შესავალი

იდენტურობის პრეზუმფცია: არის ისრაელის კანონმდებლობა ამერიკული სამართლის მსგავსი?

ანგლო-ამერიკული სამართალი საავტორო უფლებების შესახებ

1. ავტორის უფლებას, აღიარებულ იქნას ნაწარმოების ავტორად;
2. ავტორის უფლებას, არ დაუშვას ცვლილებების შეტანა ნაწარმოებში და დაიცვას ის დამახინჯების ან სხვაგვარად ხელყოფისაგან;
3. ავტორის უფლებას გამოიხმოს ნაწარმოები და შეაჩეროს მისი გამოქვეყნება;
4. პირის უფლებას არ იყოს აღიარებული სხვისი ნაწარმოების ავტორად.25 თუკი ქონებრივი უფლებები გადაცემადია, მორალური უფლებები უნარჩუნდება ავტორს.26

აქვს თუ არა პროფესორ ქიმრონს საავტორო უფლებები?

ორიგინალობის კონცეფცია საავტორო სამართალში

უზენაესი სასამართლოს გადაწყვეტილება

დასკვნა

ბიბლიოგრაფია:

1. ბერნჰეკ, დ. მ. (2001). მკვდარი ზღვის გრაგნილების საქმე: ვინ არის ავტორი, ევროპული ინტელექტუალური საკუთრების მიმოხილვის საქმეთა კომენტარები.
2. ბერნჰეკ, დ. მ. (2001). მკვდარი ზღვის გრაგნილების საქმე – თარგმანი.
3. ფარლი, ს. ჩ. (2004). ფოტოგრაფიის გამოგონებაზე საავტორო უფლებათა რეაგირების ხანგრძლივი ეფექტი, პიტსბურგის უნივერსიტეტის სამართლის მიმოხილვა, ტომი 65.
4. მაქქუინი, ჩ., (2008 წლის 30 აგვისტო). გრაგნილები და ავტორობის ლეგალური განმარტება, ედინბურგის უნივერსიტეტი.
5. ნიმერი, დ., (2001). საავტორო უფლებები მკვდარი ზღვის გრაგნილთა საქმეში, ავტორობა და ორიგინალობა, ჰიუსტონის სამართლის მიმოხილვა.
6. სტიუარტ, ს. მ., (1989). საერთაშორისო საავტორო და მომიჯნავე უფლებები, მეორე გამოცემა.
7. სინ, რ., (2001-2002). © საავტორო უფლებების მოქმედება ბიბლიასა და რელიგიურ ნაწარმოებებში, რეგენტის უნივერსიტეტის სამართლის მიმოხილვა, ტომი 14, ნომერი 1.
8. ტემპსკა, უ., (2002). „ორიგინალობა“ მკვდარი ზღვის გრაგნილების საქმის შემდეგ: ამერიკის საავტორო უფლებათა კანონმდებლობაზე გავლენა, ინტელექტუალური საკუთრების სამართლის მიმოხილვა, ტომი 6, ნომერი 1
9. ვილკოფ, ნ., (2001). საავტორო უფლებები, მორალური უფლებები და სამართლის არჩევანი: სად დაუშვა შეცდომა მკვდარი ზღვის გრაგნილების საქმის განმხილველმა სასამართლომ? ჰიუსტონის სამართლის მიმოხილვა.
10. ლიტერატურისა და ხელოვნების ნაწარმოებების დაცვის ბერნის კონვენცია, 1886.

Notes:

1. On the slopes of the Judean desert near the Dead Sea between 1947 and 1956, more than 800 ancient manuscripts were discovered in caves. They contained texts from all but one book of the Bible (the book of Esther). The rest of the manuscripts were ancient, non-biblical Hebrew texts: apocrypha and pseudo-epigraphs. Needless to say, the scrolls provide direct evidence of the period of consolidation of Judaism and the rise of Christianity, and it is no wonder that they are considered one of the most important archaeological discoveries of the twentieth century. Birnhack, D. M. (2001). THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS CASE: WHO IS AN AUTHOR, European Intellectual Property Review Case Comment, Sweet and Maxwell Limited and Contributors, 1. Birnhack, D. M. (2001). The Dead Sea Scrolls Case – Translation, 3. Nimmer, D., (2001). HOUSTON LAW REVIEW, COPYRIGHT IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AUTHORSHIP AND ORIGINALITY, 54, 55, 56.
2. Nimmer, D., (2001). HOUSTON LAW REVIEW, COPYRIGHT IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AUTHORSHIP AND ORIGINALITY, 58.
3. Professor Strugnell noted: is unique in language, style, and content. Using linguistic and theological analysis, the original text has been dated as one of the earliest works of the Qumran sect. Together the six fragments provide a composite text of about 130 lines, which probably cover about two-thirds of the original. The initial part of the text is completely missing. Nimmer, D., (2001). HOUSTON LAW REVIEW, COPYRIGHT IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AUTHORSHIP AND ORIGINALITY, 58.
4. Strugnell's report: Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell, "Qumran Cave 4", Miqsat Ma'ase Ha-Torah, in X Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 1994, Birnhack, D. M. (2001). THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS CASE: WHO IS AN AUTHOR, European Intellectual Property Review Case Comment, Sweet and Maxwell Limited and Contributors, 3.
5. Birnhack, D. M. (2001). THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS CASE:WHO IS AN AUTHOR, European Intellectual Property Review Case Comment,Sweet and Maxwell Limited and Contributors, 3
6. Nimmer, D., (2001). HOUSTON LAW REVIEW, COPYRIGHT IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AUTHORSHIP AND ORIGINALITY,68.
7. The Society for Biblical Archeology ("BAS"), based in the United States, published the Biblical Archeology Review ("BAR"). Birnhack, D. M. (2001).THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS CASE: WHO IS AN AUTHOR, European Intellectual Property Review Case Comment, Sweet and Maxwell Limited and Contributors, 3.
8. Since the late 1980s, no controversy has been more heated than that surrounding access to the scrolls and the movement to accelerate their publication. The push by scholars to gain what the “Biblical Archaeology Review” characterized as “intellectual freedom and the right to scholarly access” has had significant results. In 1988, the administration for scroll research, the Israel Antiquities Authority, began to expand the number of scroll assignments. By 1992, they included more than fifty scholars. In 1991, a computer-generated version as well as a two-volume edition of the scroll photographs were published by the Biblical Archaeology Society. Nimmer, D., (2001). HOUSTON LAW REVIEW, COPYRIGHT IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AUTHORSHIP AND ORIGINALITY, 66,67.
9. This is, of course, a literal translation. However, in Israeli law "copyright" is translated in European style as "author's right". Birnhack, D. M., (2001). The Dead Sea Scrolls Case – Translation, 4.
10. Birnhack, D. M. (2001). The Dead Sea Scrolls Case – Translation, 5.
11. The court noted: “Everyone agrees that the dispute must be governed by the law of the place of delict, that is, the law of the United States. The court found that three copies were sent by BAS to readers in Israel. The court found BAS's sending of the decrypted text to Israel sufficient to establish an infringement of Kimron's copyright in Israel. Accordingly, the court considered this as a basis for the application of Israeli law. Birnhack, D. M. (2001). The Dead Sea Scrolls Case – Translation, Faculty of Law, Tel-Aviv University,6.
12. Birnhack, D. M., (2001). The Dead Sea Scrolls Case – Translation, Faculty of Law, Tel-Aviv University, 8.
13. The unique development of Israeli copyright law should be considered. The Jewish legal system is based on common law, with elements of civil law added over the years. Israeli copyright law was based on the UK Copyright Act 1911 and the Copyright Ordinance, which was used in Palestine in 1924, and became part of Israeli law from 1948. The Moral Rights Act was added in 1981. Over the years, Israeli copyright law has differed somewhat from its English counterpart. Birnhack, D. M. (2001), THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS CASE: WHO IS AN AUTHOR, European Intellectual Property Review Case Comment,Sweet and Maxwell Limited and Contributors, 7. Wilkof, N., (2001). COPYRIGHT, MORAL RIGHTS AND THE CHOICE OF LAW: WHERE DID THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS COURT GO WRONG? HOUSTON LAW REVIEW, 465.
14. In the case of Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. Justice O’Connor held there that although a telephone book could contain copyrightable material (in its preface and yellow pages, for example), insofar as the alphabetized white pages are concerned, no copyright protection lies. Nimmer, D., (2001). HOUSTON LAW REVIEW, COPYRIGHT IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AUTHORSHIP AND ORIGINALITY, 20
15. Birnhack, D. M. (2001), THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS CASE: WHO IS AN AUTHOR, European Intellectual Property Review Case Comment,Sweet and Maxwell Limited and Contributors, 9.
16. Birnhack, D. M. (2001). The Dead Sea Scrolls Case – Translation, 5, 6.
17. The District Court responded, saying that “Shanks conducted for years, on the pages of the BAR, a persistent and polemic campaign to open the access and research of the concealed scrolls to all interested. He testified that he has been a voice to all those who remained outside the “research cartel”. Shanks wrote similar things in the Introduction of the book: “Surely we must admire the dedicated people who have devoted their professional lives to arranging and deciphering these seemingly impenetrable pieces of our common past. For the most part, the people who do this are not only dedicated but brilliant experts in what they are doing, conscientious to the nuances of their work. For this, all honor to them. But for their pride and greed – their unbending determination to keep exclusive control of these treasures for themselves, their heirs and their students – they must bear the shame.” Birnhack, D. M. (2001). The Dead Sea Scrolls Case – Translation,7.
18. Translations, adaptations, arrangements of music and other alterations of a literary or artistic work shall be protected as original works without prejudice to the copyright in the original work. Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works of September 9, 1886
19. The term "Authorized Version" refers not only to the King James Version published in 1611, but also includes earlier translations authorized by the Church of England. In 1875 in New York, Lesser v. In Sklarz, the defendant argued that the Bible existed outside of human memory. Such books should not have been subject to copyright protection. The judge patiently listened to the long discussion and granted the plaintiff's request. Syn, R., (2001- 2002). © COPYRIGHT GOD: ENFORCEMENT OF COPYRIGHT IN THE BIBLE AND RELIGIOUS WORKS, REGENT UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW, Volume 14, Number 1, HeinOnline,1,2,12,13.
20. In 1972 Robert Stigwood Group v.O'Reilly, Priests were sued for modifying the opera Jesus Christ Superstar because they believed it parodied the true gospel. The modified version portrayed Jesus as a strong masculine individual who rose from the dead rather than merely dying, since Christianity is empty and futile if Jesus did not rise from the dead. Syn, R., (2001-2002). © COPYRIGHT GOD: ENFORCEMENT OF COPYRIGHT IN THE BIBLE AND RELIGIOUS WORKS, REGENT UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW, Volume 14, Number 1,14.
21. These profits, however, come from subjecting the Bible to monopolies and royalties. Irrespective of the benefits, is there a dilemma in withholding the Bible and its free message if royalties are unpaid? Copyright involves ownership, so in view of its purported divine origin, should the Bible, or even a Bible translation, be owned as private intellectual property? Syn,R., (2001-2002). © COPYRIGHT GOD: ENFORCEMENT OF COPYRIGHT IN THE BIBLE AND RELIGIOUS WORKS, REGENT UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW, Volume 14, Number 1, 2.
22. Syn, R., (2001-2002). © COPYRIGHT GOD: ENFORCEMENT OF COPYRIGHT IN THE BIBLE AND RELIGIOUS WORKS, Roger Syn, REGENT UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW,Volume 14, Number 1, 5.
23. The House of Lords decided, twenty-two to eleven to allow Donaldson to copy the poems, which confirmed that copyright protected published books only for the statutory term, after which they entered the public domain. Syn, R., (2001-2002). ©COPYRIGHT GOD: ENFORCEMENT OF COPYRIGHT IN THE BIBLE AND RELIGIOUS WORKS, REGENT UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW, Volume 14 Number 1, 5.6
24. Nimmer, D., (2001). HOUSTON LAW REVIEW, COPYRIGHT IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AUTHORSHIP AND ORIGINALITY, 231. Violation of moral rights may have indirect economic consequences caused by damage to the identity of the author or work, whereas economic rights involve the direct ability to require royalties. Syn, R., (2001-2002). © COPYRIGHT GOD: ENFORCEMENT OF COPYRIGHT IN THE BIBLE AND RELIGIOUS WORKS, 13.
25. Syn, R., (2001-2002). ©COPYRIGHT GOD: ENFORCEMENT OF COPYRIGHT IN THE BIBLE AND RELIGIOUS WORKS, 13.
26. Independently of the author’s economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation. Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works of September 9, 1886
27. Nimmer, D., (2001). HOUSTON LAW REVIEW, COPYRIGHT IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AUTHORSHIP AND ORIGINALITY, 11.
28. The court saw the author's vision in the selection and arrangement of poses, costumes and accessories. In these actions, according to the judge, he/she discovered the author's handwriting. The judge did not discuss the methods by which the photographer can manipulate the image. The work of the author was completely separated from the work of the camera. Farley, C. H. (2004). THE LINGERING EFFECTS OF COPYRIGHT’S RESPONSE TO THE INVENTION OF PHOTOGRAPHY UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH LAW REVIEW, vol 65, 389,390,391.
29. Nimmer, D., (2001). HOUSTON LAW REVIEW, COPYRIGHT IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AUTHORSHIP AND ORIGINALITY,12.
30. Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., 188 U.S. (1903). Nimmer, D., (2001). HOUSTON LAW REVIEW, COPYRIGHT IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AUTHORSHIP AND ORIGINALITY,12.
31. Qimron has copyright in the deciphered text as a result of one or more of the things he did: the physical aggregating of the fragments, their arrangement, deciphering what is written on them, and supplementing the lacuna between them. Does that “spirit”, that “soul”, that he placed in the fragments of the scroll, with the power of his knowledge and talent, make the deciphered text in its entirety a work protected by the Act? Birnhack, M. (2007), The Dead Sea Scrolls Case – Translation, Faculty of Law, Tel-Aviv University, 8, 9.
32. Birnhack, M. (2007), The Dead Sea Scrolls Case – Translation, Faculty of Law, Tel-Aviv University, 9.
33. Birnhack, M. (2007), The Dead Sea Scrolls Case – Translation, Faculty of Law, Tel-Aviv University, 9.
34. Tempska, U., (2002). "Originality" After the Dead Sea Scrolls Decision: Implications for the American Law of Copyright, Intellectual Property Law Review, Volume 6, Issue 1, Article 5, 121,122.
35. Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., U.S. 1879; Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc., 2d Cir. 1951. Urzula Tempska, U., (2002). "Originality" After the Dead Sea Scrolls Decision: Implications for the American Law of Copyright, Intellectual Property Law Review, Volume 6, Issue 1, Article 5, 121,122.
36. In 1994, Oxford University Press published an edition, edited by Qimron and Strugnell, which contained the remark: © Elisha Qimron 1994. MacQueen, H., (30 August 2008). The Scrolls and the Legal Definition of Authorship Edinburgh University, 2,3.
37. Birnhack, D. M. (2001), THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS CASE: WHO IS AN AUTHOR, European Intellectual Property Review Case Comment, Sweet and Maxwell Limited and Contributors, 5.
38. Birnhack, D. M. (2001), THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS CASE: WHO IS AN AUTHOR, European Intellectual Property Review Case Comment, Sweet and Maxwell Limited and Contributors, 5,6.
39. Birnhack, D. M. (2001), THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS CASE: WHO IS AN AUTHOR, European Intellectual Property Review Case Comment, Sweet and Maxwell Limited and Contributors, 6
40. Wilkof, N., (2001). COPYRIGHT, MORAL RIGHTS AND THE CHOICE OF LAW: WHERE DID THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS COURT GO WRONG? HOUSTON LAW REVIEW, 464.
41. Birnhack, D. M. (2001), THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS CASE: WHO IS AN AUTHOR, European Intellectual Property Review Case Comment, Sweet and Maxwell Limited and Contributors 9,10,11. Originality means that the work originates from the author and not from another source. However, a (minimal) investment of skills and labor is required. MacQueen, H., (30 August 2008). The Scrolls and the Legal Definition of Authorship Edinburgh University, 3,4,5.
42. Wilkof, N., (2001). COPYRIGHT, MORAL RIGHTS AND THE CHOICE OF LAW: WHERE DID THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS COURT GO WRONG? HOUSTON LAW REVIEW, 464, 465,466,
43. Birnhack, D. M. (2001), THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS CASE: WHO IS AN AUTHOR, European Intellectual Property Review Case Comment, Sweet and Maxwell Limited and Contributors 12,15.