Criteria for Copyrightability in Russian Copyright Doctrine and Judicial Practice


https://doi.org/10.17589/2309-8678-2016-4-2-26-61

Full Text:


Abstract

This article analyzes the current state of the debate on the minimum level of creativity needed for works to be copyrightable, including dominant principles in Russian jurisprudence and judicial practice, principal trends and contradictions that arise in the course of the application of various criteria for copyrightability. An analysis of the judicial practice of recent years warrants the conclusion that standards of creativity as a criterion for copyrightability have dropped drastically. Today’s standards are similar to those of the former American ‘sweat of the brow’ doctrine. But, unlike foreign legal systems that set comparatively low standards of protectability, the Russian judiciary has not yet evolved mechanisms of compensation for risks of monopolization of public domain content. First of all, there is no practice of granting exclusive rights to a work that is similar to an earlier work but has been created independently. Secondly, the practice of refusing protection to non-unique, standard, generally known, and generally available content is dying out. Thirdly, there is currently a trend for giving a large scope of protection to works of low authorship. As a result, exclusive rights are granted to standard or generally accessible content – content that must belong to the public domain – which puts unjustified restrictions on the creative activities of other authors. Moreover, it makes their legal status unpredictable as it establishes a basis for unintended copyright violations being penalized. This amounts to a classical case of overprotection.


About the Author

Andrey Kashanin
National Research University – Higher School of Economics(Moscow, Russia)
Russian Federation

Deputy Director of Institute of LegalStudies, National Research University – Higher School of Economics (3 Bolshoy Trekhsvyatitelskiy pereulok, 109028, Moscow, Russia



References

1. Berking, Christina. Die Unterscheidung von Form und Inhalt im Urheberrecht, 83–84 (Nomos 2002).

2. Dreier, Thomas, & Schulze, Gernot. Urheberrechtsgesetz Kommentar, § 2, Rn. 17 (C.H. Beck 2004).

3. Girth, Peter. Individualitat und Zufall im Urheberrecht, 48 UFITA (1974).

4. Hubmann, Heinrich. Das Recht des schopferischen Geistes (De Gruyter 1954).

5. Hubmann, Heinrich. Urheber- und Verlagsrecht (6 ed., C.H. Beck 1987).

6. Kashanin, Andrey. Debates on Criteria of Copyrightability in Russia, 2(1) Russian Law Journal (2014).

7. Kummer, Max. Das Urheberrechtlich Schutzbare werk (Stampfli & Cie 1968).

8. Nimmer, Melville, & Nimmer, David. Nimmer on Copyright, § 13.03, LEXIS (2004).

9. Schmieder, Hans-Heinrich. Geistige Schöpfung als Auswahl und Bekenntnis, 52 UFITA (1969).

10. Stamer, Britta. Der Schutz der Idee unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Unterhaltungsproduktionen für das Fernsehen (Nomos 2007).

11. Ulmer, Eugen. Urheber- und Verlagsrecht (3d ed., Springer 1980).

12. Корнеев В.А. Программы для ЭВМ, базы данных и топологии интегральных микросхем как объект интеллектуальных прав [Korneev V.A. Programmi dlya EVM, bazi dannih i topologii integral`nih mikroshem kak ob`ekt intellektual`nih prav [Vladimir A. Korneyev, Computer Programs, Databases and Integrated Circuit Topologies as Copyrightable Works]] (Statut 2010).

13. Савельев А.И. Актуальные вопросы судебной практики в сфере оборота программного обеспечения в России // Вестник Высшего Арбитражного Суда Российской Федерации. 2013. № 4. [Savel`ev A.I. Aktual`nie voprosi sudebnoy praktiki v sfere oborota programmnogo obespecheniya v Rossii // Vestnik Visshego Arbitrajnogo Suda Rossiyskoy Federatsii. 2013. № 4. [Alexander I. Savelyev, Key Issues of Judicial Practice in Dealing with the Software Market in Russia, 4 Bulletin of the Supreme Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation (2013)]].

14. Сергеев А.П. Право интеллектуальной собственности в Российской Федерации [Sergeev A.P. Pravo intellektual`noy sobstvennosti v Rossiyskoy Federatsii [Alexander P. Sergeyev, Intellectual Property Law in the Russian Federation]] (2d ed., Velbi 2003).

15. Хохлов В.А. Авторское право: законодательство, теория, практика [Hohlov V.A. Avtorskoe pravo: zakonodatel`stvo, teoriya, praktika [Vadim A. Khokhlov, Copyright: Legislation, Theory and Practice]] (Gorodets 2008).


Supplementary files

For citation: Kashanin A. Criteria for Copyrightability in Russian Copyright Doctrine and Judicial Practice. Russian Law Journal. 2016;4(2):26-61. https://doi.org/10.17589/2309-8678-2016-4-2-26-61

Views: 845

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


ISSN 2309-8678 (Print)
ISSN 2312-3605 (Online)