There are also disputes in judicial practice when a claim is brought by one organization for managing the author's property rights on a collective basis, and the defendant has a license agreement with another similar organization.

Thus, NGO "K" filed a lawsuit with the court against IP "C" for the recovery of monetary compensation in the amount of 4,756,800 tenge, arguing that on September 13, 2015, a public performance of works by authors P. (C), B. (C) was listened to in the premises of the restaurant "T" without concluding an appropriate contract. the use of technical means. By the decision of the Council of Economic and Social Council of Almaty dated April 6, 2016, the claim was dismissed. The reason for the denial of the claim was that the plaintiff had not proven the fact of the defendant's illegal use of copyright objects. According to article 16 of the Law, the author or other copyright holder has the right to remuneration for each type of use of the work, the amount and calculation procedure of which are established by the copyright agreement, as well as agreements concluded by organizations that manage the property rights of authors on a collective basis. The obligations of organizations that manage property rights on a collective basis are provided for in article 46 of the Law. The activities of an organization that manages property rights on a collective basis are carried out in the interests of the holders of copyright and related rights represented by such an organization. By virtue of the requirements of article 46-1 of the Law, an organization managing property rights on a collective basis has the right to obtain a certificate of accreditation from an authorized body for carrying out activities in the areas of collective management provided for in paragraph 3 of Article 43 of the Law.

In his objections to the claim, the defendant pointed out that according to the information of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan, along with the plaintiff, NGO "S" also belongs to accredited property rights management organizations, and its management scope is broader. The court of first instance found that the defendant, IP "Ts", concluded with NGO "S" an agreement on granting the right to use the published works through public performance and remuneration payments No. 647/15 dated August 1, 2015, according to which the association grants the user, under a non-exclusive license, the right to use the published works through public performance, and also determines the amount, terms and procedure for payment of remuneration by the user to copyright holders. From the data of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan available in the case file, it was established that the beginning of the accreditation period of NGO "C" dates back to an earlier period – from November 15, 2010 (11/15/2010 – 11/14/2015), while the deadline for the start of the plaintiff's accreditation is from July 2, 2015 (07/20/2015–07/20/2020). NGO "S" had powers in accordance with the Law until November 14, 2015. In accordance with paragraph 2 of article 46-1 of the Law, an organization that manages property rights on a collective basis and has received an accreditation certificate has the right, along with managing the rights of those copyright holders with whom it has concluded rights management agreements, to collect remuneration for those copyright holders with whom such agreements have not been concluded.  Thus, as of September 13, 2015, the defendant had a license agreement with an organization that manages property rights on a collective basis, which was accredited in several areas of collective management, therefore, the fact of the defendant's illegal use of copyright objects was not proven. The Board of Appeal for Civil Cases of the Almaty City Court agreed with the conclusions of the court of first instance that the plaintiff had not proven the fact of illegal use of copyright objects by the defendant and, by a decision of June 29, 2016, upheld the decision of the Almaty City Council of April 6, 2016 in this case. The above examples of dispute resolution practices in this category seem to be correct. However, there is a misuse and interpretation of substantive law norms by the court. 

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