Copyright Owners, National Treatment and Current Developments in Private International Law
Аннотация
The question of initial ownership is a preliminary question in all copyright claims. It is thus of fundamental importance for the success of any copyright claim. The confrontation of the principle of territoriality vis-à-vis the universality principle finds its reflection in the choice of a connecting factor for the question of initial ownership of copyright. Proponents of universality tend to apply the lex originis rule, which takes into consideration legal relations existent in the State of the origin of the work. On the other hand, there are proponents of the strict territoriality principle who apply lex loci protectionis conflict-of-laws rule to the whole copyright statute, including the ownership question, which leads to de facto violation of legitimate expectations of copyright holders. One of the often-mentioned arguments of lex loci protectionis proponents against the use of lex originis is that lex originis is not able to comply with the national treatment principle enshrined in most international copyright instruments. The purpose and aim of the article is to analyze whether the lex originis conflict-of-laws principle indeed contradicts the national treatment principle. For that purpose, the Russian judicial practice is analyzed, for Russia is one of few countries using the lex originis principle, which has also had an opportunity to develop an advanced judicial practice in this regard. Most EU countries prefer the lex loci protectionis connecting factor to determine the initial copyright owner, which, however, presents a substantial hindrance to the single market. In order to not touch the dogmatically settled lex loci protectionis principle and at the same time enable free movement of services within the single market, the EU has introduced a home country rule in its secondary law, which is a material copyright law derogation made in favor of the functioning of EU single market. Compliance of this phenomenon with the national treatment principle is also analyzed in this article. The author concludes that the conflict-of-laws principle lex originis, as well as the home country rule, are indeed incompatible with the national treatment principle. It is further concluded that it is through the lex originis principle that the essence of national treatment is realized. In order to interpret international copyright treaties secundum ratione legis, the question of copyright ownership should be explicitly excluded from the scope of national treatment, thus from the scope of lex loci protectionis.Литература
Ascensão J. (1997) Direito Autoral. 2.ed. Rio de Janeiro: Renovar, 754 p.
Basedow J. et al. (2013) European Max Planck Group on Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property. Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property: CLIP Principles and Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 560 p.
Beckstein F. (2010) Einschränkungen des Schutzlandprinzips: die kollisionsrechtliche Behandlung von Immaterialgüterrechtsverletzungen im Internet. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 380 p.
Bergé J.-S. (1999) De la loi applicable à la définition du titulaire du droit d'auteur. Revue Critique de Droit International Privé, no. 5, pp . 76 ff.
Birkmann A. (2009) Die Anknüpfung der originären Inhaberschaft am Urheberrecht. Baden Baden: Nomos Verlag, 310 p.
Bliznets I.A. (2015) Intellectual Property Law. Textbook. Moscow: Prospect, 896 p. (in Russ.)
Boguslavskij M.M. (1973) Copyright Issues in International Relations. Moscow: Nauka, 336 p. (in Russ.)
Chow D., Lee E. (2012) International Intellectual Property, Problems, Cases, and Materials. 2nd ed. St. Paul: West Academic Publishing, 800 p.
Čepelka Č. (1986) Právo mezinárodních smluv. Vídeňská úmluva o smluvním právu (1969) — s komentářem. Praha: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství, 185 p. (in Czech)
Desbois H. (1966) Le droit d'auteur en France.2e éd. Paris: Dalloz, 974 p.
Desbois H., Françon A., Kéréver A. (1976) Les conventions internationales du droit d'auteur et des droits voisins. Paris: Dalloz, 452 p.
Despagnet F. (1909) Précis de droit international privé. 5e éd. Paris: L. Larose & L. Tenin, 1250 p.
Dittrich R. (1986) Der Grundsatz der Inländerbehandlung der RBÜ und die sogenannte soziale Hälfte — Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Methode, die RBÜ auszulegen. In: R. Dittrich. Festschrift 50 Jahre Urheberrechtsgesetz. Wien: Manz Verlag, pp. 63-94.
Fawcett J., Torremans P. (2011) Intellectual Property and Private International Law. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1056 p.
Fentiman R. (2005) Choice of Law and Intellectual Property. In: J. Drexl, A. Kur. Intellectual Property and Private International Law — Heading for the Future. Portland: Hart Publishing, pp. 129-150.
Ficsor M. (2003) Guide to the Copyright and Related Rights Treaties administered by WIPO. Geneva: World Intellectual Property Organization, 317 p.
Goldstein P., Trimble M. (2016) International Intellectual Property Law: Cases and Materials. 4th ed. St. Paul: West Academic Publishing, 820 p.
Gössl S. (2014) Internetspezifisches Kollisionsrecht? Anwendbares Recht bei der Veräußerung virtueller Gegenstände. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 330 p.
Heinze C. (2021) Transition and Continuity in the Private International Law of Intellectual Property. In: N. Bruun, G. Dinwoodie et al. Transition and Coherence in Intellectual Property Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 133-144.
Intellectual Rights Court (2018) Statement to the meeting of the Research Advisory Council of the Intellectual Property Rights Court on controversial issues of relation of the provisions of Part 4 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation with provisions of Parts 1 2 and 3. Zhurnal Suda po intellektual'nym pravam=Journal of the Intellectual Rights Court, no. 19, pp. 28-43 (in Russ.)
Krasheninnikov P.V. (2014) Copyright and Related Rights: Article-by-article Commentary on Chapters 70 and 71 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Moscow: Prospekt, 480 p. (in Russ.)
Krupko S.I. (2014) Conflict of Laws aspects of Intellectual Property Regulation. Hozjajstvo i pravo=Economy and Law, no. 11, pp. 129-136 (in Russ.)
Kur A., Maunsbach U. (2019) Choice of Law and Intellectual Property Rights. Oslo Law Review, vol. 6, iss. 1, pp. 43-61.
Kyselovská T., Koukal P. (2019) Mezinárodní právo soukromé a právo duševního vlastnictví: kolizní otázky. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 392 p. (in Czech)
Leška R. (2019) Presumption of Authorship under the Berne Convention and its Application in the Online Environment. In: Y. Gendreau (ed.). Le droit d'auteur en action: perspectives internationales sur les recours. Montreal: Les Éditions Themis, pp. 307-318.
Lipszyc D. (2010) Historical appearances and disappearances of formalities: from Berne to national laws. In: L. Bently, U. Suthersanen, P. Torremans (eds.). Global Copyright. Three Hundred Years Since the Statute of Anne, from 1709 to Cyberspace. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 367-394.
Loewenheim U. (2021) Handbuch des Urheberrechts. 3. Aufl. München: C.H. Beck, 2883 p.
Lutkova O.V. (2018) Special conflict of laws principles for the regulation of crossborder copyright relations. Russkij zakon=Lex Russica, no. 2, pp. 129-139 (in Russ.).
Majoros F. (1971) Les arrangements bilatéraux en matière de droit d'auteur. Paris: A. Pedone, 130 p.
Masouyé C. (1978) Guide de la Convention de Berne pour la protection des œuvres (Acte de Paris, 1971). Genève: Organisation Mondiale de la Proprieté Intellectuelle, 258 p.
McKeown J. (2010) Canadian Intellectual Property Law and Strategy. New York: Oxford University Press, 437 p.
Neuhaus P., Drobnig U., von Hoffmann B., Martiny D. (1976) Die Immaterialgüterrechte im künftigen internationalen Privatrecht der europäischen Gemeinschaften. Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht, 40. Jahrg., H. 2, pp. 189-232.
Nonnenmacher G. (1971) Le cinéma et la télévision face au droit international privé. In: Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, vol. 134, pp. 1-108.
Papaux A. (2006) Introduction à la philosophie du «droit en situation». Genève/ Zurich/Bâle: Schulthess, 240 p.
Pauli D. (2012) Berner Übereinkunft. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 384 p.
Peinze A. (2002) Internationales Urheberrecht in Deutschland und England. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 425 p.
Posch W. (2008) Bürgerliches Recht. Band VII. Internationales Privatrecht. 4. Aufl. Wien: Springer, 216 p.
Ricketson S., Ginsburg J. (2005) International Copyright and Neighbouring Rights. The Berne Convention and Beyond. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 1540 p.
Ruffini F. (1927) De la protection internationale des droits sur les œuvres littéraires et artistiques. Paris: Librarie Hachette, 188 p.
Schaafsma S. (2022) Intellectual Property in the Conflict of Laws. The Hidden Conflict-of-law Rule in the Principle of National Treatment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 608 p.
Schack H. (2009) The Law Applicable to Unregistered IP Rights after Rome II. Ritsumeikan Law Review, no. 26, pp. 129-144.
Schack H. (2019) Urheber — und Urhebervertragsrecht. 9. Aufl. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 766 p.
Shershenevich G.F. (1891) Copyright in Literary Works. Kazan: University Press, 313 p. (in Russ.)
Stieß K. (2005) Anknüpfungen im internationalen Urheberrecht unter Berücksichtigung der neuen Informationstechnologien. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 301 p.
Telec I., Tůma P. (2019) Autorský zákon. Komentář. 2. vydání. Praha: C.H. Beck, 1320 p. (in Czech)
Troller A. (1952) Das internationale Privat- und Zivilprozessrecht im gewerblichen Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht. Basel: Verlag für Recht und Gesellschaft, 294 p.
Troller A. (1985) Immaterialgüterrecht. Band I. 3. Aufl. Basel: Helbing Lichtenhahn Verlag, 548 p.
Ulmer E. (1975) Die Immaterialgüterrechte im internationalen Privatrecht. Berlin: Carl Heymanns Verlag, 124 p.
Van Eechoud M., Hugenholtz B., van Gompel S., Guibault L., Helberger N. (2009) Harmonizing European Copyright Law: The Challenges of Better Lawmaking. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 374 p.
Vivant M., Bruguière J.-M. (2013) Droit d'auteur et droits voisins. 2e éd. Paris: Dalloz, 1118 p.
Von Büren R., David L. (eds.) (1998) Schweizerisches Immaterialgüter- und Wettbewerbsrecht. Zweiter Band. Basel/Genf/München: Helbing & Lichtenhahn Verlag AG, 378 p.
Von Hein J. (2018) Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, Band 12, Internationales Privatrecht II (Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht, Art. 50-253 EGBGB). 7. Aufl, München: C. H. Beck, 2788 p.
Von Hein J. (2021) Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, Band 13, Internationales Privatrecht II (Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht, Art. 50-253 EGBGB). 8. Aufl. München: C. H. Beck, 2899 p.
Windisch E. (1969) Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht im zwischenstaatlichen Bereich.Berlin: J. Schweitzer Verlag, 244 p.
