The authors accuse the organizers of the Olympics in piracy, while the deputies change the law

It is obvious to everyone that laws in Russia are passed impulsively. Every time when in the media there is information that something out of the ordinary has happened, another speaker elected by the people appears, who begins to actively wave his hands in the walls of the State Duma and push through another law prohibiting the existence of some phenomenon. Of course, all such initiatives are taken in the public interest. It is a pity that caring people who choose their day and night to think about how to protect the poor Russian people spend their precious energy unwisely. The need for copyright reform, which no longer meets the needs of society, is increasingly being addressed by various IT specialists, lawyers, video bloggers, authors and users. In early February, the Pirate Party of Russia, the Association of Internet Users and Roskomsvoboda as a symmetrical response to the prohibitive laws on the circulation of content on the network launched the Campaign for the Reform of Copyright in the Digital Age . This is another attempt by civil society to attract wide public attention to copyright issues that sound today with new relevance.

However, at times it seems that it is absolutely impossible to shift the immovable legislation on copyright, formed in the 19th century. But we see the ease with which it is possible to make appropriate changes to existing laws when it comes to the interests of public authorities and the largest lobbyists in the media business. So this time, a new bill was promptly introduced in connection with copyright infringement scandals during the Winter Olympics in Sochi.


Krapivner against the organizers of the Olympics
')
The co-authors of the unofficial anthem of the Olympics from Yekaterinburg were the first to allege a violation of their copyright. The author of the text of the song “Again in Russia”, infringed on his rights, Roman Krapivner declared that the track was published without his permission as part of the “Official Album of the Olympic Games Sochi 2014”

Initially it was assumed that the collection will be distributed free of charge, however, what was the authors' surprise when they found out that the organizers also sold the popular album through iTunes without paying a penny to the authors. On the album, the original track was presented by Valeria , the copyright and related rights to which, according to the authors, were also not transferred.



When we first saw this disc with Anna, we were really stunned! Our composition (already performed by Valeria) was in the first place in this collection! It could mean only one thing - our Olympic hit was recognized as the best and the main among all ten hit winners! ”

Bringing the track to the public and selling it at a price of 15 rubles. in the Apple service performed by Valerie, obviously, is a violation of the exclusive rights of the authors.

Currently, the authors decide to go to court in connection with the violation of their exclusive rights.

Zemfira against the organizers of the Olympics

The second copyright infringement scandal during the Olympics was Zemfira’s public statement, which accused the director-general of Channel One, Konstantin Ernst, of violating her copyright on the song “Want” during the opening ceremony of the XXII Olympic Winter Games. Zemfira believes that her rights were violated, because She did not give consent to the reproduction of the remix on her track.

However, her statements to her retorted that Art. 1277 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation provides that without the consent of the author or other copyright holder and without paying remuneration, a public performance of a musical work is allowed during an official or religious ceremony or funeral.

However, some lawyers commenting on this situation came to the conclusion that the opening ceremony of the Olympiad does not refer to the official ceremony, but is part of a commercial event, since provided for the sale of tickets, and therefore the requirements of authors and artists can be fully justified. But even if we agree with this, in both cases, the authors have very little chance of success under the current Russian legislation governing the collective management of copyright, because the organizers of a public event do not need to enter into agreements with the authors. RAO and WIPO may collect money for the use of works in compulsion and without prior conclusion of a contract with the authors and artists themselves by virtue of Article 1224 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Therefore, it is considered that all the royalties were paid by the organizers in due order (at least they should have been paid under the concluded agreements with CCOs), and RAO and WIPO should pay their own money at the end of the reporting period.

MP Seleznev stood up in defense of Ernst and the organizers of the Olympics


However, Valery Seleznev, a deputy from the LDPR faction, decided to cover up the rear of the government and, in a radical way, to limit any further claims of the authors and artists in the occurrence of such incidents. On February 21, he submitted a bill to the State Duma providing for the expansion of cases of free public performance of musical works. Thus, according to the bill , when events are held with the participation of senior government officials, the performance of musical works is allowed without the consent of the author and without paying him remuneration. Mr. Seleznev intuitively understands that there is something wrong with copyright today, but unfortunately, he is not thinking in that direction. The adoption of such a bill is devoid of all meaning. It will not help either the authors or the artists. At the same time, the proposed amendment to the law introduces a very strange condition, under which the highest statesmen (and who they are, the draft law does not disclose) are separated from all other content users and may violate copyrights on their own corporate parties and parties. And what will be the next step? Establishment of other exemptions from civil, administrative and criminal liability for senior officials? Is it really so the need for reform on the part of some deputies?