Copyrights to non-creative works
Written as an answer and addition to this article.
There are some works, the creation of which takes a significant amount of effort, but at the same time they are not works of art. It:
In European law there is a doctrine called sweat of the brow (literally "by the sweat of the brow "). It provides authors with similar non-creative works with rights similar to copyright (not even related, which are usually much shorter, namely, copyright). The American courts rejected this doctrine, at first denying the copyright of telephone books , and then of copyright on photographic reproductions of paintings (i.e., copies of paintings obtained by photographing them); However, for the sake of justice, it is worth noting that the latter, most likely, will not be protected in the UK .
This kind of rights has both positive and negative side.
The positive side here is approximately the same as that of the copyright and related rights. It lies in the fact that the authors of such works (photographers, making copies of paintings, recording studios, doing restoration of old recordings) have the motivation to create these works. Indeed, if, immediately after the release, the restored recording will float to the Internet and no one will buy it - why should it be restored?
')
The downside is that works that are protected by such rights are fundamentally non-creative (for example, the red circle, or the ABBYY logo, which is not protected by copyright). From this it follows that the authorship of a work is often difficult to establish; moreover, in some cases, people with the same qualifications will give out almost identical jobs.
The opinion of the author of this article is that the legislation should separate this right from the copyright (as is done with related rights) and establish special rules according to which such works are protected and not protected, as well as reduced terms of protection of such works.
There are some works, the creation of which takes a significant amount of effort, but at the same time they are not works of art. It:
- Telephone directories and other databases
- Digitization and restoration of various works (photo reproduction of pictures, digitization of old phonograms)
In European law there is a doctrine called sweat of the brow (literally "by the sweat of the brow "). It provides authors with similar non-creative works with rights similar to copyright (not even related, which are usually much shorter, namely, copyright). The American courts rejected this doctrine, at first denying the copyright of telephone books , and then of copyright on photographic reproductions of paintings (i.e., copies of paintings obtained by photographing them); However, for the sake of justice, it is worth noting that the latter, most likely, will not be protected in the UK .
This kind of rights has both positive and negative side.
The positive side here is approximately the same as that of the copyright and related rights. It lies in the fact that the authors of such works (photographers, making copies of paintings, recording studios, doing restoration of old recordings) have the motivation to create these works. Indeed, if, immediately after the release, the restored recording will float to the Internet and no one will buy it - why should it be restored?
')
The downside is that works that are protected by such rights are fundamentally non-creative (for example, the red circle, or the ABBYY logo, which is not protected by copyright). From this it follows that the authorship of a work is often difficult to establish; moreover, in some cases, people with the same qualifications will give out almost identical jobs.
The opinion of the author of this article is that the legislation should separate this right from the copyright (as is done with related rights) and establish special rules according to which such works are protected and not protected, as well as reduced terms of protection of such works.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/121995/
All Articles