<<
>>

3.3. Restrictions of exclusive copyrights with a view of personal use

As access to results of intellectual activity is a necessary component for formation of a cultural life of the separate person, satisfaction of its personal needs, creation of possibilities for development, formation, familiarising with the world of a science, the literature, art the basic restriction of copyrights directly provided in the civil legislation, free reproduction of product to suit the own ends is.

During the different periods the given norm underwent certain changes, however semantic loading remained and for today invariable. So, the first mentions of free use of products to suit the own ends on the basis of the Copyright law from March, 20th, 1911 have been stated in Position item 3 about the copyright in which it was fixed, that «it is not considered a copyright infringement using another's product for creation of new product, it is essential from it differing, and from another's product only for the personal use and without a premise besides copying is equal in copies of a work of art of the signature or the monogram of the author of the original». In item 4 of the Decision of the Central Electoral Committee of the USSR and SNK the USSR «About copyright bases» from January, 30th, 1925 [303] contained similar norms, was thus specified, that it is not necessary to put the signature of the author on a copy of products, and in the item « About »item 9 of the Decision of the Central Electoral Committee of the USSR, SNK the USSR from May, 16th, 1928 [304] in addition to previous norm has appeared for the first time the reservation that copying only for personal consumption from products of a sculpture by means of mechanically-contact copying is not supposed.

It is possible to notice, that the pre-revolutionary, Soviet and Russian legislation in consideration of questions of reproduction of products to suit the own ends adhered to a position of legal continuity. So, vst. 493 Civil codes of RSFSR of 1964 were supposed without the consent of the author and without payment of the award reproduction or other use of another's published product for satisfaction of personal needs. Bases of the civil legislation of USSR and republics from May, 31st, 1991 also established similar norms, have thus added, what not dopuskaetsjananesenie a damage to normal use of product and infringement of legitimate interests of the author.

With acceptance FZ «About the copyright and the adjacent rights» there was item 18 in which possibility of reproduction of product to suit the own ends without the consent of the author and without award payment was established. Thus the legislator has replaced the term "use" with "reproduction", than has limited possibilities for an uncertain circle of persons, and has entered cases when positions of the given norm cannot be applied, having established limits of use of products to suit the own ends concerning reproduction of products of architecture in the form of buildings and similar constructions, reproduction of databases or essentials from them, reproduction of the computer programs, reproduction of books (completely) and musical texts. Such changes in the law have been connected with development of technical process, a wide circulation of tape recorders, cartridges and other carriers. Instead of former copying or product reprinting possibilities of fast and cheap ways of mass copying that led to infringement of the rights and interests of authors have increased.

This fact has formed the basis for intervention in the given sphere of the legislation, delineation admissible at free use of products to suit the own ends, introductions of compensation for use of soundtracks and audiovisual products. All these innovations became significant step to development of norms about free use of product to suit the own ends as also the present legislation is based on them.

According to item 1273 GK the Russian Federation, is supposed without the consent of the author or other legal owner and without payment of compensation reproduction by the citizen exclusively to suit the own ends legally promulgated product. Unlike earlier operating FZ «About the copyright and the adjacent rights» the term "citizen" so, action of the given norms completely excluded possibility of its use by legal bodies was in a new wording added. As have noted a number of authors, «the personal purposes» can exist only at the person – the physical person … Any cases of reproduction within the limits of course of duty or for other physical persons and the more so for a payment, do not come within the purview of restriction of copyrights fixed by given article [305]. Besides, article 1273 GK the Russian Federation extends free reproduction of product without the consent not only the author, but now and the legal owner. Thus, the circle of persons which can give possibility of use of products and a circle of persons to which such possibility is given is concretised.

Besides, article 1273 GK to number of free use of product carries the Russian Federation not only cases of use of products without compensation payment, now in case of reproduction of soundtracks and audiovisual products exclusively to suit the own ends authors, executors, manufacturers of soundtracks and audiovisual products have the right to compensation.

Thus, on the basis of studying of normative acts and dynamics of development of norms about free use of product to suit the own ends, it is possible to tell, that if the given norm in an original form represented more possibilities for users as in respect of the audience, and the right of use for today the given positions obespechivajutsobljudenie interesovpravoobladatelej and users, the circle of users, limits of the permitted is already accurately certain. But nevertheless and for today the legislation in this sphere is not deprived lacks.

The Ogranichenijaavtorsky rights with a view of personal ispolzovanijaizucheny also are investigated by the Soviet authors who in the works designated the problems connected with application of the legislation in this sphere. So, JA.A.Kantorovich approved, that «interpretation will be come under by a question on how words" for the personal use "– concerning the concept … and concerning a circle of persons which it embraces» [306] should be widely interpreted. The author considered, that "use" cannot be understood in close sense of a personal need of the concrete person, and in a circle of persons on which it persons extend, join also, is close with it adjoining, for example members of a family. Judiciary practice of that time understands a close house circle as «the personal use». In this connection copying as a gift for members of a family is supposed, but donation for acquaintances is not supposed. Copying «on purpose to use copies as samples for school or for application at art training, leaves a circle of house conditions and it is forbidden» [307]. V.N.Serebrovsky considered, that «it is necessary to understand using as personal consumption for satisfaction of personal needs of the person who have made a copy, and besides, maybe, still members of his family. But it is impossible to consider as personal consumption, for example, removal by the conductor of an orchestra of a copy from the score of a piece of music with a view of its public execution» [308]. Besides by the author it is noticed, that is necessary to be limited only to cases of copying from another's product by hand, including copy removal on a typewriter. B.S.antimonov and E.A.Flejshits in the works have designated, that norms about copying only for personal consumption can concern both to published, and the neopublished products. However in the second case, according to authors, this position «comes to some collision with protection of" intimate sphere of the author "». In this connection it is offered to limit actions of the given norm by cases of reproduction of the published products [309].

Absolutely in understanding of the given norm M.V.Gordon adheres to other point of view. He considers, that such copies for personal consumption sometimes act in film from works of art in the educational purposes. Thus he notices, that «removal of a copy for a private use is possible only in the event that it does not pursue the aim of extraction of profit». Besides the author considers, that will not be considered as infringement if «the participant of a circle of amateur performances, … having copied a picture, gives to its factory collective» [310]. E.P.Gavrilovym also brought up questions on order possibility by the made copy, it was specified, that use does not provide possibility of alienation or other release in the civil circulation of the made copy. The author mentioned questions on which today already at legislative level answers are given: Whether probably to construct the house, having copied nearby the standing building, whether is possible use of the given competence by the separate organisations (in particular, reprinting by libraries of the lost pages of the book) [311].

So, we will allocate available in application of the given norm of a problem on the basis of the current legislation.

The basic condition of application of the given restriction is use purpose. In operating edition GK the Russian Federation in item 1273 it is accurately designated: reproduction is supposed if necessary and exclusively to suit the own ends. If to address to the dictionary, the purpose is an ideal or real subject of conscious or unconscious aspiration of the subject; an end result on which process [312] is purposely directed. Concerning norm of item 1273 GK the Russian Federation the end result or process should be directed exclusively on achievement of the personal purposes.

In the Decision of Plenum VS the Russian Federation and Plenum YOU the Russian Federation № 5/29 from March, 26th, 2009 razjasnjaetsjaznachenie the personal purpose which is understood as subsequent noncommercial use of a corresponding copy for satisfaction of own requirements or requirements of a usual circle of a family of the given citizen (which is defined by court taking into account concrete circumstances of the case in point). At the same time in item 32 of the Decision of Plenum VS the Russian Federation № 15 from June, 19th, 2006 is explained, that, solving a question on, whether persons concern a usual circle of a family, it is necessary to consider family relations and a personal contact, the dialogue periods, character of mutual relations and other significant circumstances. And from here follows, that transfer of the made copies to the third parties for the caused payment cannot be considered as personal needs. Thus, it is possible to draw a conclusion, that, speaking about reproduction of products to suit the own ends, it is necessary to have in view of own requirements (probably, family, household, spiritual) people, noncommercial character of use, that is use should not bring in the income and profit, and a designation of an audience which physical persons – citizens or their family circle are only.

The questions connected with an explanation of the maintenance of the personal purposes, have found the permission and in judiciary practice. So, according to definition of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on business № 5-V11-32 [313], it is established, that the publishing house of Modern humanitarian university had been published the book including the head, exclusive rights on which prinadlezhalim.n. Maleinoj. The full court on civil cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation by given case consideration has made a number of essential conclusions. First, the legislation does not provide reproduction of product without the permission of legal owners with a view of satisfaction of requirements for professional sphere. Secondly, for realisation of possibility of reproduction of product necessary noncommercial character of such use and a corresponding audience of use of product which is reduced to the user or his family circle to suit the own ends is. Absence of one of these signs testifies to others, not the personal purposes of reproduction. Thirdly, professional work of the teacher is not its personal sphere, is not also activity to suit the own ends as in the course of training between the teacher and trained there is not personal contact. Besides teaching activity is accompanied by reception of compensation and is not charitable noncommercial activity. In other proceeding the court specifies, that «use by the respondent of the book in commercial objectives, by finishing to general data through a network it is impossible to name the Internet personal use as in this case it is used not for own needs of the edition, and for sale to an uncertain circle of persons» [314].

So, on the basis of stated, and also within the limits of consideration of the given paragraph under the personal purposes we will have in view of the purposes (result) directed on achievement and satisfaction of own spiritual needs of citizens and a circle of their family, not connected with realisation of professional, educational, scientific activity and not providing extraction of commercial benefit in the course of achievement of the given purposes.

Because product use is possible only "if necessary", there are various interpretation of the given norm. As it is noted in the Conclusion under project FZ № 63587-5 «About modification of a part of the fourth Civil code of the Russian Federation» (the first reading), «the offered criterion is not concrete, its interpretation in practice can become a source of disputes» [315]. In turn, the Constitutional court of the Russian Federation also has specified, that «uncertainty of the maintenance of the rule of law cannot provide its uniform understanding, creates possibility of abusing the executive authority the powers, generates inconsistent pravoprimenitelnuju practice» [316]. In what the given necessity and what its limits is expressed, in the law of specifications is not given. To prove necessity at the personal purposes it is not obviously possible. Apparently, the given expression the measure of necessity does not bear in itself any practical loading, because at each citizen. And a position of authors concerning the given expression neodinakova. So, N.Ivanov considers, that «necessity … should be understood as objective requirement of members of a family for the spiritual dialogue, one of which components is acquaintance each other with a literary work and arts» [317]. R.I.Sitdikova notices, that «validity of necessity should be defined taking into account a rationality and conscientiousness» [318]. Some authors believe, that these words are included in the law № 259-FZ «ostensibly for its conformity to article 13 of Agreement TRIPS» [319]. However Agreement TRIPS, item 9 of the Bern convention do not contain the requirement for the countries-participants to enter the term «if necessary». It is the initiative of the Russian legislator. That expressions «if necessary» and "to suit the own ends" contradict each other is characteristic also. In particular, item 44 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation provides: « To everyone freedom literary, art, scientific is guaranteed, technical and other kinds of the creativity, everyone has the right to participation in a cultural life », item 9 GK provides the Russian Federation, that« citizens and legal bodies at own discretion carry out the civil rights belonging to them ». As has fairly noted D.J.Kosihin,« own discretion does not assume a substantiation of any necessity. Therefore article application in a new wording can cause infringement of interests of users »[320]. In connection with such ambiguous understanding of"necessity"and absence of legislative definition of the given criterion it suggested to exclude it from norm of item 1273 GK the Russian Federation because the ambiguous treatment will create the big complexities in judiciary practice.

It is necessary to notice, that in the operating Civil code of the Russian Federation the question on the copies of products created for the personal purposes is not settled. The decision of Plenum VS the Russian Federation and Plenum YOU the Russian Federation № 5/29 from March, 26th 2009 godaustanavlivaet, that the made copy of product cannot be in the civil circulation. Accordingly, distribution of the given copy has extremely limited character. It cannot be transferred, sold, given in time using and even to give to other person. As has fairly noted E.P.Gavrilov, «no exhaustion of the rights concerning this copy can be» [321]. In turn, V.O.Kaljatin has designated, that «the personal purposes should not assume collective use of product» [322]. And it means, that distribution of a copy of product to collective is not supposed.

Besides, norms of item 1 of item 1273 GK the Russian Federation are established in the relation of the only legally promulgated product. According to the decision of Plenum VS the Russian Federation and Plenum YOU the Russian Federation № 5/29 from March, 26th, 2009 infringement of the exclusive right to product is manufacturing of one or more copy of the product, carried out with a counterfeit copy or at wrongful finishing to general data (including at wrongful placing in a network the Internet). Thus, such reproduction is not infringement of exclusive rights if at the moment of manufacturing of such copy product is used legally.

Quite often in jurisprudence there is a discussion concerning volume of the given rights at use of products to suit the own ends. So, there is an opinion of authors which consider, that «in this case in general there is product use in that sense what in it is put by the legislation, that is no use in the form of a craft» [323]. Also considers also O.V.Ablezgova who in the works notices, that «reading the got book, listening to a music record or doing for itself transfer of another's product, the person does not use product, and satisfies with its help the requirements» [324]. We believe, in the law there is no speech about daily consumption which arises at reading of the book or music listening. As it is noted by separate authors, «it is necessary to distinguish its consumption from product use. Use is directed on informing its other people (or creates possibility for such message), consumption of product by members of a society (reading, viewing, listening etc.) cannot be supervised by the legal owner »[325].

However there is a number of authors which consider, that use of product on the basis of item 1273 GK the Russian Federation is carried out not only by reproduction. «For today distribution, import, execution, display – ways of use of products which with reference to free use of products to suit the own ends in the law are not mentioned» [326]. R.I.Sitdikova marks: «Such narrowing of use, in our opinion, unfairly also is not equitable to interests of a modern society».

On the basis of the stated is considered expedient to state to item 1 of item 1273 GK the Russian Federation in the following edition: «use by the citizen exclusively to suit the own ends legally promulgated product Is supposed without the consent of the author or other legal owner and without payment of compensation»; available exceptions of article to leave without changes. The causing ambiguous understanding expression "if necessary" is as a result eradicated and competences of users are reduced as a whole to use, and not just to reproduction that is represented more logical and answers sense of free use of products to suit the own ends more.

As already by us it has been noted, in item 1273 GK the Russian Federations are available unusual cases when free reproduction of product to suit the own ends is not supposed under law instructions. It is characteristic, that GK RSFSR of 1964, the Basis of the civil legislation of USSR and republics of 1991 about such exceptions yet did not mention. For the first time similar withdrawals in the Russian civil legislation have appeared with acceptance FZ «About the copyright and the adjacent rights» 1993 in item 18.

Now in the Civil code of the Russian Federation there is six exceptions of item 1 of item 1273 GK the Russian Federation. We will consider these cases separately.

The first exception of a rule is reproduction of products of architecture in the form of buildings and similar constructions. And in due time the Decision of the Central Electoral Committee of the USSR of "a copyright Basis» from May, 16th, 1928 [327] in item item 9 supposed manufacture of constructions and constructions under architectural author architectural, engineering and other technical plans, drawings and drawings if the author at the publication has not reserved, that it reserves such right exclusively.

According to sense of item 2 FZ from 17.11.1995 № 169-FZ «About architectural activity in the Russian Federation» [328], architecture product considers created by the author of the architectural project object (a building, a construction), its external and internal shape, spatial, planirovochnaja and the functional organisation fixed in an architectural part of the documentation for building and realised in constructed architectural object. That for architecture products the norm podp is provided is important. 10 items 2 of item 1270 GK the Russian Federation according to which the owner of the exclusive right to such products is allocated by special competence: practical realisation of the architectural project, otherwise, owners of the architectural project have the rights of its realisation in the form of buildings and constructions. Therefore the constructed buildings and constructions cannot be considered as object of the copyright, it simply way of reproduction of those architectural projects which are primary. As O.Ershov «the design documentation has noted there is a first form of objective expression of product thanks to which it becomes accessible to the third parties» [329], «the constructed building can be considered only as the repeated form of display of product of architecture» [330].

As have noted a number of authors, under expression «reproduction of products of architecture in the form of buildings and similar constructions» means building, a construction, «practical realisation» [331]. Besides reproduction of similar buildings and constructions in practice appears difficultly realised because the plan of the author will be initially broken even at a choice of a place of construction as it is required to correct and bring the accompanying documentation under features of certain district. Differently, the law does not suppose building of buildings of architecture and similar constructions without the consent of authors of the specified buildings, and even for building to suit the own ends because creativity of architects consists in creation of unique object of the copyright (though is and «mass building» when are limited to one project and create houses and buildings with identical external shape, partly and not to pay each time the new project).

The second exception of item 1273 GK specifies the Russian Federation, that the law does not suppose reproduction to suit the own ends databases or their essentials, except the cases provided by item 1280 GK the Russian Federation. And the given specification provides the certain rights legally owning a copy of a database of the person which can without the permission of the author or other legal owner and without extra fee payment to make to a change database exclusively with a view of its functioning, to carry out correction of appreciable errors, to make a database copy in the archival purposes or for copy replacement if it is lost, unsuitable or destroyed. The given competences of the user of a database are settling and do not come under to extensive interpretation.

According to item 1260 GK the Russian Federation, a database is the set of independent materials presented in the objective form (articles, calculations, normative acts, judgements and other similar materials), systematised so that these materials could be found and processed by means of the COMPUTER.

As the third exception of item 1273 GK the Russian Federation the law names reproduction of the computer programs, except the cases provided by item 1280 GK the Russian Federation. The legal owner of such program can study, investigate or test program functioning, has the right to reproduce and transform an objective code to the initial text or to charge to other persons to carry out these actions.

The fourth exception of item 1273 GK the Russian Federation is inadmissibility of reproduction to suit the own ends books (completely) and musical texts. Under Project FZ about modification in GK the Russian Federation from 07.02.2012 the legislator completely should refuse concept of reproduction, but nevertheless, according to the changes brought by the Federal act № 35 from 12.03.2014 in items 4 of item 1273 GK the Russian Federation has left the given category and has stated in the following edition: «4) reproductions of books (completely) and musical texts (item 1275), that is their facsimile reproduction by means of any means, carried out not with a view of the edition». As has fairly noted I.A.Zenin, «reproduction of books and musical texts completely actually would be their edition» [332].

According to former edition of item 2 of item 1275 GK the Russian Federation reproduction did not include reproduction of product or storage of its copies in electronic (including in digital), optical or other machine-readable form, except cases of creation by means of means of the time copies intended for realisation of reproduction. The mentioned change represents an important point as the understanding of reproduction only as a paper copy is excluded.

Under the "reproduction" fixed in the Civil code before acceptance of changes, some authors understood «unusual cases of a x-copying and other similar reproduction of products (photocopying etc.) Which result is creation of identical copies of parts of products (pages) on paper carriers »[333]. Now in connection with intensive development of means (in particular digital carriers) all big urgency is got by new means of reproduction. In particular, repetitions of the original of product can achieve and by scanning, and in the electronic form. Though otsutstvuetv the legislation the scanning designation as reproductions, but is recognised, that it is a way of creation of copies of products [334]. In this connection it is necessary to notice, that if reproduction has been made by the camera, a tablet, the scanner and the information on the original has remained in the digital form, in memory of the given carriers according to former edition of item 4 of item 1273 GK the Russian Federation, it was not considered as reproduction. If the information is deduced from digital memory on the paper carrier in this case speech already went about reproduction. Changes, vnesennyev the Civil code, establish, that popular libraries, archives, the educational organisations can create copies in the electronic form (conditions thus remain former: absence of the purpose of extraction of profit, without the consent of the author or other legal owner and without compensation payment, with obligatory instructions of a name of the author which product is used, and a loan source, creation of individual copies of the products legally entered into the civil circulation). And for understanding of reproduction on the basis of item 1275 GK the Russian Federation it is necessary to know limits of the given reproduction. These are separate articles, maloobemnye the products legally published in collections, newspapers and other periodic printing editions, short fragments from other legally published written products (with illustrations or without illustrations).

As to reproduction to suit the own ends books it is necessary to consider, that it is inconvenient to legal owner to trace wrongful acts of the user which, for example, in house conditions does a x-copy of all book, but nevertheless the made copy will be considered made with as infringement of copyrights. Besides, if copying is carried out in copy salon, the book can be reproduced in parts some times. But nevertheless, if the literary work is presented in the form of the traditional paper carrier, to trace quantity and volume of the made and widespread copies all the same it is obviously possible.

Otherwise business is with the products invested with the electronic form and placed in a network the Internet. In a case if the person spreads on the site any product, that, undoubtedly, it is possible to say that the given product will be copied a large quantity of times by interested users of the virtual world. And this information will be received with minimum time and material inputs. And in this case it is simply impossible to trace, what volume of the same books or musical texts has been made, in what purposes and what the further destiny created in hundreds, and can also in thousand users of a copy. That fact is important, that, how many copies was created, products in electronic form will not be exposed to physical deterioration as paper carriers, they will not wear out and grow old. In this connection it is necessary to notice, that in favour of authors and other legal owners in the civil legislation there was a number of changes in connection with acceptance of a package so-called «the antipiracy law». In particular, the Federal act from 24.11.2014 № 364-FZ «About modification of the Federal act" About the information, information technologies and about information protection "and the Civil code of practice of the Russian Federation» [335], makes changes in law item 15.2 «About the information, information technologies and about information protection» [336], namely: the legal owner in case of detection in information-telecommunication networks, including in a network the Internet of objects author's and (or) the adjacent rights which extend without its permission, has the right to address in federal enforcement authority with the statement for acceptance of measures on access restriction to the information resources extending such objects, on the basis of the become effective judicial certificate. As consequence of these changes in GK the Russian Federation also has appeared item 1253.1 where responsibility of the information intermediary – the person giving possibility of access to a material in an information-telecommunication network is provided, including in a network the Internet. We believe, these changes will bring positive results for authors and legal owners of products (in particular and books) in counteraction to illegal access and placing of objects of copyrights to a worldnet, will settle an order of the reference of products in a network the Internet.

In notografii - a musicology ancillary industry – the musical letter is usually defined as «system of the graphic signs applied to record of music, and also record of music» [337]. Undoubtedly, that in the modern world the role of musical texts concedes to availability of pieces of music in a digital format. However frequently the form of expression of pieces of music all the same there are musical texts. In connection with huge possibilities of the digital world musical texts also quite often become object of reproduction by copiers. However the law forbids such way of use without the permission of the legal owner even to suit the own ends, and unlike books which cannot be reproduced completely, musical texts cannot be reproduced even partially. It is connected by that, according to item 7 of item 1259 GK the Russian Federation, comes under to author's protection not only a piece of music, but also its part. Besides manufacturing of musical texts is more expensive procedure, than manufacturing of texts book and consequently the second reason of input of such restriction is a protection of property rights of authors of pieces of music which frequently experience material difficulties.

According to the following exception fixed in podp. 5 items 1 of item 1273 GK the Russian Federation, are not supposed to suit the own ends videorecording of audiovisual product at its public execution in a place opened for free visiting, or in a place where there is a significant amount of the persons who are not belonging to a usual circle of a family. A vivid example in this case is record on a film videocamera at a cinema. The law does not suppose similar actions without the permission of the legal owner even to suit the own ends. A main objective of an establishment of the given exception is, most likely, that the copies of product received in such a way can be used as a result for distribution of counterfeit copies. The great value has that fact, that speech in the given norm goes only about audiovisual products, accordingly, if it is a question, for example, of performance or about circus performance for realisation of similar videorecording to suit the own ends permissions of the legal owner it is not required.

Last exception of norms of item 1273 GK the Russian Federation is item 6 which does not suppose reproduction of audiovisual product by means of the professional equipment which has been not intended for use in house conditions. This norm of article also is intended for struggle against counterfeit copies of product. And from sense of article follows, that viewing of audiovisual product by means of the professional equipment is forbidden even, «as deducing of audiovisual product on the screen already is the reproduction certificate» [338].

Exceptions of norm of item 1273 GK the Russian Federation are established because they do not assume possibility of development of the separate person, do not render influence on increase of an educational level, a science, culture.

It is necessary to notice, that for product reproduction to suit the own ends the great value has, which product comes under to reproduction and which image. For example, for the author of a literary work use of its product and copy creation in an individual copy will not play an essential role whereas creation even to one copy of product of painting or a sculpture can threaten uniqueness and originality of product. And the law does not name as an exception cases of copying of product of sculptures mechanical by, and, by the way, in this case the copy becomes indistinguishable from the original. In due time still JA.A. Kantorovich marked, «the work of art … has value as an independent corporal individual subject … Thus value of the original … can increase just because it is in one copy … the Work of art even in an individual copy can break interests of the artist» … [339] Therefore predlagaemrasprostranit action of article not only on sculpture products, but on works of art as a whole as it was in the Decision of the Central Electoral Committee of the USSR from May, 16th, 1928, and in the list of exceptions of item 1273 GK the Russian Federation to bring the seventh point: «7) reproduction by mechanically-contact copying of a work of art».

Thus, on the basis of the above-stated it is possible to draw following conclusions. For today of norm about free use of products to suit the own ends along with other civil-law means of free use of products possibilities of use of products by an unlimited circle of persons promote. Restrictions to suit the own ends as a kind concerning free use of products are directed on satisfaction of personal spiritual needs of citizens, on realisation of private interests in development, formation, increase of level of culture and creativity. Thus the reasonable combination of the given norms to civil-law means of maintenance of the rights of legal owners also promotes achievement of balance of interests of legal owners and users.

<< | >>
A source: Abdullazjanova Alina Mashutovna. CIVIL-LAW MEANS of FREE USE of PRODUCTS In the COPYRIGHT of the RUSSIAN FEDERATION. The DISSERTATION on competition of a scientific degree of the master of laws. Kazan - 2017. 2017

More on topic 3.3. Restrictions of exclusive copyrights with a view of personal use:

  1. 3.2. Restrictions of exclusive copyrights in the public purposes
  2. § 2. Restrictions of a freedom of speech on the Internet with a view of protection of morals and health of citizens
  3. § 1. Restrictions of a freedom of speech on the Internet with a view of protection of the constitutional system, defence of the country and safety of the state
  4. § 3. Restrictions of a freedom of speech on the Internet with a view of maintenance of the rights and freedom of other persons
  5. § 3. Legal problems of the exclusive and non-exclusive licence
  6. 5.2. Personal, vaguely - personal, obobshchenno-personal subject
  7. §2. Subjective copyrights.
  8. CHAPTER 1. HISTORY OF DEVELOPMENT OF ANTIMONOPOLY RESTRICTIONS. THE BASIC PRECONDITIONS OF ANTIMONOPOLY RESTRICTIONS IN ENTERPRISE ACTIVITY
  9. Kastalsky Vitaly Nikolaevich Zalog. of exclusive property rights and its feature, with reference to exclusive property rights of the unitary enterprises. The dissertation on competition of a scientific degree of the master of laws. Moscow -,
  10. §1. System of the international protection of copyrights.
  11. § 1. SYSTEM OF COPYRIGHTS
  12. § 4. Period of validity of copyrights.
  13. the CHAPTER III PROTECTION of COPYRIGHTS.
  14. CHAPTER 1. THE PLACE OF THE RIGHT OF FOLLOWING AND ACCESS RIGHT IN SYSTEM OF COPYRIGHTS
  15. the Chapter II. Russia In SYSTEM of the INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION of COPYRIGHTS
  16. the CHAPTER II OBJECTS of the COPYRIGHT, KINDS of SUBJECTIVE COPYRIGHTS.