The Presumption of a Creative Nature (Originality) of Copyright Objects
The paper is devoted to the doctrinal meaning and practical significance of the presumption of the creative nature (originality) of copyright objects. This presumption is not directly enshrined in Russian law, but it follows from the systemic interpretation of the rules dedicated to notion of the author. A citizen who created a work by his creative work is recognized as the author. The laws of many countries contain the presumption of originality of works, but its interpretations are diametrically different. At the present time, in the conditions of an increasingly accelerating and complicating civil turnover accompanied by the information revolution, legal and technical substantive approaches to the category of originality (as a synonym for creativity) as a common and only prerequisite for the protection of works by copyright and the continental copyright system have gradually begun to converge. At the same time, domestic judicial practice still unreasonably ignores the doctrine of substantial similarity of works based on the presumption of originality. The author proposes an authentic classification of disputes concerning the originality of works, the basis of which is the number of objects involved in the dispute.The author builds a coordinate system, the criterion of which is the degree of change of the original work: identical copying — non-identical copying — processing — free creation of another original work. At the same time, the author emphasizes that a copy, even significantly different from the original, does not cease to be a copy. In legal terms, identical and non-identical copying constitutes reproduction that requires the consent of the author or copyright holder of the original work. A necessary sign of processing is the purpose of the author of the changes to expand the possibilities of using the original work; processing also requires the consent of the author or copyright holder with respect to the original work. Non-identical copying and reworking should be distinguished from creating a new work using an unprotected content of the original authentic work.