D. S. v Lithuanian National Culture Centre, civil case e3K-3-98-469/2021

Expediente y fuentes

Nombre

D. S. v Lithuanian National Culture Centre, civil case e3K-3-98-469/2021

Cita

D. S. v Lithuanian National Culture Centre, civil case e3K-3-98-469/2021

Tribunal

Supreme Court of Lithuania, Civil Division

Instancia

última instancia

Fechas

Decisión

2021-04-21

Estado

resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada

Resultado

The 16 June 2020 appellate ruling was vacated and the case remanded for a proper originality and coauthorship assessment. No final merits finding that D. S. was author was made.

Resumen

Reconstruction is not per se excluded. Courts must assess whether the concrete result allowed and expressed human creative freedom; artistic merit and contract label do not control. Article 13 ties rights to creation, not contract. Material, technical or organisational assistance alone is not coauthorship, but the claimant’s objectively expressed contribution had to be evaluated rather than reduced to an idea.

Antecedentes

D. S. claimed sole or joint authorship in reconstructed Baltic archaeological-historical costumes and related calendar material. She supplied archaeological data, visual material and consultations and coordinated jewellery makers; another participant handled textile work. The defendant argued that reconstruction was dictated by history and that her role was research/coordination rather than protected creation.

Historia procesal

A first-instance judgment dated 9 August 2019 rejected the claim; the Court of Appeal affirmed on 16 June 2020. D. S. sought cassation.

Cuestión jurídica

Whether “reconstructed” objects are excluded from copyright, whether contract form controls originality and whether research, coordination and contributed material could amount to authorship or coauthorship.

Criterio

Reconstruction is not per se excluded. Courts must assess whether the concrete result allowed and expressed human creative freedom; artistic merit and contract label do not control. Article 13 ties rights to creation, not contract. Material, technical or organisational assistance alone is not coauthorship, but the claimant’s objectively expressed contribution had to be evaluated rather than reduced to an idea.

Fundamento decisivo

Originality is object-specific and factual. Historical or technical constraints negate protection only when they leave no room for free and creative choices. Coauthorship requires a joint creative contribution unified by a common concept, while financing, coordination, source collection or other assistance alone is insufficient.

Límites

First cassation and remand only. It neither declared D. S. author/coauthor nor finally held the reconstructed costumes protected; its relevance to GenAI is analogical.

Relevancia

autoria-output

Referencias relacionadas

Peso del precedente

Strong national analogue for AI workflows: separate creative contribution from assistance and do not infer authorship from control, research or coordination. Procedural result must not be reported as a grant of authorship. Integración/votación: Gražina Davidonienė, Sigita Rudėnaitė (presiding and rapporteur), Algirdas Taminskas. Three-judge panel; no numerical tally, concurrence or dissent is published.

Fuente

Referencia

D. S. v Lithuanian National Culture Centre, civil case e3K-3-98-469/2021

Enlace

Consultar fuente

Autoridad

Supreme Court of Lithuania, Civil Division

Tipo

national copyright/coauthorship cassation; reversal and remand; non-AI

Localizador

paras. 25–36 (work/originality/CJEU), 37–39 (creation versus contract), 40–44 (coauthorship and remand), operative part

Verificación documentada

Sí