Copyright does not apply to the actual ideas, concepts, principles, methods, systems, processes, and facts.
The objects of copyright are screenplays. In accordance with Article 977 of the Civil Code, the author of the work owns personal non-property rights.: 1) the right to be recognized as the author of a work and to demand such recognition when using it, excluding recognition of the authorship of other persons for the same work (the right of authorship), 2) the right to use the work under one's own name, under a pseudonym or anonymously (the right to an author's name), 3) the right to make changes and additions to one's work and to protect the work, including its name, from being made by anyone without the author's consent during publication., public performance or other use of the work (the right to inviolability of the work). By virtue of the requirements of article 9 of the Law, copyright in a work of science, literature and art arises by virtue of the fact of its creation. For the creation and exercise of copyright, registration of the work, other special design of the work, or compliance with any formalities are not required. R. appealed to the Esil District Court of Astana with a claim against JSC "N", CHU "HC "B" for the recovery of a sum of 700,000 tenge in solidarity for the illegal use of the script; the amount of 1,000,000 tenge for the broadcast of the video at the home games of HC "B"; the cost of paying for the services of a representative in the amount of 100,000 tenge; the obligation on the defendants to suspend the broadcast of the video until the consent of the author is obtained.
Copyright does not apply to the actual ideas, concepts, principles, methods, systems, processes, and facts.
The plaintiff motivated his claims by the fact that on March 6, 2014, he created an advertising video called "S... N... T..." On April 24, 2014, he received a certificate of state registration of rights to the object (scenario) copyright in the Committee on Intellectual Property Rights of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The script was adapted for the railway companies, first of all, he offered cooperation to JSC "N", to which he handed over the script and the commercial proposal. However, there were no messages from JSC "N" about the acceptance of this proposal. On September 6, 2014, during the HC "B" home game against HC "A", the plaintiff witnessed the broadcast of an edited video clip based on his script. The concept of the video was not changed, the word "Reliability" was replaced with "Professionalism" and the word order was changed ("T... S... P..."). By the decision of the Yessil District Court of Astana on January 28, 2015, the claim was dismissed on the grounds that the plaintiff had not proved that the video clip broadcast by HCB in September 2014 at the home games of the new season was created according to his script. On the contrary, the defendants' claims that the promo video was produced by TV channel "A" based on the original archival materials provided by JSC "N" and CHU HC "B", which used the concept of previous years, in particular, the video clip "B", a compilation dedicated to the 110th anniversary of the Kazakhstan railway roads, "Mechanical Engineering": 30-second timekeeping, dynamic shots, the use of frames of traveling trains alternating with a hockey game, musical background, memorable slogan divided into three blocks, the use of animated logos of JSC "N" and HC "B", The general trend towards associativity with strength, power, speed, reliability, professionalism, desire for victory, and confidence in victory was confirmed at the court hearing. The court's decision was not appealed to higher authorities. On July 7, 2015, the Saryarkinsky District Court of Astana considered a civil case against G. to the Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Kazakhstan on the recognition of personal non-property and exclusive proprietary copyrights to four works, the restoration of the situation that existed before December 4, 2014, the obligation to provide adequate assistance in the commercialization of industrial and innovative projects, and the obligation to pay compensation in the amount of 18,920,000 tenge. The claim is motivated by the fact that the defendant received and used undisclosed information on four products – manure removal by two inclined conveyors mounted diagonally, a technical assistance unit "I", a vacuum pump "I", a bread baking cabinet. From the case file it can be seen that since 1995, the plaintiff G. The installation of a second inclined conveyor for manure removal on livestock farms, the use of our own proposals for improving a vacuum pump, a mobile electric welding machine and a bread baking cabinet are proposed for implementation in the Kostanay region.
Kostanay branch of K LLP submitted negative opinions on the plaintiff's proposals due to the fact that similar proposals are known, but the proposed ones do not meet the requirements for achieving a positive economic effect, as reported to the plaintiff on December 20, 2014. By a court decision dated July 7, 2015, which was left unchanged by the decision of the Astana City Court of Appeal dated September 10, 2015, the claim was dismissed due to the fact that the plaintiff did not provide acceptable and reliable evidence indisputably confirming the violation of his copyrights by the defendant. In addition, in accordance with Part 1 of Article 991 of the Civil Code, the rights to an invention, utility model and industrial design are protected by a patent. However, the plaintiff has not submitted a corresponding patent confirming his legal status as the owner of the above-mentioned intellectual property rights. Thus, from the analysis of the above examples of judicial practice, it follows that in cases involving the contesting of copyright rights, plaintiffs cannot always prove the fact of unlawful use by the defendants of copyright objects belonging to them and the actual fact of authorship of certain objects, in the event that the specified right is not confirmed by the appropriate certificate. While the defendants provide indisputable evidence of the legality of their actions and evidence that they did not use the copyright object belonging to the plaintiff.
Attention!
Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.
For more information, please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085.
Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office Court Cases
