In a recent development, the President of KyoAni, Hideaki Hatta, appeared in the court for the 11th trial of Kyoto Animation Arson attack. During the hearing he rubbished the plagiarism claims put forth by the arsonist, Shinji Aoba, that the studio stole one of his novels.
“Our Company is not a company that steals people’s ideas,” the President said, denying the allegations.
When asked about what he felt about Aoba during the witness examination, he expressed that the incident was heartbreaking and that it only occured due to his delusions.
He also added that he believed that a proper judgement will be handed down to the perpertrator.
“This incident occurred due to the defendant’s delusions, and it is heartbreaking. The families (of the victims) are going through difficult days. I believe that a proper judgment will be made.“
During the first hearing of his trial on Sep 5, 2023, Shinji Aoba admitted that he indeed was responsible for the fire that ravaged Kyoto Animation’s Studio 1 on the morning of July 18, 2019.
Despite admitting to the crime, Aoba’s defense team entered a plea of not guilty on the grounds of the accused being mentally incompetent or of diminished mental capacity when he committed the crime. The defense team is aiming to get a reduced punishment.
The verdict of the trial will come out of Jan 25, 2024 after 23 more sessions.
A devastating fire had broken out at KyoAni’s Studio 1 building on July 18, 2019. At the time, there were 70 people inside the building. The fire claimed the lives of 36 people and injured 33 more. Aside from the victims inside the building, the smoke also injured a man in his forties who was on his way to work.
Kyoto Animation’s productions were initially paused after the attack, and the onset of the pandemic further delayed its projects.
As a fresh comeback from the two-year aftershock of the tragedy, the studio resumed its production activities with the release of the second season of Miss Kobayashi’s Dragon Maid.
Two memorials, as a symbol to honor the arson attack victims, are set to be unveiled on July 18, 2024, in order to mark the 5th anniversary of the incident.
While the attacker is clearly delusional, it would be a good idea for the company to prove that they did not copy the attacker’s ideas. Because just saying “we don’t steal trust me bro” isn’t exactly a great defense to allegations of stealing.
I am not saying the attacker was right to set fire to the office, obviously he wasn’t, but Japanese companies often say one thing publicly while typically completely ignoring it in practice, which is kinda like what all companies do except most companies don’t say anything. Being able to show evidence proving they didn’t steal from him would be important. However, I believe this wil probably not happen because I don’t know if the court considers that evidence relevant to the case.
Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Wouldn’t the attacker need to prove they plagiarized him before KyoAni has to the disprove the claim? The attacker came with the claim, so shouldn’t he be the one to prove it instead of the other way around?
The unfortunate part of this is that one cannot be expected to prove a negative.
Well, it would be rather simple. Provide the date his story was received and the dates marked on the internal documents. Show that any changes to the story happened before his story was receieved and thats an easy proof.
It would be a very fast way to immediately end the case, proving the company is innocent and that the attacker is definitively wrong.
They can do that if/when the attacker brings a lawsuit of plagiarism against them. For now, this is a case on the arson, the arsonist is the one on trial, and a straightforward denial under oath is more than enough.
Yes, I just was thinking that since Kyoto is saying he is delusional, and his defense is pleading not guilty by mental insanity, it seems like proving he was delusional could be grounds for a lesser sentence, which I would imagine the victim’s families would not want. However, it would forever leave a question in everyone’s minds if Kyoto really did steal his story if they leave that question unanswered with evidence.
The two are certainly separate legal cases, but I don’t know how the law works in Japan when a criminal brings a legal case against the plaintiff of the case that put him in jail.
However, it would forever leave a question in everyone’s minds if Kyoto really did steal his story if they leave that question unanswered with evidence.
I wouldn’t be so sure of that. KyoAni is a very well respected and loved company with next to no shady history, as opposed to loads of other anime studios. The arsonist attacked based on unproven claims. I’ve not heard anyone believe these claims for the past couple of years, I doubt it’d happen now.
I agree that they are respected, but believing any company at face value is dangerous IMO, no matter how much I like their products. I wouldn’t put it past any company to use contest submissions as future content without permission of the author regardless of the contest terms. Personally, I believe Kyoto Animation is telling the truth and that they did not steal his story. I think that since these are unfounded claims, then it should be very easy to disprove it.
If someone was bringing a false claim against me, that I knew was 100% false, and I had evidence that could easily prove it, I would publish that instantly. It costs me nothing and only solidifies my trustworthiness, while defending me from the claim and putting the person bringing the claim into the hot seat. This is simply my way of thinking, and perhaps there is a cultural reason in Japan that they would not do this.
As I said, I don’t know all the laws of Japan, and perhaps there is a cultural difference as to why they chose to respond in the way they did. I am simply saying that proving his claims false in a courtroom as part of this trial would likely end the matter once and for all.
believing any company at face value is dangerous
Agreed, but in this case, I don’t think KyoAni needs to prove anything. Unless maybe the judge wants more evidence on the delusional claim (which both sides more or less claim), there’s no relevancy in bringing it up. It would probably not help the case itself.
If someone was bringing a false claim against me, that I knew was 100% false, and I had evidence that could easily prove it, I would publish that instantly
They’d first need to know what they supposedly plagiarized with what work though. What evidence can you give when you don’t know what you’re supposed to give evidence for?
Edit: apparently it is known what the arsonist said they plagiarized: a small scene in Tsurune (which is an adaptation of a light novel): https://soranews24.com/2021/01/08/kyoto-anime-arsonist-says-which-scene-he-feels-copied-his-work-and-incited-attack/
