Bielorrusia / Casos nacionales
Sculptor v telephone-directory publisher and distributor — Рыбак с сомом
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
- Sculptor v telephone-directory publisher and distributor — Рыбак с сомом
- Cita
- Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus, decision of 31 January 2014
- Tribunal
- Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus, Judicial Collegium for Intellectual Property Matters
- Instancia
- national supreme court exercising first-instance copyright jurisdiction
- Fechas
- Decisión
- 2014-01-31
- Estado
- resolved-partial-relief
- Resultado
- Claim partially granted against both publisher and distributor.
- Resumen
- No automatic transfer occurred. The contracts and acceptance acts transferred the physical objects but contained no copyright assignment. The sculptures were central cover images used commercially, so the public-place exception did not apply.
- Antecedentes
- A sculptor created Рыбак с сомом and a city-entry sculpture under service contracts with a municipal enterprise. The physical sculptures were delivered and installed. A publisher reproduced their images on the cover of 3,000 copies of a commercial telephone directory, distributed through a state telecom retailer, without the sculptor's consent.
- Historia procesal
- The publisher and distributor argued that commissioning, payment and transfer of the physical sculptures vested rights in the customer and that panorama/public-place and incidental-use exceptions applied. The Supreme Court examined the contracts, acceptance acts, directory layout and commercial distribution.
- Cuestión jurídica
- Whether commissioning and ownership of the physical sculptures transferred copyright, and whether the commercial cover reproductions fell within the public-place exception.
- Criterio
- No automatic transfer occurred. The contracts and acceptance acts transferred the physical objects but contained no copyright assignment. The sculptures were central cover images used commercially, so the public-place exception did not apply.
- Fundamento decisivo
- Authorship and exclusive rights arise independently of ownership, commissioning, payment or possession of the material object. Derived title requires an actual statutory or contractual transfer of identified rights.
- Límites
- No AI and no dispute over whether the human sculptor created the expression. The holding controls title allocation, not the minimum creativity threshold for AI-assisted work.
- Relevancia
- doctrina-general
- Referencias relacionadas
- Peso del precedente
- Authoritative national Supreme Court first-instance decision; nonbinding precedent but complete published reproduction. Integración/votación: Single-judge copyright disposition; the published reproduction omits the judge's name. Single-judge disposition; no vote applicable.
- Fuente
- Referencia
- Sculptor v telephone-directory publisher and distributor — Рыбак с сомом
- Enlace
- Consultar fuente
- Autoridad
- Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus, Judicial Collegium for Intellectual Property Matters
- Tipo
- doctrina-general
- Tipo de evidencia
- complete_reproduction_of_national_judgment
- Localizador
- preserved complete reproduction lines 145-256; contracts and defenses 145-181, chain of title 205, infringement 244, remedy 256
- Verificación documentada
- Sí