Zeinab Shabani; Mahmoud Hekmatnia
Abstract
The use of the words "Author", "Creator" and "Creation" under the definition of "Work" in Article 1 of the Law on Protection of the Rights of Authors, Writers and Artists (1348) indicates that the existence of the element of creation in works is required in order to protect them. This issue poses a serious ...
Read More
The use of the words "Author", "Creator" and "Creation" under the definition of "Work" in Article 1 of the Law on Protection of the Rights of Authors, Writers and Artists (1348) indicates that the existence of the element of creation in works is required in order to protect them. This issue poses a serious challenge to the protection of factual works. Factual works are works that include compilation and narration of facts, photographs, and geographical maps that describe facts or aspects of the world in which we live ; That is, data and informations about the world that are discovered and are not the result of the act of creation. Due to their extensive composition of factual material of the public domain, as well as the requirements for accurate narration of facts in some instances, such as biographies and histories, these works face significant uncertainty in distinguishing between "Fact" and "Factual Expression". The present study by using a descriptive-analytical method in examining the legal status of factual works and comparative study of achieving originality in different types of these works in American law, due to their different nature, seeks to express the status of this issue in Iranian law and concludes that Iranian law has failed to recognize the distinctive nature of these works.
mahmood hekmatnia; Davood Khoshnevis
Abstract
Expressional entertainment as a specific type of expression, which include message and content are entertaining and in different formats, can be subject to legal and jurisprudential analysis, and according to their legitimacy, they are subject to the rule governing the expression e.g. freedom. From this ...
Read More
Expressional entertainment as a specific type of expression, which include message and content are entertaining and in different formats, can be subject to legal and jurisprudential analysis, and according to their legitimacy, they are subject to the rule governing the expression e.g. freedom. From this perspective, your expressive entertainment, regardless of content and format, is considered as a value. But due to the social nature of the statement and the impact of its content on the audience, the freedom of expression is limited by the grounds of its legitimacy and the basis of restriction. Non-harm, interference with the rights of others, public order are among the most important legal and jurisprudential grounds of restricting the content of entertainment, which sometimes excludes content from the scope of the expression and sometimes by way of a ruling and by applying certain rules based on the foundations limits the content. On the other hand, the effects of expression, including the time, place, and manner appropriate to the audience in delivering the content, can be restricted on the basis of the foundation. The Iranian legislator has taken a preventive and generally ambiguous view of content restriction, which can be prevented by limiting the scope of content with these titles in the Intellectual Property Protection Bill. The present study is aimed at achievement of the said goal through a descriptive-analytic method.