À propos de la propriété intellectuelle Formation en propriété intellectuelle Respect de la propriété intellectuelle Sensibilisation à la propriété intellectuelle La propriété intellectuelle pour… Propriété intellectuelle et… Propriété intellectuelle et… Information relative aux brevets et à la technologie Information en matière de marques Information en matière de dessins et modèles industriels Information en matière d’indications géographiques Information en matière de protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Lois, traités et jugements dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Ressources relatives à la propriété intellectuelle Rapports sur la propriété intellectuelle Protection des brevets Protection des marques Protection des dessins et modèles industriels Protection des indications géographiques Protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges Solutions opérationnelles à l’intention des offices de propriété intellectuelle Paiement de services de propriété intellectuelle Décisions et négociations Coopération en matière de développement Appui à l’innovation Partenariats public-privé Outils et services en matière d’intelligence artificielle L’Organisation Travailler avec nous Responsabilité Brevets Marques Dessins et modèles industriels Indications géographiques Droit d’auteur Secrets d’affaires Académie de l’OMPI Ateliers et séminaires Application des droits de propriété intellectuelle WIPO ALERT Sensibilisation Journée mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle Magazine de l’OMPI Études de cas et exemples de réussite Actualités dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Prix de l’OMPI Entreprises Universités Peuples autochtones Instances judiciaires Ressources génétiques, savoirs traditionnels et expressions culturelles traditionnelles Économie Financement Actifs incorporels Égalité des genres Santé mondiale Changement climatique Politique en matière de concurrence Objectifs de développement durable Technologies de pointe Applications mobiles Sport Tourisme PATENTSCOPE Analyse de brevets Classification internationale des brevets Programme ARDI – Recherche pour l’innovation Programme ASPI – Information spécialisée en matière de brevets Base de données mondiale sur les marques Madrid Monitor Base de données Article 6ter Express Classification de Nice Classification de Vienne Base de données mondiale sur les dessins et modèles Bulletin des dessins et modèles internationaux Base de données Hague Express Classification de Locarno Base de données Lisbon Express Base de données mondiale sur les marques relative aux indications géographiques Base de données PLUTO sur les variétés végétales Base de données GENIE Traités administrés par l’OMPI WIPO Lex – lois, traités et jugements en matière de propriété intellectuelle Normes de l’OMPI Statistiques de propriété intellectuelle WIPO Pearl (Terminologie) Publications de l’OMPI Profils nationaux Centre de connaissances de l’OMPI Série de rapports de l’OMPI consacrés aux tendances technologiques Indice mondial de l’innovation Rapport sur la propriété intellectuelle dans le monde PCT – Le système international des brevets ePCT Budapest – Le système international de dépôt des micro-organismes Madrid – Le système international des marques eMadrid Article 6ter (armoiries, drapeaux, emblèmes nationaux) La Haye – Le système international des dessins et modèles industriels eHague Lisbonne – Le système d’enregistrement international des indications géographiques eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange Médiation Arbitrage Procédure d’expertise Litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine Accès centralisé aux résultats de la recherche et de l’examen (WIPO CASE) Service d’accès numérique aux documents de priorité (DAS) WIPO Pay Compte courant auprès de l’OMPI Assemblées de l’OMPI Comités permanents Calendrier des réunions WIPO Webcast Documents officiels de l’OMPI Plan d’action de l’OMPI pour le développement Assistance technique Institutions de formation en matière de propriété intellectuelle Mesures d’appui concernant la COVID-19 Stratégies nationales de propriété intellectuelle Assistance en matière d’élaboration des politiques et de formulation de la législation Pôle de coopération Centres d’appui à la technologie et à l’innovation (CATI) Transfert de technologie Programme d’aide aux inventeurs WIPO GREEN Initiative PAT-INFORMED de l’OMPI Consortium pour des livres accessibles L’OMPI pour les créateurs WIPO Translate Speech-to-Text Assistant de classification États membres Observateurs Directeur général Activités par unité administrative Bureaux extérieurs Avis de vacance d’emploi Achats Résultats et budget Rapports financiers Audit et supervision
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
Lois Traités Jugements Recherche par ressort juridique

Lituanie

LT002-j

Retour

The Supreme Court of Lithuania (Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas), case e3K-3-98-469/2021, D. S. v. BI Lithuanian National Culture Centre [21 April 2021]

Intellectual property law

Regarding the (in) recognition of a reconstructed archeological costume as a work protected by the Law on Copyright and Related Rights and co-authorship

The applicant asked the court to recognise her authorship of the archaeological costumes of the Baltic tribes and their collections and the wall calendars for the Lithuanian and Curonian tribes, and to order the defendants who have infringed the applicant’s exclusive copyright to pay compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The Court of First Instance ruled that the applicants’ reconstructions of clothing, jewellery, headgear and other items into a single costume may be regarded as an author’s work while the Court of Appeal did not find that the applicant had created an original author’s work within the meaning of the Law on Copyright and Related Rights.

The Court of Cassation stated that the objects of copyright are listed in Article 4 (2) of the Law on Copyright and Related Rights, including works of applied art (Article 4 (2) (10) of the Law on Copyright and Related Rights). The doctrine of law states that a reconstructed archaeological costume is a work of applied art. The most common works of applied art are in blacksmithing, jewellery, furniture, porcelain, graphics, textiles, leather and other industries. These works are protected by copyright in the same way as other works if they are the original result of a person’s personal creation. The Court of Cassation held that the fact that the term “reconstructed” (or “restored”) is used to describe a specific object (including an archaeological costume) cannot lead to its (in) recognition as an object of copyright. In each individual case, it must be decided according to whether the object meets the result and originality criteria of creative activity. Originality is assessed according to the specific object and its nature. Since the determination of originality is a question of fact, therefore, in the event of a dispute, it is for the court to determine this by assessing the evidence relevant to the issue. The Court of Cassation noted that the original result of a creative activity is considered a creation and protected regardless of its artistic value. The Court of Cassation also noted that producing a creation does not depend on whether or not a corresponding copyright order or other contract has been concluded. A creation does not become original because the originality has been agreed, and vice versa - even in the absence of an agreement on originality, an original work can be created. In view of this, the provisions of Article 6.193 of the Civil Code regarding the rules of interpretation of contracts are not relevant for the resolution of this dispute.

The Court of Cassation pointed out that legal doctrine states that the result of the work of co-authors must be a joint work, i.e. the results of creative work of all co-authors must be united by a common concept, thought or purpose. On the other hand, for the qualification of co-authorship it does not matter whether parts of the joint work created by the co-authors can be used independently, because in Lithuania the so-called divisive (when the work is integral and it is not possible to determine which part was produced by whom) and non-divisive co-authorship are recognised. A person who has provided material, technical or organisational assistance in the creation of a work (Article 7 (4) of the Law on Copyright and Related Rights) shall not be considered a co-author. As the doctrine points out, within the meaning of Article 7 (4) of the Law on Copyright and Related Rights, such persons may be, for example, a language editor, a person who has financed the creation of a work or other material conditions, a person who has provided other assistance (e.g., by collecting necessary court decisions or literature). A person whose results are used in a co-created work, but who is not protected by copyright (e.g., a co-created work uses research data from a researcher) shall not be considered a co-author. The Appellate Court found that there was a division of labor in the project, during which a third party was responsible for the textile part while the applicant provided the necessary visual materials and archaeological data and coordinated the work of jewellery manufacturers and jewellers. In view of this, the Court of Cassation stated that in resolving the dispute it was necessary to assess whether the applicant’s contribution to the reconstruction of the disputed archaeological costumes could be considered as co-authorship.

On the basis of the above stated arguments, the Court of Cassation found that it was necessary to assess whether the costumes reconstructed by the applicant met the criteria of creative activity and originality and possible co-authorship and, therefore, annulled the decision of the Lithuanian Court of Appeal and referred the case back to this court for reconsideration.

 Decison of the Supreme Court of Lithuania of 21 April 2021 in a Civil Case No. e3K-3-98-469 / 2021.