Kojin SL Exhibition

[Kommersant]

Сообщение от artart

...
if the firm is a version light , it is not the artist , and the company claims and submits, then understand the meaning of the story, what is the sale of the rights to the image is fantastic exclusive right of some sort. ....)

And you're not a TV rabotnichek Park ? Usurper or similar rights? < - ~ 11 ~ -> I am faced with such characters , grab someone else's good to say that raspiaril (though in the tabloids ), and comes to a liability - his legs together and throw the owner - delusional excuses speculation. As the character of Vladimir Vysotsky " thief must be in prison," in this case - at least to pay the money. P.S. Before pollute air , read Part 4 of the Civil Code .

Semyon and his partners complete respect, the more such actions , the quicker all this rabble put in place. I was looking for the case in court based on (the bulk of the judicial experience ) and found the claim to the media park on more than $ 1 million , this is your picture ? If so, would love to meet the owner, his attorney , if possible.

[artart]

Kommersant, but no, exhale, I in our discussion long before there was excess.

noticed you and your first post in the forum too.
You yourself then whose "rabotnichek"?
You would actually text your filtered along the way.
I did not offend.

[NATA NOVA]

Сообщение от Kommersant; 2306691"

I was looking for the case in court based on (the bulk of the judicial experience ) and found the claim to the media park on more than $ 1 million , this is your picture ? If so, would love to meet the owner, his attorney , if possible.

"All chudesatee chudesatee and ..." ( a ) Lewis Kerrrol . "Alice in Wonderland "

[Kommersant]

artart rabotnichek I, am working on themselves and everybody is happy. If so interested, come to the forum to read this theme, I could not leave without comment posts, blanch scoundrels whose collective image is presented in this topic tv park. Personally addressed to you is not written anything offensive, to be offended do not understand. P.S. If you steal a purse, or in a magazine bawdy direction publish photos (popiaritsya so to speak) as you like it?

Why the picture, but rather the creative work to be protected by less than a house, car, other property. What makes you think that this kind of publication in the magazine needed an artist? Why do you think your opinion is more correct than the law, which expressly provides for fines and compensation. I think the position of the defenders tv park just outrageous, so the authors of the civil code stupider members, of conscience and morality have representation. A vygorazhivanie offender only creates chaos in the country in all spheres. Buy defective product (equipment, shoes, cars, etc.), said with registration of claims - "Well you're writing a complaint, we all understand that your money please." And should only appear with a check - Send a foot erotic journey. And that in any field, you need someone or call or the beautiful and formidable document.

But my friend and colleague from Germany really do not understand how you can use pirated software. We must inculcate the legal culture! And for those who lack imagination comes up, drive a club and fines!

[NATA NOVA]

Сообщение от Kommersant; 2306861"

drive a club

Perhaps , however, limit fines ? A?
( netsivilno as it turns out ... still say "handle povydergivat " or there " povykalyvat eyes ") to physical violence are calling .. (breaks , comrade! ) code reading? (I advise count )

PS. The court will then tell me that it was a harmless metaphor .. And the law , as the tongue ... < - ~ 5 ~ ->

[Kommersant]

I am afraid, no clubs will not work

[NATA NOVA]

Kommersant, I sue you (for violation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Human Rights)

[Kommersant]

Сообщение от NATA NOVA

Kommersant, I sue you (for violation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Human Rights)

 
Let's to the gallery Seeds Kozhina we go, the court is not the best place to discover <- ~ 1
~ ->

[kozhinart]

Сообщение от kozhinart

Essentially explain. Claim is not by me, because I sold the exclusive rights to the picture, a company dedicated to the promotion and popularization of my work abroad. for infringement of copyright, namely: Publication in the magazine TV Park image painting was done without the permission of the author, without a written agreement with him, and the payment of compensation to him, and to the processing of images: drawing on the work of the logo in the upper left corner and the text below and to the right .

Excuse the offender (....... edition considers himself an educator Russia): According to Article 1274 of the Civil Code the free use of works in the informational, scientific, educational or cultural purposes made without the author's consent and without payment of remuneration:
Permitted without the consent of the author or copyright holder and without payment of remuneration, but provided that the author's name, the product is used and the source of borrowing.

The position of the plaintiff:

1. Action is brought for infringement of the exclusive rights.
2. Magazine TV Park contains advertising material and is produced for profit.
3. Magazine TV Park is not included in the register of journals dealing with scientific and educational activities.

From the author of such publications as the Journal of the renowned magazine "Around the World", which this year has made the publication of partially recycled reproduction Kozhina SL concluded a contract on disposal of non-exclusive rights to published work, and the possibility of processing, with the mandatory payment of the compensation. And on the remuneration insisted their counsel, who explained that it is obligatory, under the legislation of the Russian Federation, as the magazine is published in order to obtain benefits. Though it can be called "enlightenment".

Found the following:
 The lawsuit claimed the recovery from the defendant compensation for infringement of exclusive property rights in the amount of (the information is hidden) rub., Ie double the cost of the rights to use the work. The plaintiff has the exclusive right to the work - painting "Carnival". The defendant wrongfully treated and used the product for commercial purposes, publishing its reproduction in a magazine TV Park № 8 (929).
The defendant objected to the claim on the arguments of withdrawal. According to the defendant, it is legitimate to use the product "Carnival" under Art. 1274 of the Civil Code. With the amount of compensation as the defendant does not agree.
Examined the written evidence, after hearing explanations of the persons involved in the case, the court found that the claim can not be granted on the following grounds.
Kojin Simon Leonidovich is the author of the painting "Carnival".
Between (hidden information) and Semyon Kozhin Leonidovich contract for the alienation of the exclusive right № (hidden information), in which Kozhin S.L as copyright fee plaintiff gave exclusive rights to intellectual property picture "Carnival." The amount of remuneration is defined in (information hidden) rub. Image of the painting itself is a number 1 to the contract.
Between the plaintiff (the licensor) and IP information is hidden (licensee) signed a license agreement № (hidden information) on the right to use, works on a non-exclusive basis (non-exclusive license). According to the agreement made with the author's reproduction paintings signed by the author to qualifications. 2

CJSC "Media Park" is the publisher of the magazine "TV Park." Room 8 (929) in February 2012, published an article "Circle Carnival", an illustration of which is the reproduction of Kozhina SL "Shrovetide. Farewell to winter. "
The plaintiff did not consent to the use of the product by the defendant, and therefore its use is considered a violation of their rights.
According to Art. 1270 of the Civil Code the author of a work or other right holder has the exclusive right to use the product in accordance with Article 1229 of the Code, in any form or in any manner not inconsistent with law (exclusive right to work). Owner may dispose of the exclusive right to the work.
Use of the work regardless of whether the relevant actions are performed for profit or not the goal is considered, in particular: reproduction of the work, that is the making of one or more copies of a work or part thereof in any material form, including in the form of sound or video, made in three dimensions one or more copies of a two-dimensional works in the two dimensions of one or more copies of a three-dimensional works.
The fact of using the product, the exclusive rights to which belong to the plaintiff, documented.
Defendant in support of the legality of his paintings to illustrate the article in the magazine referred to the norm of Art. 1274 of the Civil Code, under which permitted without the consent of the author or copyright holder and without payment of remuneration, but provided that the author's name, the product is used and the source of borrowing: quotation in the original or in translation, research, polemic, critical or informational purposes lawfully published works to the extent justified by the intended purpose, including reproduction of extracts from newspaper and magazine articles in press reviews, the use of lawfully published works and excerpts of them as illustrations in publications, radio and television broadcasts, audio and video recordings of educational character, to the extent justified the intended purpose.
Reproduction has been used as an illustration to an article posted in the log information and entertainment, so play it for information could be deemed justified.
Meanwhile, the plaintiff did not provide evidence of lawful disclosure works used them to reproduce, and is listed in neither publication nor in a dispute source of borrowing.
In support of its position the defendant have to place the painting "Carnival. Farewell to Winter "in open access for all persons on the internet. Presentation of his printout contains a reference to the following Internet address: [/URL]
Motif Kozhin SL, being called as a witness in the order of art. 88 APC gave evidence that confirmed that it was indeed posted on the Internet at Wikipedia for open access painting "Carnival", which is one of the first drafts of the painting "Carnival", the exclusive rights to the author conveyed holder (information hidden) contract for the alienation of the exclusive right.
Visual comparison of images: № 1 - application number 1 to the contract for the alienation of the exclusive right; № 2 - pictures placed in the magazine "TV Park»; № 3 - pictures posted on the internet reveals that the image number 1 and number 2 similar, and the picture number 3 is different from them in the position of the pieces, that is, is a different product.
Thus, the image that is on the Internet at the defendant indicated resource, not an image that has been used by the defendant for publication in the journal. 3

In such circumstances, the defendant has not been proved in the order of art. 65 APC legitimacy of its use of pictures to illustrate the article in the magazine in accordance with Art. 1274 of the Civil Code.
According to Art. 1301 of the Civil Code in cases where the exclusive right to work the author or other copyright holder is entitled pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article 1252 of the present Code to demand of their choice instead of the offender for damages compensation:
in the amount of ten thousand to five million rubles determined at the discretion of the court;
equivalent to twice the cost of copies of the work or the equivalent to twice the value of the right to use the work, determined on the basis of price, which in comparable circumstances is usually charged for the lawful use of the work.
From the explanation of the plaintiff that the amount of compensation is determined by him as two-time value of the rights to use the work under the contract.
Meanwhile, in paragraph 43.4. Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of N 5, Plenum of the RF from 26.03.2009 N 29 states that if the owner is requesting compensation equivalent to twice the value of the right to use the work, the object of related rights or trademark, determined on the basis of the price which under comparable circumstances is usually charged for the lawful use of them, when determining the amount of compensation should be the basis for the remuneration due to the license agreement providing for a simple (non-exclusive) license at the time of the violation.
The plaintiff has not provided evidence that would confirm that they in determining compensation used price which under comparable circumstances is usually charged for the lawful use of the work on the basis of non-exclusive licenses. Applicant used in the calculation of the amount of remuneration for its acquisition of exclusive rights to a product that does not meet the meaning of Art. 1301 of the Civil Code.
Given the above, the court does not have grounds for an action to recover compensation from the defendant to the plaintiff in the amount.
Stamp duty to be recovered from the defendant on the basis of Art. APC 110, Art. 333.40 of the Tax Code.
Considering the above, guided by Articles 65, 106, 110, 167-170 of the APC, the court
DECIDED:
In the lawsuit deny.
The decision can be appealed to the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal within one month from the date of its adoption.

[Seriy]

Congratulations!
First, the defendant has already been punished financially and acknowledged his fault proof.
Now, to get the money needed to file a new suit or something or make further claim at trial, alas, I do not know if it is possible to appeal.