Meaning of Law 9.610/98 Based on Grounded Theory

2010

This Dossier collects proceedings of the second edition of the Special Workshop on Law and Literature, held on September 18, in Beijing, as part of the 24th World Conference of Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy (IVR). The workshop was coordinated by M. Paola Mittica and chaired in Beijing by Vincenzo Ferrari, president of the Italian Society for the Philosophy of Law. You can find here the contributions by Vera Karam de Chueiri, Jose Manuel Aroso Linhares, Monica Sette Lopes, Alessia Magliacane, M. Paola Mittica, Marzio Pieri, Istvan H. Szilagyi, Alberto Vespaziani, Irem Aki, Wojciech Zaluski.

International journal of research and review, 2021

Moral Rights and Economic Rights are Exclusive Rights that cannot be separated in relation to Copyrights. Copyright protects all forms of work, one of which is Film Script Writing as referred to in Article 40 paragraph (1) of Law Number 28 of 2014 concerning Copyright (UUHC). One of the forms of infringement on the copyrighted work of the film script is the reuse of the film script without the permission of the creator, resulting in the loss of the moral rights and economic rights of the creator. The problems in this study are: how to use the principles of Moral Rights and Economic Rights of the Author in claiming protection against Copyright infringement on Film Script Writing, how legal remedies can be taken in the form of legal protection for the Author of Film Script Writing used without permission, and how analysis of the Judge's decision on the violation of Moral Rights for the Creator in the dispute of the film "Benyamin Biang Kerok" based on the decision of the Panel of Judges Number 09/Pdt.Sus-HKI/Cipta/ 2018/PN Niaga Jkt. Pst. This research is descriptive analytical with a normative juridical approach. Qualitative analysis methods are used to process and analyze research data and then draw conclusions using deductive methods through a normative framework. The results of the research show: the use of the Principles of Moral Rights and Economic Rights of the Creator as a claim for infringement of Copyright

Intellectual property is a controversial subject. Digital downloads and file sharing have made it easy than ever to create unauthorized copies of original works and distribute them. Some maintain that because of the intangible and abstract nature of Intellectual Property that it is metaphysically not property. It raises several fundamental questions such as what is property, to begin with, and how is it related to ownership? What is ownership and is it just? How does ownership play a role regarding ownership as an ethical system which is primarily concerned with distributive justice? Before any attempts to argue for or against Intellectual Property are made a right definition of property must be determined. Until this is accomplished, there can be no strong ethical arguments about whether one may own Intellectual Property. In truth, there are no moral arguments about whether any form of property may be owned. Ownership is an ethical system of distribution and is a primary concern in everyday dealings between human beings. Questions such as who should own property, should there be private property, and what is considered appropriate behaviors are determined by a property right? These are all primary considerations that may only be answered by the definition of property. The primary goal of this paper is to illuminate its boundaries to build a case for the ethical private ownership of intangible, and tangible objects. Exploring property from a rational and methodological point provide answers to practical questions about property laws and economic rights. This paper attempts to explore what the first principles of property should be from the view of the Austrian School of Economics and the Lockean Meta-Ethic.

2014

The intellectual property protection represents a source of violation of fundamental rights and civil liberties, i.e. the right to protection of personal data, the right to privacy, freedom to send and receive information, freedom of information, freedom to contract and freedom to carry out economic activities (freedom of commerce). The best guideline is provided by the CJEU's and US Supreme Court's case law that are highly complex and nuanced, not denying in any way the importance of intellectual property. In this field we have no absolute but relative rights corresponding to a propter rem obligation of the owner of the intellectual creation's material support (i.e. electronic support), which cannot reproduce it without a breach of the author's patrimonial and moral rights, considering also that the intellectual creation, by its nature, cannot be appropriated by a person. This impossibility of appropriating a piece of work is not just a consequence of its intangibility, but it also derives from the relationship between the intellectual creations and society, universal patrimony and knowledge.

MODERN RESEARCHES: PROGRESS OF THE LEGISLATION OF UKRAINE AND EXPERIENCE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION - Collective monograph, 2020

The essay shows the most important regulations on moral rights primarily in the Hungarian copyright law, with a brief outlook to the German, British and French copyright law regimes. In the article I put the emphasis on the right to integrity, which is the most complex moralright. I present how the right to integrity can show its different faces in relation to dramatic works, architectural works, works of fine arts, literary works and music works. As it can be seen in the article, this right is prevailing in different ways in relation to the different forms of copyright works. This situation can raise questions of interpretation and problems in the practical enforcement of the right, because in most of the European countries there are no separate regulations for the integrity of all kind of works. It is common that there is one general rule about the right to integrity and this is supplemented with another one or two integrity rules for example about performers’ right or architectural works, as we see it in the Hungarian copyright law as well. At the same time, it is important to emphasize that there is no need to have separate integrity rules for all the types of work, because it would make the essence and spirit of integrity unserious and in the same time rigid. Therefore, it is not a real problem if a copyright act provides only one rule about the protection of the unity of the work, if it can be interpreted adequately in the judicial practice to serve its original purpose: everyone shall respect the author and the spirit, the message of the work.

Материалы 1-го международного симпозиума «Социальная теория и проблемы информационного общества» 30-31 октября 2009 года. Ижевск, 2009. С. 179-182., 2009

Latypov I.А., Ph.D., docent (Udmurt State University) Prahlad S. R., Ph.D., Professor (English and foreign languages University, Hyderabad, India) MORAL RIGHTS INVOLVED IN COPYRIGHT: PHILOSOPHICAL ASPECTS The main problem in this study is the following: what rights are available for intellectuals as creators of informational resources? A violation of the moral rights involved in the ownership of copyright is a violation of human rights. And this is not only a legal or moral problem, it is philosophical also. That’s why this paper is devoted to the philosophical aspects of the problem, mentioned above. It is asserted in this work that the most available of rights of intellectuals are moral rights. This conclusion is arrived at through an analysis of specific and general features of moral rights involved in ownership of copyright. The most important reason for the topicality of researched theme is that the copyright (as a kind of intellectual property rights) is stated mostly for publishers, booksellers, owners of mass-media, investors, etc. But intellectuals as creators can get moral rights involved in the copyright. In England the Copyright Act (the Statute of Anne) was introduced for published works at 1709 (but Charter of Incorporation for printers and booksellers was passed in England in 1556-1557 ). So rights of printers and booksellers were defended earlier than rights of authors. In comparison now (for example), in India “Copyright is a form of intellectual property protection granted under Indian law to the creators of original works of authorship such as literary works (including computer programs, tables and compilations including computer databases which may be expressed in words, codes, schemes or in any other form, including a machine readable medium), dramatic, musical and artistic works, cinematographic films and sound recordings” . Now in Russia and in India any author enjoyed moral rights (right of authorship, right to a name, right to public disclosure, right to protect author's reputation) and proprietary rights (right of reproduction, distribution, import, public demonstration, public performance, translation, revision etc.). Infringement of copyright entailed civil, criminal and/or administrative liability. But as for any published literary work, its author is the potential victim of intellectual rights violations because of common negative attitude to any legal proceedings. So many unknown authors prefer to be so-called literary slaves (i. e. intellectuals hired for writing some works, especially so-called pop-fiction novels; understandably, names of these actual authors are never mentioned). Some former freelancers (i. e. independent creators of software as a kind of copyright objects) prefer to be hired by some large corporations, even in the field of IT (information technology). International concepts of moral rights involved in ownership of copyright are realized in Indian legislative acts on a basis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Kala Thairani asserted that `those rights should be afforded legal protection in order to prevent unlawful reproduction of their works. … The moral justification for providing legal protection is based on principle that as in the case of any other form of property in any article or substance acquired through mechanical labor, a man is entitled to the fruits of his intellectual creation which is the result of his talent and hard work. ... the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 27) says: “Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author”` . From this general (Universal) basis of the concepts of moral rights different legislative acts in many countries derive several kinds of moral rights. This European continental idea of moral rights was adopted in the Indian Copyright Law also. In comparison in India: `Section 57 of the Act defines the two basic “moral rights” of an author. These are: (i) Right of paternity, and (ii) Right of integrity. The right of paternity refers to a right of an author to claim authorship of work and a right to prevent all others from claiming authorship of his work. Right of integrity empowers the author to prevent distortion, mutilation or other alterations of his work, or any other action in relation to the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation` . At the same time, intellectuals became hired workers in the field of intellectual activity. And as other workers intellectuals have no meaningful resource except their own work . The main possible property for intellectuals is the intellectual property. For intellectuals creating works of art, science and literature, ownership of a copyright is the only way to safeguard their intellectual rights. And the most available of rights of intellectuals are moral rights. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Thairani, Kala. Copyright: Indian Experience. Mumbai, 1987. 2. Translation and Copyright, Ed. Bahri U.S. Bahri Publications, New Delhi, 1996. 3. Latypov I.A. Social-philosophical aspects of moral rights of authors// Science. Philosophy. Society. Proceedings of the 5-th All-Russia philosophical congress. Novosibirsk, 2009. Vol.2. P. 459-460. (in Russian). 4. http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/room/view_article.asp?name=../articles/The%20History%20of%20Copyright.htm 5. http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l195-Copyright-Law-in-India.html

2009

Authorship and creativity are products of authentic human expression that the law must encourage in order for works to be produced. The commercial market for literary and artistic works encourages the creation of diverse works to meet popular consumer demand. Focus on popular demand may, however, result in works that lack social, educational and cultural value or utility. Natural law philosophy suggests that the copyright system should be an ethical and moral institution that would, in turn, promote the progress of society through authentic authorship. While economic incentives offer authors market rewards that may facilitate the creation and dissemination, economic rights represent only a portion of rights, which the copyright system should recognize in the author. This paper makes the case for the recognition of property rights in the author's creation, which originating from an author's the act of creativity and authorship, is a right to the author's literary and artistic creation that is good against the world, and, if protected, will result in authentic expressions of greater significance upon the progress of science and the useful arts in society.

SSRN Electronic Journal, 2010

Copyright laws throughout the world are copyright holder centric and present a very fragmented source to comprehend the rights of users, and in particular of consumers owning copies of copyrighted works. Although in recent years, a growing number of commentators have worked towards defining the place of users in copyright law, little attention has been devoted to the nature and justifications of copy ownership of copyrighted works. This paper applies property and copyright theory to define and justify the existence of copy ownership of copyrighted works. It seeks to carve out in clearer terms the place of copy ownership legally and normatively, to offer a counterbalance to a predominant copyright holder centric approach to copyright law. Part One of this paper lays the theoretical framework of property and copyright theory. Part Two applies the theoretical framework to define the nature of the copy of a copyrighted works, as well as its justifications. It explores the ramifications of copyright acting as a property limitation rule to copy ownership, and how copy ownership can also act as a property-limitation rule of copyright. A travers le monde, les lois sur le droit d'auteur sont centrées sur les détenteurs de ces droits et présentent donc une façon très fragmentée de concevoir les droits des utilisateurs et, plus particulièrement, des consommateurs qui possèdent des exemplaires d'oeuvres protégées par le droit d'auteur. Récemment, un nombre grandissant de commentateurs cherchent à mieux définir le statut des utilisateurs relativement au droit d'auteur, mais peu se sont penchés sur la nature et les justifications de la propriété d'exemplaires d'oeuvres protégées par le droit d'auteur. Dans cet article, l'auteure applique les théories de la propriété et du droit d'auteur pour définir et justifier le droit de propriété d'exemplaires d'oeuvres protégées par le droit d'auteur. Elle cherche à mieux comprendre la propriété d'exemplaires d'oeuvres protégées par le droit d'auteur, des points de vue juridique et normatif. Elle cherche aussi à présenter une approche différente de celle qui * B.C.L., LL.B. (McGill), LL.M. (K.U. Leuven) Ph.D (candidate) Osgoode Hall Law School, Adjunct Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto. A shorter and earlier version of this paper was one of the winning entries of Canada's IP Writing Challenge award in October 2010. I thank Osgoode Hall Law School and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for making this research project possible. I also thank Giuseppina D'Agostino, Lisa Austin, Abraham Drassinower, Colin Grey and Hiram Melendez-Juarbe, as well as the participants of the ATLAS Agora doctoral seminar held in June 2010 at New York University School of Law, for insightful discussions or comments on earlier drafts of this paper. All errors remain mine.