Bielorrusia / Casos nacionales
Professional photographer v Belarusian broadcaster — aurora photographs
Casos nacionales. La inclusión en esta ficha no convierte una referencia extranjera en una decisión nacional. Se conserva el estado y el alcance de la fuente.
Expediente y fuentes
- Nombre
- Professional photographer v Belarusian broadcaster — aurora photographs
- Cita
- Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus, decision of 5 September 2016, Etalon regnum s91600057
- Tribunal
- Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus, Judicial Collegium for Intellectual Property Matters
- Instancia
- national supreme court exercising exclusive first-instance copyright jurisdiction
- Fechas
- Decisión
- 2016-09-05
- Estado
- resolved-claim-denied
- Resultado
- Claims denied.
- Resumen
- No on the evidence accepted. The court relied on the expert conclusion that standard camera functions and minimal editing did not show sufficient creative novelty, originality, uniqueness or individual expression.
- Antecedentes
- A professional photographer shot rare aurora/night-sky images with his own digital camera, later adjusted brightness and contrast, leveled the horizon, removed some information and resized the images, then posted them to personal blogs. A broadcaster used them without permission or attribution in a news segment.
- Historia procesal
- The photographer sought minimum statutory compensation per photograph plus nominal moral damages. The broadcaster disputed protectability. A forensic art examination found insufficient individual creative expression and treated the images as utilitarian recording of a natural phenomenon.
- Cuestión jurídica
- Whether the photographer's capture choices and limited post-processing made the aurora photographs protected creative works.
- Criterio
- No on the evidence accepted. The court relied on the expert conclusion that standard camera functions and minimal editing did not show sufficient creative novelty, originality, uniqueness or individual expression.
- Fundamento decisivo
- Technical skill, professional status and post-processing do not by themselves prove the legally required creative contribution; the concrete expressive choices and their evidentiary support matter.
- Límites
- No AI. The result is heavily expert-dependent, uses a historically demanding creativity vocabulary, and precedes the current rebuttable creativity presumption effective 19 November 2024.
- Relevancia
- doctrina-general
- Referencias relacionadas
- Peso del precedente
- Authoritative national Supreme Court first-instance application; nonbinding precedent and fact/expert-specific. Integración/votación: Single-judge copyright disposition; judge name not disclosed in accessible materials. Single-judge disposition; no vote applicable.
- Fuente
- Referencia
- Professional photographer v Belarusian broadcaster — aurora photographs
- Enlace
- Consultar fuente
- Autoridad
- Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus, Judicial Collegium for Intellectual Property Matters
- Tipo
- doctrina-general
- Tipo de evidencia
- primary_judicial_identifier_with_two_scholarly_reconstructions
- Localizador
- Bogustov 2022, pp. 89-90, footnote 8; Ivanova 2024, pp. 94-95 and reference 5
- Verificación documentada
- Sí
- Fuente de contraste
- Consultar fuente