All Eyes on Tokyo District Court Ruling over ‘Godzilla Minus One’ Spoiler Article

By Shintaro Sadahiro / Yomiuri Shimbun Staff Writer

2:00 JST, April 10, 2026

Are online articles that include movie spoilers legally permissible?

An unusual criminal trial addressing such an issue is currently underway at the Tokyo District Court.

The defendant, who is charged with violating the Copyright Law, has argued for an acquittal, saying that the essence of a movie cannot be conveyed through text alone.

As the film industry has become more concerned about the issue, calling the act “a free ride” on copyrighted works, all eyes are on a court ruling that is scheduled to be handed down on Thursday.

Is article an ‘adaptation’?

In October last year, a familiar piece of ominous music echoed through a courtroom at the Tokyo District Court when a scene from “Godzilla Minus One,” which was released in Japan in November 2023, was shown.

Large monitors set up on the walls showed scenes of a giant monster rampaging through the streets of Tokyo and people fleeing in panic. Some spectators in the court leaned forward in their seats, becoming engrossed in the scene.

The article in question, titled “An analysis containing spoilers and summary of findings,” explained the movie’s main characters, settings and storyline.

It described the movie and how people confronted Godzilla when it appeared in Japan immediately after World War II. The article, which was written in Japanese, was about 3,800 characters long and divided into chapters from the beginning to the end of the film.

One of the descriptions was that people “are blown away along with countless pieces of rubble by heat rays and blast waves” created by the monster.

According to the case’s indictment and other documents, Wataru Takeuchi, the 39-year-old defendant who is the head of a website operator, has been indicted on suspicion of infringing on the film’s copyright. He is suspected of conspiring with a writer in 2023 to post, on a website that is operated by Takeuchi, an article “adapted” from the film shortly after its release.

The writer has been already convicted of violating the law.

The main point of contention in the trial is whether the article constitutes an “adaptation” of the film.

Adaptation refers to the act of creating a new work based on an existing copyrighted work, and this act is not permitted without the copyright holder’s consent.

A Supreme Court precedent interprets this as “an act through which a person can directly perceive the essence of the work.” In light of this, if the district court rules that the article containing spoilers allows readers to perceive the film’s “essence,” the article would be deemed illegal.

The defense argued that the film’s essence lies in the power and realism conveyed by the visuals and music, as well as the actors’ performances, so it requested the film be shown in court. The court granted the request.

“If you watch the film, you will see that a movie can’t be reproduced through text alone, so you will understand that it does not constitute an adaptation,” said defense lawyer Keiichiro Hattori.

Writers asked to thread needle

The prosecution argued that even without visuals, if the content of a film is described in detail from beginning to end, a viewer can perceive the film’s essence, and thus that the article constitutes an adaptation.

In their opening statements and closing arguments, the prosecutors stated that the defendant began operating the website in 2015, and that writers had been posting articles containing storylines and spoilers about movies, anime and other works. They also said numerous articles were posted on the site, and that advertising revenue reached about ¥24 million in 2022 and about ¥36 million in 2023.

The prosecution further pointed out that the defendant warned the writers not to include too many details because they would not be able to handle copyright issues. However, he also told them, “If you are too vague in your articles, then it won’t be any different from Wikipedia,” and “Be careful not to cut too much from the content,” according to the prosecution.

A senior prosecutor said, “It is easy to evoke the film from the articles, and it is clear that the defendant continued posting them for advertising revenue while being aware that they were illegal.”

Takeuchi told The Yomiuri Shimbun: “I have continued this as a worthwhile business that introduces Japanese entertainment. I don’t think this is illegal.”

In its closing arguments in February this year, the prosecution sought a sentence of one year and six months in prison and a fine of ¥1 million. In its final arguments in March, the defense cited the film’s Academy Award for Best Visual Effects and argued for an acquittal, saying, “Reading the article does not at all constitute experiencing a masterpiece monster movie.”

The article in question has been removed from the site.

Profiters of ‘fast movies’ found guilty

The internet has been flooded with articles written about movies, and there have been cases in which reviews on social media that refer to the plots and share personal impressions have helped drive a film’s success.

However, revealing a movie’s overall plot or ending could negatively impact box office revenue, so the film industry has taken a strict stance against “free rides” on copyrighted works.

The judiciary has also taken this issue seriously.

In 2021 and 2022, the courts handed down guilty verdicts to defendants who had gained revenue from “fast movies” — videos showing films that have been edited down to about 10 minutes.

An official from the Content Overseas Distribution Association, which works to combat copyright infringement involving films and other works, expressed concern, saying: “The article in question is a text version of a fast movie. If it is left unchecked, there is a risk that fewer people will go to movie theaters.”