Producers, copyright holders and Mosfilm are afraid of free licenses and trying to stop the "revolutionary" amendments to the Civil Code
The text was received from the Russian Producers Guild, a member of Wikipedia Ipaat . The text states that the clause on free licenses may cause irreparable economic damage to the interests of right holders, and so the amendments we expect should be stopped . The most interesting under the cut.
These proposals represent the agreed position of the Producers Guild of Russia, the Russian Anti-Piracy Organization for the Protection of Rights to Audiovisual Works (RAPO) and the Federal State Unitary Enterprise Mosfilm Cinema Concern.
...
Article 1233 of the Civil Code
The project proposes to add art. 1233 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, clause six, providing for the right of the right holder to publicly announce the provision to any person of the opportunity to use the result of intellectual activity belonging to him free of charge under the terms and conditions specified by him.
')
The introduction of this norm seems to us unreasonable and extremely dangerous from the point of view of its practical implementation, in particular, with regard to the use of audiovisual works.
The current edition of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation does not provide for any restrictions for entering into licensing agreements for the use of the object of copyright or related rights with an indefinite number of persons by means of a public offer made by the right holder, and its acceptance by any interested person. In this regard, it is unclear the fundamental purpose of this norm.
At the same time, the introduction of this provision may entail adverse consequences for right holders, since it can be used for fraudulent purposes. And the experience of unfair use of ambiguous legal norms in our country is enormous: during the period of the RF Law “On Copyright and Related Rights”, due to inaccurate wording of the provisions of the law regarding cases when it is possible to exercise copyright and related rights on a collective basis, many quasi-societies were created collective management of rights that issued blanket licenses to anyone who wanted to use any musical and audiovisual works. The danger of introducing the norm under consideration is also that the responsibility for illegally posting information about granting a license (without the knowledge of the copyright holder) is not provided, and users of such licenses will be able to avoid responsibility for violation of exclusive rights, hiding behind the status of a bona fide purchaser.
In support of the need to introduce open source licenses for use on the Internet, interested parties often refer to the experience of issuing Creative Commons licenses. We want to note that the essence of the activities of this organization is to issue licenses for free use in respect of works registered in the Internet registry of this organization. At the same time, by issuing licenses for free use in certain limits, this organization declines all responsibility for possible violations of copyright and related rights. In fact, a system of free use of works is introduced, parallel to the system of exemptions from the exclusive right provided by law, which undermines its foundations. We believe that this experience can not serve as a basis for changing the existing rules of civil legislation in the field of intellectual property.
Given that, in the film industry, the issuance of open licenses is in principle impossible, the introduction of such a rule may cause irreparable economic damage to the interests of the right holders when open licenses are offered on their behalf. The introduction of such a norm may entail particularly serious consequences for the use of audiovisual works on the Internet.
If with regard to software, for which the Civil Code of the Russian Federation provides for voluntary registration, the validity of an open license can be confirmed by registering it with the registration authority, it is inadmissible to use such license issuing mechanisms for other works specifically in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.
In view of the above, it seems necessary to exclude paragraph 6 of Article 1233 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation proposed by the Draft.
These proposals represent the agreed position of the Producers Guild of Russia, the Russian Anti-Piracy Organization for the Protection of Rights to Audiovisual Works (RAPO) and the Federal State Unitary Enterprise Mosfilm Cinema Concern.
...
Article 1233 of the Civil Code
The project proposes to add art. 1233 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, clause six, providing for the right of the right holder to publicly announce the provision to any person of the opportunity to use the result of intellectual activity belonging to him free of charge under the terms and conditions specified by him.
')
The introduction of this norm seems to us unreasonable and extremely dangerous from the point of view of its practical implementation, in particular, with regard to the use of audiovisual works.
The current edition of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation does not provide for any restrictions for entering into licensing agreements for the use of the object of copyright or related rights with an indefinite number of persons by means of a public offer made by the right holder, and its acceptance by any interested person. In this regard, it is unclear the fundamental purpose of this norm.
At the same time, the introduction of this provision may entail adverse consequences for right holders, since it can be used for fraudulent purposes. And the experience of unfair use of ambiguous legal norms in our country is enormous: during the period of the RF Law “On Copyright and Related Rights”, due to inaccurate wording of the provisions of the law regarding cases when it is possible to exercise copyright and related rights on a collective basis, many quasi-societies were created collective management of rights that issued blanket licenses to anyone who wanted to use any musical and audiovisual works. The danger of introducing the norm under consideration is also that the responsibility for illegally posting information about granting a license (without the knowledge of the copyright holder) is not provided, and users of such licenses will be able to avoid responsibility for violation of exclusive rights, hiding behind the status of a bona fide purchaser.
In support of the need to introduce open source licenses for use on the Internet, interested parties often refer to the experience of issuing Creative Commons licenses. We want to note that the essence of the activities of this organization is to issue licenses for free use in respect of works registered in the Internet registry of this organization. At the same time, by issuing licenses for free use in certain limits, this organization declines all responsibility for possible violations of copyright and related rights. In fact, a system of free use of works is introduced, parallel to the system of exemptions from the exclusive right provided by law, which undermines its foundations. We believe that this experience can not serve as a basis for changing the existing rules of civil legislation in the field of intellectual property.
Given that, in the film industry, the issuance of open licenses is in principle impossible, the introduction of such a rule may cause irreparable economic damage to the interests of the right holders when open licenses are offered on their behalf. The introduction of such a norm may entail particularly serious consequences for the use of audiovisual works on the Internet.
If with regard to software, for which the Civil Code of the Russian Federation provides for voluntary registration, the validity of an open license can be confirmed by registering it with the registration authority, it is inadmissible to use such license issuing mechanisms for other works specifically in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.
In view of the above, it seems necessary to exclude paragraph 6 of Article 1233 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation proposed by the Draft.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/111090/
All Articles