Kyiv: Klim Bratkovsky, a lawyer and specialist in copyright and related rights, told Front News International that the amendments to the copyright law are just a technical matter, something that really needs to be discussed is still unknown to many authors.
Bratkovsky spoke about this in an exclusive conversation with a journalist from Front News International.
“The law that was signed by the president is a technical phenomenon. Nobody uses discs, why discuss it? Now it is irrelevant. Audiovisual products are distributed via the Internet. About 10 years ago it would have made some sense, but not now. What is it signed for? PR for President? “Possibly!” The specialist commented on the adopted changes in the “On Copyright and Related Rights” the Law of Ukraine.
Bratkovsky stressed that the topic that really needs to be discussed does not lie in the information plane. Other changes were made to another law, but for some reason, nobody even knows about this. In particular, the Law of Ukraine "On the effective management of property rights of owners in the field of copyright and related rights" in the final provisions were amended in the article of the law on copyright.
“In accordance with practice, in 1994, for the infringement of copyright, claims were paid for damages, or, if the damage could not be proved, they were demanded compensation, for which it was necessary only to indicate the infringement. Compensation ranged from 10 to 55,000 minimum wages. And this year these norms were abolished. If the author had illegally used a photo, he had the right to demand decent compensation, but now, in accordance with an agreement with the EU association, the author has the right to demand compensation in the form of 2 or 3 amounts of remuneration, which he could have received if the person did not steal material but simply buy it. Basically, it is customary to make 3 payments, since copyright is a deliberate violation,” the lawyer says.
Thus, the meaning of copyright protection disappears. If last year the payment of compensation was guaranteed, then this year you still need to prove the probable amount of the sale of your material. The authors will not even do it.
“Perhaps it was lobbied by publishing houses and television companies. The consequence of this may be a reduction in lawsuits. Besides, nobody has ever figured out the norm. For example, if a violation occurred before the law came into force, should the old practice of minimum wages be applied? No one knows. We need to wait for court practice,” Klim Bratkovsky said.
In addition, to defend their interests in terms of intellectual property, it is necessary to hire a bar association. But few will do so in the context of the new amendments to the law. This “ties hands” to authors who do not even know about the new provisions.
“Compensation, determined by the court from the minimum to the maximum size, is an effective tool to counter copyright infringement. It should have been preserved since this mechanism in practice provides at least some kind of opposition to copyright infringement,” the expert said.