel good or bad about their picture being put on a porn site?

Finally:

There are all kinds of porn websites out there with pictures of women who chose to be models, who get paid for it, and who actually enjoy being objectified and sexualized. Why would a man, with this plethora of choice of consenting women, instead decide to use the picture of a woman who did NOT consent, and who likely finds her presence on a pron site to be objectionable, insulting, and maybe even frightening?

Hope that helps.

Strangerland May 12 10:08 am JST

Re-think what? You're criticizing something I didn't say, then telling me I should re-think that thing that you imagined I said.

I don't think I'm the one that needs to be re-thinking anything.

Rethink why you called someone a prude for stating that the porn industry is full of dirtbags.

The porn idustry IS full of dirtbags, and saying that is not indicative that someone is a prude.

ChikatiloToday 07:19 pm JST

There are magazines in every convenience store that expose TV personalities and athletes showing more that they would intentionally intend... why are those OK but his are not??

I mean the magazines where stills from TV shows and the like show TV announcers, "talentos", sportswomen and the like in unintentionally revealing candid situations or poses, from the daily TV shows.

I don't understand why the concept of "women should get to consent for their picture to be used on a porn site" seems to be so dififcult for some people to grasp.

girl_in_tokyoMay 12  07:39 am JST

theFuToday 07:11 am JST

Any photo or video or visual art could be seen as "objectifying" by anyone. I've heard women say, "I only want this specific guy looking, not the other 20 guys."

So, I asked if it was allowed for me to look. Her response was, "yes, of course." So I asked what made it ok for me to look, but not the others? "You aren't creepy." So, every person is supposed to know if they are "creepy" before they look at another person.

Porn can go either way. Men can and do pose for porn for women to look at. Then there's gay porn. Child porn of any kind, however is unacceptable and should be illegal everywhere.

But no matter what you slice it, it's a business run by dirtbags. It's just stupid.