The alienation of the exclusive right in the work

[Ирина Ивановна]

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?

[fabosch]

Сообщение от Irina

Thank you very much for your comments, which help to start a 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.

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.

Сообщение от Irina

2) of the "Article 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.

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.

Сообщение от Irina

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?

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.

[NATA NOVA]

Сообщение от fabosch; 2539021"

Purchased product 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 ,

. If only in the sales contract are not expressly any special conditions to use it.

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

[fabosch]

Сообщение от NATA NOVA

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.

[NATA NOVA]

Сообщение от fabosch; 2539291 "

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 >)

[Маруся]

I had noticed that the word 'exclusive' has many magical effect - you always want to buy something exceptional. No matter what, even though the right ... But in this case the "exclusive right" is just a term, a name as "droit" or "right to a name," and is one of the eligible components of copyright.
The essence of the exclusive right exhaustively explained fabosch

- It can be passed along with the full product (contract of alienation of the exclusive right)
- You can sell proizvedenie and exclusive right to reserve
- And you can give up part - that is, the time-limited use, or on a particular area or for a specific purpose - to litsenzionnomu contract

The issue is that the subject of exclusive rights is always a particular work and
some way to dispose of it can only be legitimate holder:
The author (who had previously not entered "exclusive agreements" for a particular product
-Heirs of the author (with the caveat above)
-The person to whom the author or his legal nasledniki gave exclusive rights to the product (with the application of all relevant documents)

Otherwise, all the "exclusive rights" in the sales contract works will be like the old joke: "A kiss?"

There are differences in terms of the owner of the work but that's another topic

[iosif]

Marusia, the exclusive right of the author is transmitted only by agreement of alienation?
We use an ordinary contract of sale, in which there is a point to grant exclusive rights to the author by the Seller to the Buyer.
This is, in your opinion, is well or better with the word alienation?

[Маруся]

Сообщение от iosif; 2541141"

This is, in your view, correctly or

Correct in what sense? Politely ? - Yes. Legally correct ? - Depending on "what you pass ."
Supplementary Agreement on the transfer of copyright can be concluded separately, can be included in a contract of sale of a particular product. Freedom of contract, as opposed to freedom of assembly , we have has not been canceled yet ... The main thing that you understand what the conditions are signing , and only in the general contract or separately , and the contract can be called in a different way , and to conclude a license agreement - as you like it .
I would have to contract with the author more attention to the " right of access"

[fabosch]

Сообщение от NATA NOVA

precedent is when 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" ..

NATA, then do a lot of options. And the different kinds of art they are also looking at different ways.
You're talking about the use of another's work to create their own. This is another story. It is also not easy.
There are variants of the so-called composite work, there are options, based on the citation, and in each case, all can be - there is no general recipes.
I'm saying that you can not change a work created by another person, even if you bought it and bought all the property rights to it.
For example, I bought a picture of the artist N, something in her painted on and say that this is a work of the artist N. It is a violation of copyright law. Another thing is that there is, for example. such a thing as restoration. And where there is bound, it can do a restorer, without violating the copyright law - it is sometimes unclear.
Or equivalent from the literature. I bought the rights to the novel. Something finished writing or changed and is published under the author's name. It is a violation of the law. But again, another thing is that there is editing, which somehow changes the text, and also there the troubles arise.
Well, etc etc.
There really are a lot of subtleties which is not provided directly by the law.
 Well, in the case of Hirst, is to say that, despite the existence of, say, the Berne Convention and other international agreements, copyright laws in each country of their own, and some of the provisions in different countries can vary significantly. I talk of the Russian legislation

[iosif]

Marusia, correctly - meaning precisely.
I have a difficult mathematical past >