Correlation of terms «orphan work» and «public domain work» in the modern copyright law

Keywords: orphan work, copyright, work digitization, public domain, propertyrights of the author, term of copyright The authors insist on the need todifferentiate the terms «orphan work» and «public domain work». It is connected withthe necessity to follow reasonable balance between the property interest of the authoror his successors and the public interest in reasonable use of the work in order to improvethe current legal field.It is substantiated that the existing copyright system, which provides to pay royaltyfor every use of the work for its author for 70 years or more, conflicts with theneeds of society in modern digital age. It is necessary to get permission from the copyrightholder to digitize a work to make it available. For orphan works it is difficult.The traditional copyright system should provide an exception for orphan works. It isformulated that permission to use such works must be granted by a specially authorizedstate body if there is any evidence that the user has taken all possible measuresto find the copyright holder, but has not been successful.Analysis of the content of theoretical and legal definitions of the terms «orphanwork» and «public domain work» shows that the presence or absence of ongoing protectionof property rights of the author is a key factor in the difference. Such rightsare still valid for orphan works, and therefore the permission of the right holder touse such a work is required. Meanwhile, the «public domain work» includes workswhich the term of copyright has expired. Therefore, the work can be used without permission.So, the approach that an orphan work becomes public domain is incorrect.On a basis of analysis of legislation conclusions is drawn that it is inexpedient touse too voluminous definition of the term «orphan work». It is argued that the systemof issuing permits for use of orphan works by the state bodies at request of a potentialuser must be defined in legislation.

A Framework for the Collection, Retention and Use of Human Body Parts

<p>Organ transplantation and biotechnological research depend on the availability of body parts, which necessitates the willing involvement of the public. The rapid development of biotechnology has led to a search for an adequate decision-making framework for the acquisition, retention and utilisation of body parts. It has also lead to disquiet about the commercialisation of research with the source being the only participant who is unable to benefit financially. In developing such a framework it is necessary to conceptualise the nature of the interest that individuals have in their bodies. The principle of autonomy may form a basis for structuring decision-making and weighing conflicting principles. As a society we value autonomy in the sense that a competent adult may make decisions about his or her own health care. The concept is that of an individual separated from others by a wall of rights. This may be of assistance as a basis for formulating competing rights, but this must then be mediated with reference to other principles. In this context this thesis applies the concepts of property interests to the human body. The purpose of this research is to consider selected bioethical issues in an attempt to formulate a principled approach to issues of consent and control over the body and its component parts. It argues that a living person should have a property interest in excised body parts during life. There should also be a property interest in the cadaver that arises at the point of death, which can be passed to the deceased's personal representative, who would be required to deal with the cadaver in accord with the previous instructions of the deceased. However, it does not argue that there are property interests in entire living persons. It does not suggest that property alone is adequate to resolve the issues, but that it should operate alongside existing concepts such as autonomy, informed consent and privacy. It proposes draft legislation to illustrate the operation of the suggested medico-legal framework. It recognises that any framework should be respectful of Maori cultural values, in light of the special position of Maori as tangata whenua, as expressed in the Treaty of Waitangi. It argues that the framework allows Maori the freedom to choose collective or individualistic decision-making, in recognition of the diversity of values within the Maori population. In addition, it considers areas where public policy might determine that the free disposition of this property interest should be restricted to protect vulnerable persons, such as incompetent persons and living organ donors.</p>

A Framework for the Collection, Retention and Use of Human Body Parts

<p>Organ transplantation and biotechnological research depend on the availability of body parts, which necessitates the willing involvement of the public. The rapid development of biotechnology has led to a search for an adequate decision-making framework for the acquisition, retention and utilisation of body parts. It has also lead to disquiet about the commercialisation of research with the source being the only participant who is unable to benefit financially. In developing such a framework it is necessary to conceptualise the nature of the interest that individuals have in their bodies. The principle of autonomy may form a basis for structuring decision-making and weighing conflicting principles. As a society we value autonomy in the sense that a competent adult may make decisions about his or her own health care. The concept is that of an individual separated from others by a wall of rights. This may be of assistance as a basis for formulating competing rights, but this must then be mediated with reference to other principles. In this context this thesis applies the concepts of property interests to the human body. The purpose of this research is to consider selected bioethical issues in an attempt to formulate a principled approach to issues of consent and control over the body and its component parts. It argues that a living person should have a property interest in excised body parts during life. There should also be a property interest in the cadaver that arises at the point of death, which can be passed to the deceased's personal representative, who would be required to deal with the cadaver in accord with the previous instructions of the deceased. However, it does not argue that there are property interests in entire living persons. It does not suggest that property alone is adequate to resolve the issues, but that it should operate alongside existing concepts such as autonomy, informed consent and privacy. It proposes draft legislation to illustrate the operation of the suggested medico-legal framework. It recognises that any framework should be respectful of Maori cultural values, in light of the special position of Maori as tangata whenua, as expressed in the Treaty of Waitangi. It argues that the framework allows Maori the freedom to choose collective or individualistic decision-making, in recognition of the diversity of values within the Maori population. In addition, it considers areas where public policy might determine that the free disposition of this property interest should be restricted to protect vulnerable persons, such as incompetent persons and living organ donors.</p>

Opodatkowanie nabycia nieruchomości w drodze działu spadku. Glosa do wyroku Naczelnego Sądu Administracyjnego z dnia 13 października 2015 r. (II FSK 2133/13, LEX nr 1808541)

<p>The commented judgement concerns the taxation of acquisition of immovable property by inheritance division. In the applicant’s opinion dissolution of co-ownership is not an acquisition of assets if it is within the share which the former co-owners had in the common property and was carried out without any repayments or surcharges. If the acquisition of one-half of the property occurred upon the death of the testator, but through the subsequent abolition of co-ownership, the applicant acquired nothing more than what he already owned, the abolition of co-ownership does not constitute an acquisition and has no tax consequences. According to the tax authority, this position is incorrect. The applicant acquired half of the share in the property by way of inheritance and division of inheritance and a half share in the property by way of abolition of co-ownership. The administrative courts have held that the tax authority’s position is incorrect. In administrative cases, it may be necessary to use external systemic interpretation and reference by the administrative authorities to the relevant provisions of civil law. In the Supreme Administrative Court’s opinion, point of the dispute in this case is based on the conclusion what date should have been taken as the date of acquisition of the property (interest in the property). Resolution of this issue required a detailed analysis of the provisions of the Civil Code. Although, not all relevant issues have been considered by the Voivodeship Administrative Court, the decision of the court of first instance is in fact lawful. The gloss is approving and declares that the position taken in the judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court is correct.</p>

The nature of beneficiaries’ rights—can there be a trust to observe a licence over property?

This article considers the nature of a trust beneficiary’s rights. Specifically, it challenges a body of academic opinion that suggests it is not possible for a trust to exist where the only benefit conferred by the trust’s terms on its beneficiary is that the trustee must observe a licence for the beneficiary to use the trust property, given that a licence is only a personal right not a property interest.

Possession and Title to Chattels

This chapter considers the nature of the title that is acquired through taking possession of a chattel. It argues that the possessor acquires a general property interest in respect of the chattel. This is an alienable proprietary interest that is capable of lasting forever, will survive a loss of possession, and includes a right to exclude the world at large. The chapter explains that this argument is compatible with (a) the law concerning the jus tertii; and (b) the rule that a possessor must be presumed, for certain purposes, to be the ‘absolute and complete owner’ of the chattel, unless a person with a better right can be identified.

Ownership and Relativity of Title

This chapter examines the relationship between relativity of title and ownership. It is argued that, despite the fact that English law is a multititular system that recognises relativity of title, land and chattels can be owned. But it is a mistake to think that an inferior fee simple or an inferior general property interest has all the incidents of ownership. There are important differences between the legal position of a person who has the best title to a thing and a person who has an inferior title. The former, it is suggested, may have ownership, but the latter does not.

Some Issues of Application of Single Parent’s Property Interest Protection Means in View of the Occurrence of an Emergency Situation

In the article, the author analyzes some issues of effective application of social protection means by single mothers upon occurrence of an insolvency (bankruptcy) risk in the modern market economy conditions related to the COVID-19 pandemic, which triggered the growth of unemployment and exposed the absence of any additional guarantees of protection of rights and legal interests of some family members. Although the government has adopted some social means of protection of the population, at least temporary protection of people (especially single mothers) against creditors’ claims has not been included. The author reviews the opportunity to implement the function of additional protection of rights and legal interests of single mothers upon occurrence of insolvency (bankruptcy) and emergency situation risks at least at the judicial practice level.

PROPERTY INTEREST IN MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS: ON THE SCOPE OF ARTICLE 86 FAMILY CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

В данном научном труде представлен подход автора к пониманию существа интереса и пределов его действия в алиментных обязательствах родителей и детей, связанных с участием родителей в дополнительных расходах на содержание ребенка, которые вызваны исключительными обстоятельствами. Сделан вывод о том, что дополнительная забота родителей о ребенке возникает на основании нескольких взаимосвязанных между собой обстоятельств: родственной связи; трудной жизненной ситуации, в которой оказался ребенок; отношений по содержанию; неурегулированности разногласий между родителями; наличия объективной связи исключительных обстоятельств с расходами; имущественного интереса родителей и ребенка. Предложено изменить редакцию ст. 86 СК РФ с целью соответствия содержащихся в ней положений интересам родителей и ребенка, характеризующихся их гармоничным сочетанием. This scientific work presents the author’s approach to understanding the essence of interest and the extent of its action in the alimony obligations of parents and children associated with the participation of parents in additional costs for the maintenance of a child, which are caused by exceptional circumstances. It is concluded that additional parental care for the child arises on the basis of several interrelated circumstances: kinship; difficult life situations in which the child finds himself; content relationships; unresolved disagreements between parents; the existence of an objective connection of exceptional circumstances with costs; property interests of parents and the child. It is proposed to change the wording of Art. 86 of the IC of the Russian Federation in order to comply with the provisions contained in it with the interests of parents and the child, characterized by their harmonious combination.