Lituania / Casos nacionales
T. V. v AB Žemprojektas, civil case 3K-3-536/2010
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
- T. V. v AB Žemprojektas, civil case 3K-3-536/2010
- Cita
- T. V. v AB Žemprojektas, civil case 3K-3-536/2010
- Tribunal
- Supreme Court of Lithuania, Civil Division
- Instancia
- última instancia
- Fechas
- Decisión
- 2010-12-20
- Estado
- resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada
- Resultado
- Lower judgments changed only to reject the 1,000 LTL moral-damages award; all other portions remained. Final and unappealable.
- Resumen
- Photographs can be protected when they are results of creative human intellectual activity, original and objectively expressed. The images depicting existing buildings and surroundings met that threshold; the limited exchange did not establish the unrestricted use asserted by the defendant. The separate moral-damages award was not supported on the proved record.
- Antecedentes
- The photographer and the hotel company orally agreed that he would photograph a Nida hotel and Juodkrantė holiday property on 17–18 September 2005 in exchange for a weekend stay and meals. He delivered low-resolution JPEGs for selection. The company later used 14 images on websites; the photographer said the agreed use was narrower and sought an injunction, economic damages and moral damages.
- Historia procesal
- Kaunas Regional Court on 1 June 2009 granted injunctive relief, 6,000 LTL economic compensation and 1,000 LTL moral damages. The Court of Appeal affirmed on 10 June 2010. The company sought cassation.
- Cuestión jurídica
- Whether the photographs were protected works and whether delivery for selection implied unrestricted online-use rights and supported moral damages.
- Criterio
- Photographs can be protected when they are results of creative human intellectual activity, original and objectively expressed. The images depicting existing buildings and surroundings met that threshold; the limited exchange did not establish the unrestricted use asserted by the defendant. The separate moral-damages award was not supported on the proved record.
- Fundamento decisivo
- Originality is not novelty and is assessed by the creator’s intellectual contribution rather than the factual subject depicted. Scope of permission must be proved separately from subsistence. The decision’s older references to “objective originality” for certain categories must now be read through the uniform CJEU standard.
- Límites
- Human-photography and licence case. Use of technical equipment did not replace the photographer's choices; the judgment does not set a prompt, iteration or GenAI-control threshold.
- Relevancia
- autoria-asistida
- Referencias relacionadas
- Peso del precedente
- National photographic-originality and licence-scope authority; useful for tool-assisted creation because creative choices can coexist with technical means. Not AI-specific. Integración/votación: Sigitas Gurevičius (rapporteur), Janina Januškienė, Gintaras Kryževičius (presiding). Three-judge panel; no numerical tally, concurrence or dissent is published.
- Fuente
- Referencia
- T. V. v AB Žemprojektas, civil case 3K-3-536/2010
- Enlace
- Consultar fuente
- Autoridad
- Supreme Court of Lithuania, Civil Division
- Tipo
- final national civil copyright judgment; photographs and scope of permission; non-AI
- Localizador
- “Ginčo esmė”; copyright-object/originality section; operative part changing only moral damages
- Verificación documentada
- Sí