Lituania / Casos nacionales
D. S. v Lithuanian National Culture Centre, civil case e3K-3-177-701/2022
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
- D. S. v Lithuanian National Culture Centre, civil case e3K-3-177-701/2022
- Cita
- D. S. v Lithuanian National Culture Centre, civil case e3K-3-177-701/2022
- Tribunal
- Supreme Court of Lithuania, Civil Division
- Instancia
- última instancia
- Fechas
- Decisión
- 2022-06-21
- Estado
- resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada
- Resultado
- The 16 September 2021 appellate ruling was vacated and the case remanded again. The published second cassation still does not finally declare D. S. sole author or coauthor.
- Resumen
- It did not. The appellate court fragmented the work, discounted the use of multiple sources and failed to evaluate the concrete whole and the claimant’s creative contribution with adequate evidence. The Supreme Court again declined to decide factual originality itself and remanded.
- Antecedentes
- After the 2021 remand, the Court of Appeal again rejected the claim, treating the reconstructed costumes and the claimant’s contribution through component-by-component and evidentiary reasoning that the Supreme Court found inconsistent with the binding first cassation. The record included multiple sources, absence of a surviving complete costume specimen and competing contributions to textile and ornament decisions.
- Historia procesal
- Following e3K-3-98-469/2021, the Court of Appeal issued a new ruling on 16 September 2021. D. S. again sought cassation.
- Cuestión jurídica
- Whether the appellate court complied with the first cassation’s binding directions and properly assessed the whole costume, creative freedom, evidence and possible coauthorship.
- Criterio
- It did not. The appellate court fragmented the work, discounted the use of multiple sources and failed to evaluate the concrete whole and the claimant’s creative contribution with adequate evidence. The Supreme Court again declined to decide factual originality itself and remanded.
- Fundamento decisivo
- Whole-work originality cannot be tested by asking whether each individual historical datum or component is protected. Combining sources may evidence choices rather than negate them. A court must identify the work and the claimant’s contribution and may require expert evidence; cassation cannot replace missing factual findings.
- Límites
- Second cassation and remand only. It corrected fragmented analysis and evidentiary treatment but again made no final finding of originality, authorship or coauthorship.
- Relevancia
- autoria-output
- Referencias relacionadas
- Peso del precedente
- Essential procedural continuation that prevents overstating the 2021 case. Strong on whole-output/component discipline and evidentiary proof, but not a final authorship merits judgment. Integración/votación: Alė Bukavinienė, Andžej Maciejevski, Antanas Simniškis (presiding and rapporteur). Three-judge panel; no numerical tally, concurrence or dissent is published.
- Fuente
- Referencia
- D. S. v Lithuanian National Culture Centre, civil case e3K-3-177-701/2022
- Enlace
- Consultar fuente
- Autoridad
- Supreme Court of Lithuania, Civil Division
- Tipo
- second national cassation in same copyright/coauthorship dispute; reversal and remand; non-AI
- Localizador
- paras. 25–30 and subparagraphs (binding effect, evidence and whole-work analysis); operative part
- Verificación documentada
- Sí