The alienation of the exclusive right in the work
 

Dear forum members , help to understand the situation :

in negotiations to acquire the picture buyer together with the contract of sale and transfer of copyright need to sign a separate contract for the alienation of the exclusive right to the work. What is the difference between copyright and the exclusive rights ? And the more fraught with the signing of such agreements? Please help me with the point of view of the buyer , why he , the purchaser , can not be content with just the contract purchase - sale.
In the past century, and in the past decade , generally did not know about such legal case , generally sold on a verbal agreement , and now have to start to penetrate .

Thank you in advance .

What is the difference between the sale of copyright and " alienation of the exclusive right to work " (and the role played by the word "exclusive" in this context) ?

NATA NOVA, I'm not a lawyer, but , in my opinion , copyrights to sell at all possible, because the author already has a painting and the painting oboznachen.Otchuzhdenie exclusive right seems to have in mind the transfer all rights to the product , ownership , sale, reproduction, including pofragmentnoe , use for any commercial purposes , the transfer of rights to third parties , etc. However, all this can be provided in the sales contract .

These respected iosif nd right ( the right of reproduction , etc. ) are the copyrighted property . They can dispose of, by sale under a contract for the purchase of the work itself, it is in the contract stipulating otherwise, but you can not sell. This is, in principle, a separate subject of sale.
A right to be called the author of the moral rights and is not subject to exclusion .

Added after 4 minutes 5 minutes
Yeah, did not notice at first reading another issue's theme.
Copyrights and exclusive rights - is not antonyms and synonyms. This is generally a different semantic concepts series.
That is, the property copyrights, you can sell together with the product, can be exclusive, but may be non-exclusive.
If you pass the exclusive property copyrights, it means that these rights do you have no right to sell to anyone, that is, those rights enjoyed your customer individually.
But you can pass on a non-exclusive agreement property copyrights. For example, you can send the product to the buyer a non-exclusive property rights to the printing works vosproizvednie unlimited (or limited edition specified). This means that you can sell those rights to other people. Such rights are, of course, cost less than exceptional.
Besides property copyrights, you can sell without selling the work. That is, for example, sell the rights to printing reproduction of the work, not selling the work. Well, etc. etc.

fabosch, thanks, exhaustively.

That is, in this case, the author no longer has any product or idea?
With regards to the literary creation, the meaning is clear ..
And what about the fine ? Author repeats copies , for example?
(Thank you)

If the author has sold the product , it does not own . This is more or less certain , although " science has many Gitik ."
The idea is not subject to copyright law, there is a legal idea of art can not be sold . You can only sell a specific existing product ( painting , manuscript, sculpture , etc.)


If the author bakes up like pancakes - why would you buy his product ?
The author can do repetitions, which would still be different, even in the lottery drawing almost no equal. Each such product - independent object of copyright.

On the sale of images, you can sometimes earn more than the original, for example selling posters - limiting giclee edition - 100 pieces, cards, and separate images for different purposes - calendars, pictures, given the fact that this can be done multiple times throughout the duration of the Copyright - 75 years, it can be quite decent earnings. The alienation of the exclusive right of the artist loses the opportunity, without agreement with the copyright holder, free to sell, that is used for commercial purposes, the work - the image. That is again the author can get the owner of the exclusive rights of a non-exclusive license, if Bodo need for this in the contract ukazyvayutsya details for connection to the new owner, or their successors. In this case, under the law of repetition and access, and you can ask for details of the next owners of the painting, but it is on the client, it is difficult to insist on this, even though the law is valid.
Resale - it's the right pieces of fine art in the case of alienation of their original work at each public resale of the respective original, in which, as a seller, buyer or agent involved gallery of fine art, art gallery, shop or other similar organization to get the seller to pay in the form of interest payments on the resale price. Inalienable right of succession, but passes to the heirs of the author at the term of the exclusive rights to the product.

The right of access - it's the right pieces of fine art to require the owner of the original work enabling to exercise the right to reproduce his work.

Russia's law on copyright law , Article 30, paragraph 2 :
Publishing agreement on the transfer of exclusive rights allow the use of the product in a certain way , and by the agreement within only person to whom the rights have been assigned , and give that person the right to prohibit such use of the work to others.

That is, alienated ( alienated ?) Hodozhnik copyright - write " lost "!

Thank you very much for your comments, which help to start in the general understanding of the problem. However, I'm yet to discuss some particular.

1) the "Section 1293. Resale
p.3 Resale inalienable, but passes to the heirs of the author at the term of the exclusive rights in a work. "
     I do not understand this language, if passed by \\\\ sold the exclusive rights to another person.

2) the "Section 1270. Exclusive right to work

1. Author of the work, or other legal owner has the exclusive right to ...
2) distribution of the work by sale or other disposition of its original or copies; "

Do I understand correctly that if the owner has not got a picture with it, the author is also the exclusive rights to it, then he has no right to resell it in the future without the consent of the author.

In recent years, 25 ways to suppress the sale of paintings by the artist is a primitive: the money I picture you, or in a simple way: the seller is selling this to you for such a sum. No contract of alienation of the exclusive rights is not drawn up, especially since the demise of the Soviet Union. As to the transactions of the time is now to apply the existing provisions of the Civil Code and copyright? Or all purchasers of a certain artist painting now have to rush back to it and re-buy more and exclusive rights to previously purchased the product (and maybe some of them have been received as a gift from the artist), as otherwise they are not entitled to the further course of these works?

What is there to understand? Droit, that is the author's right to sell works (no matter whether sold while still on the property rights of this work or not), get a percentage of each subsequent public resale of the work. Please note: droit extends only to the sale of the product (physically existing in the form of paintings, manuscripts, sculptures, etc.), and not on property rights.
That's the right of succession can not be sold. It will always belong to the author of the work or the heirs in case of death (for the duration of the copyright in the work).
By the way, never heard of the application of the right route to Russia.

No, wrong.
The purchased item is yours. And you can carry with it any action, except two:
1) can not attribute its authorship to anyone other than the actual author
2) can not make any changes to it.
And so, you can sell, and can eat it with butter. If only in the sales contract are not expressly any special conditions to use it.

If strictly according to the law - it is better to buy property rights, if you will, of course, necessary.
If conflicts are to be decided by the court on the basis of the arguments of the parties.

Do I understand your metaphor : the owner has the right to (intentionally ) to destroy the piece? (change , isportit.preobrazit ?)

I do not know the law prohibiting destroy belongs to you personally and to any right of private property. If you do this in public, there may be some nuances related to public morals or anything else , really is lazy to think that there might still get out.
But if you destroy their own and do not yell at all the crossroads of this, what's the thing that 's bothering you?

According to the Copyright Act, you can not alter , transform belongs to you by right of someone's work of art.
So by law.

Then you need to write some text explaining how this situation in practice. Write it so, on the run, as I wrote all the previous , I'm not ready.
If you really need it , o'key , I can try to write.

there are precedents where artists " convert " them bought the works of other artists, and sold as the act is "his" art. Hurst on the memory with a portrait of Stalin ( "Stalin red nose "). By letter of the law as it is .. " not good" ..

fabosch, thank you, but do not have the time to kill it (feel guilty :o>)