Additional Follow-Up to Question 17: As explained in the further follow up to Question 4, the Russian Federation notes that portions of the Russian Civil Code correspond to Article 14bis of the Berne Convention. Article 14bis permits countries to establish, by legislation, ownership of cinematographic works. If a country has established among the copyright owners in the cinematographic work the authors who have brought contributions to the making of the cinematographic work, such country may provide that authors who contribute to cinematographic works cannot object to certain uses of the works (e.g., reproduction, distribution, public performance) in the absence of any contrary or special stipulation. The Russian Federation's answer to Questions 4 and 17 does not appear to address the specific language of Article 14bis "in the absence of any contrary or special stipulation." The Russian Civil Code appears to prohibit contrary and special stipulations (which 14bis(2)(c) permits a country to require in writing) and the response suggests that such provisions would be invalid. As an example: In the U.S., music composers maintain the right of public performance in their contracts when their musical works are used in motion pictures, and then license the public performance of their music when the motion picture is communicated to the public via television or cable. This does not appear to be a possibility under your law. Please explain how Russian law complies with the provision in Berne Convention Article 14bis(2)(b) which allows authors who contribute to cinematographic works to make a special stipulation retaining the right to object to certain uses of their work (e.g., public performance).
