Search results

The article analyses the peculiarities of the institute of interim measures and preliminary interim measures provided by the section 144.1 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Russian Federation in the part of their taking by the court. The authors draw attention to the temporary nature of interim measures, which involves the return of the parties to the initial position in the event that the claims are recognized by the court as unfounded. However, difficulties of a technical nature arise in this part when the court takes preliminary injunctive relief under section 144.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation in the form of obliging the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Communications and other persons to stop creating technical conditions for the placement, distribution and other use of the disputed musical work. As a rule, after the filing of an application for interim measures by the applicant claiming that his rights have been violated by placing an object of copyright and related rights on the Internet, either the defendant himself or the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media essentially removes the corresponding work or a link to it. After filing an action to prohibit the creation of technical conditions for the placement, distribution and other use of the disputed work, in accordance with the procedure stipulated by part 5 section 144.1 of the Civil procedural code of the Russian Federation for its consideration on the merits sometimes requires the expertise to establish the identity of the work posted on the Internet by the defendant and the work in respect of which the plaintiff claims the exclusive rights. This is particularly relevant when disputes arise regarding the posting of phonograms, since multiple phonograms are allowed and the court needs to establish the identity of the phonogram claimed by the plaintiff and the phonogram posted by the defendant and in respect of which the court has taken preliminary injunctions. Even the mere possibility for the defendant to re-post the phonogram on its website after the plaintiff's claims have been found unfounded does not undermine the fact that the restoration of the defendant's rights to post the phonogram on its website is not through the lifting of provisional measures to resume access to the previously posted work, but through its new posting by the defendant. The foregoing contradicts the provisional nature of the interim measures.

The urgency of the research is due to the need to identify and analyze problems that make it impossible for collective management organizations to implement one of their key functions – to go to court to protect the property rights of right holders. The purpose of the study is to identify the main problems of judicial protection of copyright and related rights with the help of collective management organizations and to suggest ways to eliminate such problems. The object of the study is the implementation of the functions of collective management organizations related to appealing to the court for protection of property rights of rights holders and monitoring the legality of the use of copyright and (or) related rights. In the research a number of general scientific and special methods of cognition, such as: formal-logical, comparative-legal and systemic was used. The particular functions of organizations of collective management of property rights of copyright holders in the field of copyright and related rights are analyzed, which are included in the appeal of such organizations to the court on behalf of the right holders concerning the protection of property rights of right holders and monitoring the legality of the use of objects of copyright and (or) related rights in accordance with the areas of rights management for which the organization is registered, as far as objects of copyright and (or) related rights are concerned with the property rights transferred to its management. A study aimed at determining the main components necessary for the successful implementation by collective management organizations of the function of judicial protection of property rights of copyright holders in the field of copyright and related rights. The main types of collective management in Ukraine are identified and the reason for the difference in the implementation of collective management within such types is emphasized. Considerable attention is paid to the analysis of case law in cases involving collective management organizations related to the prosecution of users who used copyright and related rights in their activities without obtaining permission from copyright holders for such use and/or without concluding a contract with the organization of collective management. As a result of the study, the author outlined the problems of judicial protection of copyright and related rights with the help of collective management organizations, suggested the main reason for collective management organizations to sue for protection of property copyrights and related rights and formed conclusions concerning one of the possible options for solving the identified problems.

The purpose of this article is to identify changes in the nature of the challenges and analyze key trends in international law regulation of copyright and related rights protection in the digital environment. It is established that the digital environment forms the newest type of legal relations, which requires modification of copyright legislation. International experience on the latest trends in copyright and related rights protection in the digital environment has discussed. It has established that the key trend of modification international legal regulation of copyright and related rights in the digital environment there are stricter measures to restrict online sales of pirated books, audiovisual products and electronic publications. Particular attention has paid to combating copyright infringement on social networking platforms, as well as in the field of online education, training, e-commerce. It has proved that to improve the mechanism of combating crime in the field of intellectual property it is necessary to modernize the national intellectual property system: improving the regulatory framework, improving the institutional framework and infrastructure, as well as conducting comprehensive educational work with users of this system

Раздел "Международное право" - рубрика "Международное частное право" ; Контрафакция и пиратство в области авторского и смежных прав представляют серьезную не только национальную, но и международную проблему, решение которой может быть более успешным, если правообладатели будут иметь закрепленные законом эффективные меры таможенной защиты. Многие современные законы об авторском праве содержат в себе условия, при которых таможенные органы могут по своей инициативе либо по просьбе правообладателей отказать в таможенной очистке продукции, которая производит впечатление несанкционированных копий защищенной продукции. Соответствующие нормы содержатся в Бернской конвенции и особенно развиты в Соглашении по ТРИПС. В Республике Беларусь возможность пресечения таможенными органами распространения контрафактных товаров появилась с момента вступления в силу соответствующих дополнений в Таможенный кодекс Республики Беларусь 14 июня 2002 г. Анализ нормативных актов, принятых в дальнейшем, позволяет выделить несколько этапов в процессе таможенной защиты авторского и смежных прав: подачу заявления правообладателем (его представителем), рассмотрение заявления таможенными органами, осуществление защитных мер таможенными органами при выявлении возможной контрафактности товара, определение контрафактности товара. Действующая процедура осуществления таможенными органами Республики Беларусь защиты прав на объекты авторского и смежных прав соответствует Соглашению по ТРИПС, хотя и содержит определенные пробелы. Представляется, что ряд мер — внесение в законодательство Республики Беларуси регламентации процедуры определения контрафактности товаров; обеспечение законодательной защиты прав лица, необоснованно обвиненного во ввозе контрафактной продукции; законодательное закрепление возможности приостановления таможенными органами выпуска товаров, не внесенных в реестр, в случае обнаружения их контрафактности без заявления правообладателя о защите своих прав и др. — позволит повысить эффективность и уровень таможенной защиты прав на объекты авторского права и смежных прав. = Counterfeiting and piracy in the field of authors' rights and related rights represent a serious problem, not only national, but also international, the solution of which decision can be more successful if legal owners have the effectual measures of customs protection fixed by the law. Many modern laws on the copyright comprise the conditions at which customs authorities can, on their own initiative or on the request of legal owners, refuse to give customs clearing to products which look like unauthorized copies of protected products. The corresponding norms are contained in the Berne Convention, and are specially developed in the Agreement on TRIPS. In Belarus the opportunity of suppression by customs authorities of distribution of the counterfeit goods appeared on coming into force of the corresponding addenda to the Customs Code of Belarus on June 14th, 2002. The analysis of the normative acts allows to define some stages in the procedure of customs protection of copyright and related rights: submission of the application by the legal owner (his representative), consideration of the application by customs authorities, realization of protective measures by customs authorities in explosing possible counterfeiting of the goods, definition of the counterfeit nature of the goods. The existing procedure of the customs authorities realizing the protection of the copyright and related rights to the objects produced corresponds to the TRIPS Agreement though it contains several gaps. It seems that a number of measures — introducing into the legislation of Belarus of a regulation of procedure of definition of the counterfeit goods; legislative guaranteeing of the rights of the person unreasonably accused of counterfeit products import; legislative fixing of hte possibility for the customs authorities to suspend the production of the goods not on the register without the legal owners' application in case their counterfeit character is detected — will allow to raise the efficiency and the level of customs protection of copyright and related rights.

The relevance of the scientific article is due to the changes made to copyright legislation, which established a multiple size of civil liability for violation of copyright and related rights. Such responsibility is atypical for civil law, since it provides for the dependence of its size on the form of guilt of the offender. In the doctrine of civil law and jurisprudence, the presumption of guilt in committing a civil offense is traditionally applied. At the same time, the measures of responsibility are aimed at full compensation for the harm caused, regardless of the form of guilt. Therefore, in civil law there is no normative definition of the forms of guilt. At the same time, in cases on the protection of copyright and related rights, the issue of proving the form of the offender's guilt acquires special significance. This is necessary to establish the basis for civil liability and its size. For this purpose, based on the study of scientific approaches to understanding the category of guilt, the author of the article formulated criteria for establishing a careless form of guilt in violation of copyright and related rights; the signs indicating the absence of guilt in the actions of the offender have been identified; the characterization of intent when committing a violation of these rights is given. The behavior of the violator, which is deliberately aimed at violating the rights of the copyright holder or deliberately ignoring his rights in order to achieve goals useful for himself, should be defined as guilt in the form of intent. The attitude of the subject to the harm caused to the copyright holder is legally unimportant. Intent should be established with respect to the behavior of the subject at the time of the violation, and not after its completion. The application of the criteria for the form of guilt proposed in the article is aimed at solving practical problems in law enforcement

One of the legal intellectual property disciplines are copyrights which concerns artistic and literary works. Copyright is: bundle of exclusive legal rights that has to do with protection of literary and artistic works. It is granted to authors and artists to protect expressive works against unauthorized reproduction or distribution by third parties. Copyright protect "works", expression of thoughts and ideas. Literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works must be original, it means not to be a copy. Copyright covers two other types of right: economic rights, the right of the owner to benefit financial reward from use of his work by others and moral rights which always have to do with original holder no matter if economic rights are transferred or not. Economic rights can be transferred. Bern Convention for the Protection of the Literary and Artistic Works is international key agreement and the oldest multilateral agreement in the field of copyright. Copyright subsists automatically on the creation of a work, no application needed, nor do any formalities apply. Nature of copyright is territorial and the minimum term of protection is life of the author plus 50 years after his/her death. In European Union and in certain number of countries, terms of protections of are extended to life of the author plus 70 years after his/her death.

Compensation is a form of compensation for property damage for violation of copy­right and related rights. In the previous 25 years the Law of Ukraine «On Copyright and Related Rights» provided that compensation is determined by a court in the amount of 10 to 50 thousand minimum salaries established by law. At the same time, it was not necessary to prove a specific amount of damages. Therefore, compensation was the most widespread way of protecting copyright and related rightsOn July 22, 2018, the new procedure for payment of compensation came into force. In today's conditions, compensation is characterized by the following features:1) Compensation is a lump sum payment. It cannot be determined as a percentage of future sales of copies or other use of copyright and / or related rights objects with­out specifying its size. Compensation should be paid as a single, one-time payment in a fixed amount;2) The amount of compensation depends on the guilty form of the offender. In the case of the intent of violating, the compensation calculates in a triple rate, with negligence — in the double amount of remuneration that would have been paid if a right holder was granted permission to use the object that was unlawfully used by the offender;3) The basis for calculating the compensation is the amount of remuneration that would have been paid if the offender applied for authorization to use the disputed object.This approach is based on the rule of paragraph b) of part 1 of Art. 240 of Associa­tion Agreement which reproduces the provisions of paragraph b) of part 1 of Art. 13 of Directive 2004/48/EC.In the EU, compensation is provided by the legislation of Croatia, Germany, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, however, each state regulates the rule for compensation differently. The approach introduced in the Ukrainian legislation is exactly the same as in Poland. The practice of its application has not yet begun to form but there is no doubt that in the new legislative environment protection of copy­right and related rights will be more complicated. The right holder must prove the amount of remuneration that would have been obtained by him for granting permis­sion to use the relevant object which was not previously required for the payment of compensation. However, despite the predicted difficulties, the new compensation model can become a sufficiently effective way of protecting copyright and related rights. This model is in line with the European approach and it provides for one of the highest payments compared to the legislation of the EU Member States. ; Статья посвящена определению правовой природы компенсации как формы возмещения имущественного вреда за нарушение авторского права и смежных прав; анализу положения п. г) ч. 2 ст. 52 Закона Украины «Об авторском праве и смежных правах» в соотношении с аналогичными нормами европейского права и законодательства государств-членов ЕС; определению того, насколько новая модель компенсации соответствует европейскому уровню защиты авторско­го права и смежных прав; разработке предложений по усовершенствованию пра­вового регулирования выплаты компенсации. ; Стаття присвячена визначенню правової природи компенсації як форми відшкоду­вання майнової шкоди за порушення авторського права і суміжних прав; аналізу положення п. г) ч. 2 ст. 52 Закону України «Про авторське право і суміжні права» у співвідношенні з аналогічними нормами європейського права та законодавства держав-членів ЄС; з'ясуванню, наскільки нова модель компенсації відповідає європей­ському рівню захисту авторського права і суміжних прав; виробленню пропозицій щодо вдосконалення правового регулювання виплати компенсації.

Compensation is a form of compensation for property damage for violation of copy­right and related rights. In the previous 25 years the Law of Ukraine «On Copyright and Related Rights» provided that compensation is determined by a court in the amount of 10 to 50 thousand minimum salaries established by law. At the same time, it was not necessary to prove a specific amount of damages. Therefore, compensation was the most widespread way of protecting copyright and related rightsOn July 22, 2018, the new procedure for payment of compensation came into force. In today's conditions, compensation is characterized by the following features:1) Compensation is a lump sum payment. It cannot be determined as a percentage of future sales of copies or other use of copyright and / or related rights objects with­out specifying its size. Compensation should be paid as a single, one-time payment in a fixed amount;2) The amount of compensation depends on the guilty form of the offender. In the case of the intent of violating, the compensation calculates in a triple rate, with negligence — in the double amount of remuneration that would have been paid if a right holder was granted permission to use the object that was unlawfully used by the offender;3) The basis for calculating the compensation is the amount of remuneration that would have been paid if the offender applied for authorization to use the disputed object.This approach is based on the rule of paragraph b) of part 1 of Art. 240 of Associa­tion Agreement which reproduces the provisions of paragraph b) of part 1 of Art. 13 of Directive 2004/48/EC.In the EU, compensation is provided by the legislation of Croatia, Germany, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, however, each state regulates the rule for compensation differently. The approach introduced in the Ukrainian legislation is exactly the same as in Poland. The practice of its application has not yet begun to form but there is no doubt that in the new legislative environment protection of copy­right and related rights will be more complicated. The right holder must prove the amount of remuneration that would have been obtained by him for granting permis­sion to use the relevant object which was not previously required for the payment of compensation. However, despite the predicted difficulties, the new compensation model can become a sufficiently effective way of protecting copyright and related rights. This model is in line with the European approach and it provides for one of the highest payments compared to the legislation of the EU Member States. ; Статья посвящена определению правовой природы компенсации как формы возмещения имущественного вреда за нарушение авторского права и смежных прав; анализу положения п. г) ч. 2 ст. 52 Закона Украины «Об авторском праве и смежных правах» в соотношении с аналогичными нормами европейского права и законодательства государств-членов ЕС; определению того, насколько новая модель компенсации соответствует европейскому уровню защиты авторско­го права и смежных прав; разработке предложений по усовершенствованию пра­вового регулирования выплаты компенсации. ; Стаття присвячена визначенню правової природи компенсації як форми відшкоду­вання майнової шкоди за порушення авторського права і суміжних прав; аналізу положення п. г) ч. 2 ст. 52 Закону України «Про авторське право і суміжні права» у співвідношенні з аналогічними нормами європейського права та законодавства держав-членів ЄС; з'ясуванню, наскільки нова модель компенсації відповідає європей­ському рівню захисту авторського права і суміжних прав; виробленню пропозицій щодо вдосконалення правового регулювання виплати компенсації.

EU Copyright Law' facilitates an understanding of the complex legal area of European Union (EU) copyright law and provides for a more conscious application of these rules, especially in relation to the legal framework. Against a background in which technology continues to change the ways we create, use, distribute and consume cultural content ? and where there has been a noticeable increase in the body of case law of Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) relating to copyright ? copyright protection has become an essential component of the knowledge-based economy and the information society. This book, structured around the various rights and issues rather than the legislative instruments, provides a practical, economic approach considering different legal questions that arise in connection with the exploitation of protected subject matter