Lituania / Casos nacionales
Criminal case 2K-79-976/2024
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
- Criminal case 2K-79-976/2024
- Cita
- Criminal case 2K-79-976/2024
- Tribunal
- Supreme Court of Lithuania, Criminal Division
- Instancia
- última instancia
- Fechas
- Decisión
- 2024-04-09
- Estado
- resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada
- Resultado
- Both lower criminal judgments were vacated, the criminal case was terminated under ultima ratio and the civil claim left unexamined. Copyright subsistence was not denied.
- Resumen
- The draft status and nonpublication did not defeat protection. The victim’s analysis, interpretation and conclusions satisfied the cumulative work test. Merely transmitting guidelines, approving a plan or providing noncreative assistance did not establish coauthorship. Yet criminal liability was disproportionate under ultima ratio on the case facts.
- Antecedentes
- A Lithuanian-language draft analysis about political-party organisation was sent within a collaborative publication process. Parts were translated and published in an English-language book chapter released on 12 January 2017 under two other names. The accused argued that the source was unpublished, unfinished, general research material and that project guidance or approval supported coauthorship.
- Historia procesal
- Kaunas District Court convicted on 4 November 2022; Kaunas Regional Court issued a judgment on 4 September 2023. The accused sought cassation.
- Cuestión jurídica
- Whether an unpublished intermediate scientific text could be a protected work, whether administrative/academic findings controlled the criminal court, whether guidance or plan approval created coauthorship and whether criminal punishment was justified.
- Criterio
- The draft status and nonpublication did not defeat protection. The victim’s analysis, interpretation and conclusions satisfied the cumulative work test. Merely transmitting guidelines, approving a plan or providing noncreative assistance did not establish coauthorship. Yet criminal liability was disproportionate under ultima ratio on the case facts.
- Fundamento decisivo
- Copyright attaches at creation to original expression, including intermediate drafts. The tribunal must independently determine protected expression and proof; other proceedings do not substitute. Coauthorship requires creative contribution, not supervision or organisational input.
- Límites
- Human scientific-text criminal case. The criminal proceeding ended under ultima ratio and the civil claim was left unexamined; the judgment does not grant a civil remedy or address GenAI outputs.
- Relevancia
- administrativo
- Referencias relacionadas
- Peso del precedente
- Recent Supreme Court confirmation on drafts, evidentiary independence and assistance versus coauthorship. The procedural termination must not be misreported as a finding of no copyright. Integración/votación: Albinas Antanaitis (presiding), Olegas Fedosiukas, Rima Ažubalytė (rapporteur). Three-judge panel; no numerical tally, concurrence or dissent is published.
- Fuente
- Referencia
- Criminal case 2K-79-976/2024
- Enlace
- Consultar fuente
- Autoridad
- Supreme Court of Lithuania, Criminal Division
- Tipo
- final national criminal copyright judgment applying the civil work threshold; non-AI
- Localizador
- paras. 9–15 (work/originality/draft/coauthorship), paras. 20–25 (ultima ratio), operative part
- Verificación documentada
- Sí