It looks same content of Japanese page.
http://www.kronekodow.com/html/tsumesho/guide_contents.html

Portrait rights is direct translation of 肖像権.

Most of those rules are utter bollocks anyway, half of them are totally unenforceable in law.

"Unfortunately, even imitations of Sheena Ringo songs violate their copyrights."

No they fucking don't.

I think they violate, at least, the lyrics copyrights.
However, lyrics are something more important in Japan, afaik, especially when dealing with karaoke and such. I don't know if it is such a serious business in the west, since covers are such a normal thing...

EDIT
I found this in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Songwriting

A peculiar example, also found in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feeling_good

I think everything comes down to a thing called reproduction,
and aint that basically what we are doing, when someone out
there puts images of Shiina/TJ or music done by them for public.
Through their very own made dedicated fan-websites, blogs/forums?

Shall me quote this: from cric.

Pre-existing works such as texts, pictures, photos, etc. are quite often incorporated into web pages and blogs, and it means that the act of reproduction takes place by storing such works within the memory of the server. This act, of course, calls for the authorization of the author. Article 30 of the Copyright Law provides for an exception for reproduction for private use, and the reproduction of a preexisting work in a personal web page (not a web page of a company for profit-making purposes) may seem to be covered by this exception. However, storing a work in the server to make a web page is to reproduce the work not for personal use but for transmission to the public, and therefore, the above article does not apply to such a case.

Also, as the web page or the blog is transmitted to the public, the person who makes the web page or blog, making use of preexisting works should obtain the authorization of the relevant authors not only for reproduction but also for public transmission.
The above is the general principle, however, there are some points which need further clarifications in terms of other exception provisions.

Paragraph (2), Article 32 of the Copyright Law provides for, "It shall be permissible for the press or other periodicals to reproduce informatory, investigatory or statistical data, report and other works of similar character which have been prepared by organs of the State or local public entities or independent administrative organs for the purpose of public information and which have been made public under their authorship, provided that the reproduction thereof is not expressly prohibited." Therefore, preexisting works can be reproduced without authorization "for the press or other periodicals". However, a web page or a blog does not seem to correspond to "the press or other periodicals", and therefore, authorization seems to be necessary to reproduce such a work in a web page, according to the provision of the Law.

There could be an opinion that, as the informatory,
investigatory or statistical data, report and other works of similar character which have been prepared by organs of the State or local public entities or independent administrative organs are made for the purpose of public interests, such organs or entities will not complain of such a use. However, if someone takes this opinion he/she should make use of the work at his/her own risk.

Nothing will happen. What about all the gazillions of Gackt, Ayu, Hikki sites out there? (or I assume gazillions exist anyway) Frankly I dare em.

EVERYTHING on the internet is breaking some law. idle threats are idle.

You guys REALIZE that shits probly been there since day 1, just no one knew cuz it was in japanese. No one got sued in all these years exactly...

Yeah, I was gonna say. These rules have likely been on the site for a while and nobody has been threatened or anything of the sort. They probably just exist in case somebody does abuse them so that they have all angles covered. There's just no way they could enforce these rules on such a scale and as has been proven over years of fan sites and forums, they haven't been enforced at all and the fact that they've been translated is no indication that they have plans to do so any time soon.

I wouldn't take action over the rules unless I received a complaint from her management. Worst comes to worst you get an email saying "Please take down ______" but as I said, the likelihood of even a warning is minimal at best.

"Portrait rights" are there to protect one's image from reproduction and resale. But they are simply not enforceable under several scenarios:

1. Parody. I choose to make fun of Ringo by putting her face on Mika Nakashima's body. Have I violated two portrait copyrights? No, I have told a joke. Here in America, we are allowed to parody famous people under free speech laws.

2. Fair use. Using visual art, in limited capacity, to illustrate critical commentary. Look at any textbook on film. See all those frame grabs from DVDs? No studio gave permission for those, and yet they are used, and used legally, under fair use. I know this because I worked in publishing for 10 years. This, I believe, covers our asses COMPLETELY at EMF, because we comment on Ringo, we say what we want about Ringo, and that's not going to stop even if we can't have her little picture here and there.

3. Not-for-profit. This is a tricky area. Copyright law says you can't reproduce something even if it's not for profit. Why the YouTube lawsuit? Because YouTube makes profit from the content. But YouTube, not its users, is the defendent, even though the users did all the reproducing. This brings back Glath's point about paranoid webmasters looking to tear everything down that even hints at copyright infringement. This is what media producers want. They want everyone flocking to THEIR sites, THEIR content, THEIR revenue channels. Then they can control not only the content of the programming, but the content of the CRITICAL COMMENTARY.

We are fans, yes, but we are also critics. We comment. We think. We are independent-minded. We are not extensions of the Shiina Ringo publicity machine. Honestly, if EMI sent us a warning letter, I'd consider it a compliment to our community.

maybe she can pen a song about it all

♪~Don't steal My Face~♪

Micky can return and do a killer solo on it

At this point it would be just beyond hope..of micky getting
involved
it would be more likely Tokio who would perform the killer tune.
♪~Don't steal My Face~♪ Oh just imagine, that really happening, that would be the final blow :D

One of the first songs I ever wrote on guitar was called "Copyright My Face". Seriously!