Examen de la législation d'application de l'Accord sur les ADPIC ‒ Recherche

Réinitialiser
 
 

Aux termes de l'article 63:2 de l'Accord sur les ADPIC, les Membres doivent notifier les lois et réglementations qu'ils auront rendues exécutoires, et qui visent les questions faisant l'objet de l'Accord, au Conseil des ADPIC pour l'aider dans son examen du fonctionnement de l'Accord.

Cette page vous permet d'effectuer une recherche dans les questions et réponses des Membres au sujet des lois et réglementations notifiées. Vous pouvez consulter les résultats de la recherche à l'écran ou les télécharger afin de les imprimer au format Excel. Vous pouvez également télécharger des documents spécifiques.

* Vous n'êtes PAS obligé(e) de sélectionner tous les champs de recherche ci-dessous (uniquement les champs qui sont pertinents pour votre recherche).
* Veuillez noter que les critères de recherche sélectionnés sont cumulatifs et figureront tous dans les résultats de votre recherche.


Page 17 de 677   |   Nombre de documents : 13533

Cote du document Membre notifiant Membre soulevant la question Question Réponse Date de distribution du document  
IP/Q/RUS/1, IP/Q2/RUS/1, IP/Q3/RUS/1, IP/Q4/RUS/1 Fédération de Russie États-Unis d'Amérique Follow-Up to Question 14: We would like further clarification. Do we correctly understand that Chapter 71 protects scientific, literary and artistic works after the copyright term has expired and those works have fallen into the public domain and Chapter 70 applies to those works while they are protected by copyright?
No, this understanding is not correct. Firstly, First, Chapter 71 of the CC RF regulates the relationships of the use of all the objects of related rights. The rights of the publisher are regulated by only one section (section 6) of the Chapter 71 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Secondly, the right of the publisher can arise not only in case when protection of an exclusive right to work expired and this work has fallen into public domain but also in case when the work has never been protected by copyright. As an example of the second case could be the publication of the work unknown before, whose author had created this work prior to the beginning of legal copyright protection in Russia (till 1828). Provisions of section 6 Chapter 71 of the CC RF are formulated by analogy with the Article 4 of the Directive 2006/116/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights (the codified version).
09/02/2016
IP/Q/RUS/1, IP/Q2/RUS/1, IP/Q3/RUS/1, IP/Q4/RUS/1 Fédération de Russie États-Unis d'Amérique Follow-Up to Question 14: What type of works could be protected under Chapter 71?
Chapter 71 of the CC RF protects the objects of related rights. Section 6 of Chapter 71 of the CC RF protects scientific, literary or artistic work (music works, works of art, literary works, etc.), previously not made public and that have fallen into the public domain or that are in the public domain by virtue of the fact that they are not protected by copyright.
09/02/2016
IP/Q/RUS/1, IP/Q2/RUS/1, IP/Q3/RUS/1, IP/Q4/RUS/1 Fédération de Russie États-Unis d'Amérique Follow-Up to Question 14: Paragraph 3 of the answer notes that "Article 1337 CC RF publisher is the citizen who lawfully made public or organized the making public of a work of scholarship, literature, or art previously not made public and that has gone into the public domain (Article 1282 CC RF) or that is in the public domain by virtue of the fact that it is not protected by copyright." Could you further explain what types of rights this would confer, and to whom?
The publisher is a citizen who has legally promulgated or organized the promulgation of a work that was in the public domain and was unknown for the public. Such citizen could be, for example, someone from descendants of the dead author, but also could be any citizen who found somebody's manuscripts or illustrations at his attic or dustbin, provided that such works correspond to the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 1337 of the CC RF and a such citizen made an effort to promulgate these works. The provisions of Article 1337 of the CC RF provide the following rights to the publisher: (1) exclusive right to: reproduction of the work, distribution, public show, import, hiring out, public performance, radio or television broadcasting, cable communication, bringing the work to the notice of the public. Exclusive right of publisher covers almost all the authorities as the exclusive right of the author, except for the translation or other processing of the work as well as the practical implementation of an architectural, design, town planning or landscaping project; (2) the right to indicate his name on copies of a work which he made public and in other cases of its use including translation or other processing of a work (of course this right by no means doesn't except the necessity to indicate the name of its author at this work).
09/02/2016
IP/Q/RUS/1, IP/Q2/RUS/1, IP/Q3/RUS/1, IP/Q4/RUS/1 Fédération de Russie États-Unis d'Amérique Follow-Up to Question 14: Also, does this Chapter protect publication of works that are outside the scope of copyright (i.e., "not protected by copyright"), such as ideas, procedures, methods of operation or mathematical concepts? This may be a translation problem, but we remain unclear about whether/how non-copyrightable works are protected and why they would be protected here.
According to paragraph 2 of Article 1337 of the CC RF the rights of the publisher extend to works that, irrespective of the time of creation thereof, could be deemed objects of copyright in accordance with the rules of Article 1259 of the CC RF. In accordance with Article 1259 of the CC RF copyright does not extend to ideas, concepts, principles, methods, processes, systems, manners or the resolution of technical, organizational or other problems, inventions, facts, programming languages. Thus, ideas, procedures, methods of operation and mathematical concepts are not covered by Chapter 71 of the CC RF.
09/02/2016
IP/Q/RUS/1, IP/Q2/RUS/1, IP/Q3/RUS/1, IP/Q4/RUS/1 Fédération de Russie États-Unis d'Amérique Follow-Up to Question 14: Finally, we would like to confirm understanding that the 25 year term set forth in Article 1340 only applies to publications of unpublished works that occur after the term of the exclusive right set forth in Article 1281 has expired.
Yes, it's true. 25-year period establishes for the earlier unpublished works if the general term of copyright, established by Article 1281 of the CC RF, had already expired. Thus, protection of publisher rights doesn't rival the copyright for the work, but establishes in addition to such protection.
09/02/2016
IP/Q/RUS/1, IP/Q2/RUS/1, IP/Q3/RUS/1, IP/Q4/RUS/1 Fédération de Russie États-Unis d'Amérique Follow-Up to Question 15: We understand in your response that the Russian Federation uses the "rule of the shorter term," a familiar concept permitted under the Berne Convention for works. We would like some further clarification, however. Would a US work published in the US in 1975 be protected under Russian law? In the United States, for example, a work published here in 1975 would initially be protected under the 1909 US Copyright Act and would be protected from the date it was published with a copyright notice. That work would initially have been protected for a term of 28 years from that date for the first term and then, due to amendments to US law, automatically extended another 67 years for the second term for a total of 95 years from 1975. Would a US sound recording published in the US in 1975 be protected under Russian law? (keeping in mind that a sound recording in the US is a "work" but under Russian law a sound recording receives neighboring rights protection, and the Rule of the Shorter Term only applies to Berne works).
The term of protection granted by Article 7 of the Berne Convention doesn't depend on the date of accession to this Convention and by general rule shall be no less than 50 years after the death of the author (paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the Berne Convention). According to paragraph 4 of Article 1256 of the CC RF the legal protection to the works on territory of Russian Federation according to international treaties of Russian Federation is granted to works which have not fallen to the public domain in the country of origin due to the expiration of such exclusive right validity term for these works and have not fallen to the public domain of Russian Federation due to the expiration of exclusive right validity term for them in accordance with the CC RF. At the same time validity term of an exclusive right on territory of Russian Federation cannot exceed an exclusive right validity term set out in a country of origin of a work. In accordance with the provisions of the CC RF the principle of calculating the term of protection depending on the date of death of the author is set as a general rule for calculating the exclusive right validity term: the exclusive right to a work shall be effective for the whole lifetime of the author and 70 years from January 1 of the year following the year of the author's death (subparagraph 1. Paragraph 1 of Article 1281 of the CC RF). The exclusive right in a work created by co-authors shall be effective for the whole lifetime of the author who survives the other co-authors and 70 years from January 1 of the year following the year of his death (subparagraph 2, paragraph 1 of Article 1281 of the CC RF). At the same time, if the work is promulgated after the author's death the exclusive right for such work shall be effective for 70 years after the promulgation thereof from 1 January of the year following the year of the promulgation, provided the work is promulgated within 70 years of the death of the author (paragraph 3 of Article 1281 of the CC RF). Thus the work which received the protection in the US since 1975 for a general term of 95 years, will be protected under Russian legislation from 1975 for a term of the author's life and 70 years after his death, if the 95-years term under US legislation is expired earlier this term (in such case the protection will be expired on the base of shorter term rule). Slightly different conditions of legal protection are provided in respect of solely sound recordings (phonograms) - objects of related rights. In the Russian Federation recognition of foreign right holders' exclusive rights for phonograms is conducted in accordance with the international treaties of the Russian Federation provided that two conditions are respected, that is: with respect to phonograms that (1) have not passed into the public domain in their countries of origin due to the expiry of the effective term of exclusive rights to such object established in those countries, and (2) have not passed into the public domain in the Russian Federation due to the expiry of the effective term of exclusive right envisaged by the CC RF (paragraph 3 of Article 1304 of the CC RF). Thus, if the phonogram falls into the public domain in the country of its origin, it will not be protected in the Russian Federation, even if the term of protection of such phonogram has not expired in the Russian Federation. Both the Russian Federation and the US are the members of the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. In accordance with Article 17 of this Treaty the term of protection to be granted to performers shall last, at least, until the end of a period of 50 years computed from the end of the year in which the performance was fixed in a phonogram; the term of protection to be granted to producers of phonograms shall last, at least, until the end of a period of 50 years computed from the end of the year in which the phonogram was published, or failing such publication within 50 years from fixation of the phonogram, 50 years from the end of the year in which the fixation was made. Regarding the term of validity of the exclusive right to a phonogram, Article 1327 of the CC RF also fixes a 50 year term from January 1 of the year following the year in which the recording took place. However if the phonogram is promulgated before the end of this 50-years term, the exclusive right validity term will be expired after 50 years from the moment of its promulgation but not from the moment of its recording. Thus, a sound recording, promulgated in the US in 1975, will be protected in accordance with the Russian law as an object of related rights for 50 years from the date of its promulgation.
09/02/2016
IP/Q/RUS/1, IP/Q2/RUS/1, IP/Q3/RUS/1, IP/Q4/RUS/1 Fédération de Russie États-Unis d'Amérique Follow-Up to Question 15: Could you also clarify what is meant by a work "made public" in the third paragraph of your response? More precisely, do you mean "published?" "first published" and/or "simultaneously published"?
In accordance with Article 1268 of the CC RF making the work public means an action which opens the work to the public for the first time by means of publication, public show, public performance, broadcast or cable or in any other manner. In such case the publication (release to the world) is the release for circulation of copies of the work which are copies of the work in any material form in a quantity sufficient for meeting the public's reasonable needs depending on the nature of the work. Thus, publication (release to the world) of the work is one of the means of making the work public (promulgation of a work).
09/02/2016
IP/Q/RUS/1, IP/Q2/RUS/1, IP/Q3/RUS/1, IP/Q4/RUS/1 Fédération de Russie États-Unis d'Amérique Follow-Up to Question 16(a): Because of the manner in which it was translated, we would like to confirm that subpoint 3 of point 1 of Article 1256 grants protection for US authors for published and unpublished works. ("the works promulgated outside the territory of the Russian Federation or non-promulgated but located in any objective form outside the territory of the Russian Federation, and it is recognized on the territory of the Russian Federation to be held by authors (their successors) being citizens of other states or stateless persons in accordance with international treaties of the Russian Federation.")
Yes, subparagraph 3, paragraph 1 of Article 1256 of the CC RF in accordance with the Berne Convention, both Russian Federation and the US are its members, grants protection to US authors for published and unpublished works.
09/02/2016
IP/Q/RUS/1, IP/Q2/RUS/1, IP/Q3/RUS/1, IP/Q4/RUS/1 Fédération de Russie États-Unis d'Amérique Follow-Up to Question 16(b): We would like to confirm that subpoint 3 of point 1 of Article 1256 grants protection to non-Berne authors for works first published in the US
Yes, subparagraph 3, paragraph 1 of Article 1256 of the CC RF in accordance with the Berne Convention, both Russian Federation and the US are its members, grants protection to non-Berne authors for works first published in the US
09/02/2016
IP/Q/RUS/1, IP/Q2/RUS/1, IP/Q3/RUS/1, IP/Q4/RUS/1 Fédération de Russie États-Unis d'Amérique Follow-Up to Question 16(c): We would like to confirm that subpoint 3 of point 1 of Article 1256 grants protection to authors who are not nationals of a Berne country but who have their habitual residence in the US
Yes, subparagraph 3, paragraph 1 of Article 1256 of the CC RF in accordance with the Berne Convention, both Russian Federation and the US are its members, grants protection to authors who are not nationals of a Berne country but who have their habitual residence in the US
09/02/2016
IP/Q/RUS/1, IP/Q2/RUS/1, IP/Q3/RUS/1, IP/Q4/RUS/1 Fédération de Russie États-Unis d'Amérique Follow-Up to Questions 16(d) and (e): We would like to confirm that subpoint 3 of point 1 of Article 1256 grants protection to 1) authors of audiovisual works the maker of which has its headquarters or habitual residence in the US and 2) authors of works of architecture constructed in the US and 3) authors of artistic works incorporated in a building or structure located in the US
Yes, subparagraph 3, paragraph 1 of Article 1256 of the CC RF in accordance with the Berne Convention, both Russian Federation and the US are its members, grants protection to: (1) authors of audiovisual works the maker of which has its headquarters (in case of legal entities)or habitual residence (in case of individuals) in the US and (2) authors of works of architecture constructed in the US and (3) authors of any other artistic works incorporated in a building or structure located in the US
09/02/2016
IP/Q/RUS/1, IP/Q2/RUS/1, IP/Q3/RUS/1, IP/Q4/RUS/1 Fédération de Russie États-Unis d'Amérique Follow-Up to Question 17: We would like clarification, specifically when a work is not used separately but within an audiovisual work. Since authors of musical compositions contained in audiovisual works are considered authors of the audiovisual work under Article 1263, does the author of the musical composition have a public performance right when that music is contained in the audiovisual works and communicated to the public via television broadcasting or exhibited in theaters under Article 1263, point 3?.
Paragraph 3 of Article 1263 of the CC RF assigns to the composer who is the author of a musical work (with or without lyrics) used in the audiovisual work only the right for "fair" remuneration for public performance, as well as for communication by wireless means or by wire of an audiovisual work. This right is not in any way connected to the right for public performance, including exhibition in theaters or communication to the public via television broadcasting. The authors of an audiovisual work on the base of the exclusive right alienation contract (Article 1234 of the CC RF) or on the base of a license contract (Article 1234 of the CC RF) transfers to the producer (creator of the audiovisual work) the right to use their work in the composition of a complex audiovisual work. Furthermore as we already mentioned, in accordance with Article 1240 of the CC RF the provisions of the license contract restricting the right to use an audiovisual work shall be invalid. Please note that we are talking about the use of an audiovisual work. Thus, by concluding contract with producer (the creator of an audiovisual work), authors transfer or grant him the rights for such a work as a whole, and therefore the producer has an exclusive right for public performance, including exhibition in theaters or communication to the public via television broadcasting.
09/02/2016
IP/Q/RUS/1, IP/Q2/RUS/1, IP/Q3/RUS/1, IP/Q4/RUS/1 Fédération de Russie États-Unis d'Amérique Follow-Up to Question 18: We would like to confirm our understanding. For audiovisual works created after August 2, 1993, the term of protection is 70 years following the death of the last surviving author (counting from January 1 of the year following the year of her death), and for audiovisual works created before August 3, 1993, the term of protection is 70 years after the date of publication.
In accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 1263 of the CC RF the authors of an audiovisual work are: 1) the director; 2) the author of the script; 3) the composer being the author of a musical work specifically created for the audiovisual work. Taking to account this provision, if an audiovisual work is created after August 2, 1993 the term of its protection is 70 years following the 1 January of the year following the year of death of the last surviving author At the same time, if an audiovisual work created after 2 August 1993 was published after the death of author (authors), the exclusive right to such work shall be effective during the course of 70 years after the work was made public, counting from 1 January of the year following the year of its publication, provided that the work was made public within the course of 70 years after the death of the author (paragraph 3 of Article 1281 of the CC RF). Regarding the works created before 3 August 1993 the term of protection is 70 years from the date of its legal publication, and 70 years from the date of its creation if it was not published.
09/02/2016
IP/Q/RUS/1, IP/Q2/RUS/1, IP/Q3/RUS/1, IP/Q4/RUS/1 Fédération de Russie États-Unis d'Amérique Follow-up to Question 20: We understand this to be a question related to TM-counterfeit goods but would like clarification about what "societal interests" would be considered appropriate for counterfeit goods to be recovered; what would happen to those goods; and who might benefit from that recovery (We do not understand the meaning of the phrase "subject by recovery to income of the Russian Federation.")
The provisions of clause 2 of article 1515 of the CC RF establish a removal from circulation of goods at the expense of an infringer. The exception is made for cases when commercialization of such goods is necessary for public interests. In this case a trademark which is being illegally used must be erased from goods, labels and packages at the expense of infringer. The public interest may be determined only by the Court or Governmental authority. For example, in the case of natural catastrophe or disaster. Expression «to the state revenue» according to the Article 1515 of the CC RF is not used. The «commerсialization» term is used in CC RF regarding not only for questions connected with commercial benefit, but in general sense regarding possibility of making a deal with such goods (including free deals) (Article 129 of the CC RF). In case a Court or any Governmental authority sets a necessity of use of goods for the public benefit, so in these cases there is no way to get commercial benefit.
09/02/2016
IP/Q/RUS/1, IP/Q2/RUS/1, IP/Q3/RUS/1, IP/Q4/RUS/1 Fédération de Russie États-Unis d'Amérique Follow-up to Question 21: Article 1312 refers back to Article 1302 and we therefore understand this Article to amount to an injunction. Is that a correct reading? Could you describe what Article 1312 adds to 1302 that is not inherent in Article 1302?
Article 1302 of the CC RF refers to measures to secure a claim for copyright infringement, including court injunction for a person to take specific actions (e.g. reproduction, sale, import) with the purpose of introducing into commercial circulation copies of a work suspected to be counterfeit. Article 1312 of the CC RF extends the provisions of Article 1302 of the CC RF with relations in the field of related rights, which means the possibility of a court injunction for a person to take specific actions listed in Article 1302 of the CC RF, not only in relation to works protected by copyright but also in relation to objects of related rights. Provisions of Article 1312 of the CC RF do not add new or limit any provisions of Article 1302 of the CC RF.
09/02/2016
IP/Q/RUS/1, IP/Q2/RUS/1, IP/Q3/RUS/1, IP/Q4/RUS/1 Fédération de Russie États-Unis d'Amérique Additional Follow-Up to Question 3: This is likely a translation problem, but we would like to confirm our understanding of your explanation of Article 1232 and therefore will restate our previous question: Would a foreign author who enters a license contract have to register the license contract in Russia? If a foreign author does not register the license contract in Russia, what consequences, if any, would the failure to do so have on the validity of the license?
If in question 3 author is considered as citizen who created a work of science, literature or arts (object of copyright) by his creative work, it is necessary to take into consideration that the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter – CC RF) does not require the state registration of the license contract under which the author or other rightholder of work provides or undertakes to provide the right to use this work to the other party. At the same time it should be borne in mind that the in CC RF the term "author" is used not only in relation to the authors of works (objects of copyright). The CC RF also establishes provisions for the authors of other results of intellectual activity, for example, the authors of Topographies of Integrated Circuits (Article 1450 of the CC RF). According to para 2 of Article 1460 of the CC RF, if the topology of integrated circuits has been registered in the Federal executive authority on intellectual property (Article 1452), a granting of right to use topology under a license contract shall be subject to state registration in the manner prescribed by Article 1232 of the CC RF. In this case, it is necessary to take into account para 6 of Article 1232 of the CC RF. This para stipulates that if the requirement of state registration of granting of right to use an integrated circuit layout to another person under a license contract was not met, the granting of right to use is considered invalid.
09/02/2016
IP/Q/RUS/1, IP/Q2/RUS/1, IP/Q3/RUS/1, IP/Q4/RUS/1 Fédération de Russie États-Unis d'Amérique Additional 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 our question 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). 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 Article 14bis(2)(b).
The provisions of Part 4 of the CC RF contain the references to the "contrary or special conditions" as provided by Article 14 bis (2) (b) of the Berne Convention. According to subpara 4 of para 2 of Article 1263 of the CC RF the producer of audiovisual work shall be entitled to an audiovisual work as a whole, unless otherwise follows from the contracts concluded by him with the authors of an audiovisual work (director, script writer and composer). In this case, the right to use audiovisual work will oblige the user to obtain the consent not only from the producer of an audiovisual work, but also from the author of such work.
09/02/2016
IP/Q/RUS/1, IP/Q2/RUS/1, IP/Q3/RUS/1, IP/Q4/RUS/1 Fédération de Russie États-Unis d'Amérique Additional Follow-Up to Question 10: We would like to confirm our understanding of the application of the three-step test to exceptions for parody and caricatures. The Russian Federation's response noted that courts are generally guided by the three-step test when considering parodies and caricatures. Please confirm our understating that in Russian law, parodies and caricatures are generally considered to comprise exceptions to copyright law, but that courts must apply the three step test when considering whether the parody or caricature exception is applicable in any particular case. Also, please confirm our understanding of the Russian case referenced in the Government's response. It appears that the court decided that the defendant's use of the musical work was an infringement because the musical work was not a subject of parody even though the music video itself was a parody.
We confirm your understanding of three-step test applied to exceptions for parodies and caricatures. In relation to the case on the claim of "Pervoe muzykalnoe izdatelstvo" (English: "First music publishing company"), LLC to "MTF Production", LLC the court concluded that the subject of parody was certain elements (dances) of music band performance, recorded by technical means. It was dancing at the center of stage number. Musical works (with text) accompanying the parody performance are not the subject of parody and thus their use resulted in a violation of the copyrights of right holders.
09/02/2016
IP/Q/RUS/1, IP/Q2/RUS/1, IP/Q3/RUS/1, IP/Q4/RUS/1 Fédération de Russie États-Unis d'Amérique Additional Follow-Up to Question 13: The Russian Federation's response explains that under the Russian Civil Code exclusive rights for works from a database and rights for a database itself are separate and "not absorbing each other." Please confirm our understanding that a copyrighted work that happens to be included in a database retains its separate copyright and that the right in the database only protects the overall selection, coordination and arrangement.
According to Article 1260 of the CC RF the author of database owns the copyright in the selection or arrangement of materials (compilation). The inclusion of the work in the database requires the consent of the author or other right holder of the original work. Author of the work, included in a database, has the right to use his work, regardless of the database, unless otherwise provided by the contract with the author of the database
09/02/2016
IP/Q/RUS/1, IP/Q2/RUS/1, IP/Q3/RUS/1, IP/Q4/RUS/1 Fédération de Russie États-Unis d'Amérique 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).
The provisions of Part 4 of the CC RF contain the references to the "contrary or special conditions" as provided by Article 14 bis (2) (b) of the Berne Convention. According to subpara 4 of para 2 of Article 1263 of the CC RF the producer of audiovisual work shall be entitled to an audiovisual work as a whole, unless otherwise follows from the contracts concluded by him with the authors of an audiovisual work (director, script writer and composer). In this case, the right to use audiovisual work will oblige the user to obtain the consent not only from the producer of an audiovisual work, but also from the author of such work.
09/02/2016

Page 17 de 677   |   Nombre de documents : 13533

 
Réinitialiser