A Comparative Study of the Legal Status of Factual Works in Iranian and US Law

Document Type : Academicm and Research

Authors

1 Professor, Research Institute for Islamic Culture and Thought.

2 MA in Intellectual Property Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Farabi .

10.22091/csiw.2021.6310.1966

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 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, e.g.  data and information 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-analytic method in examining the legal status of factual works and a 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.

Keywords

References

  1. اسحاقی، فاطمه،1391ش، «بررسی تطبیقی مصادیق آثار هنری موردحمایت حقوق مالکیت فکری»، پایان­نامه کارشناسی­ارشد، به راهنمایی سیدحسن شبیری زنجانی، حقوق مالکیت فکری، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه قم.
  2. انصاری، باقر،1386ش، «شرایط اثر قابل­حمایت در نظام مالکیت‌های ادبی و هنری(کپی‌رایت)»، مجله تحقیقات حقوقی، ش45.
  3. بختیاروند، مصطفی، مستقل، نفیسه، 1396ش، «عکس: جلوه­ای از هنر یا تقلید صرف؟ جایگاه آثار عکاسی در نظام حقوق مالکیت ادبی و هنری»، حقوق خصوصی، ش 2، پاییز و زمستان.
  4. حبیبا، سعید، رضایی، میثم، 1398ش، «ساختارهای حمایتی از تولیدکنندگان محتوا، در دستورالعمل بازار منفرد دیجیتالی اروپا و رویکرد لایحة جدید مالکیت­های ادبی، هنری و حقوق مرتبط ایران نسبت­به آنها»، فصلنامه تحقیقات حقوقی، ش88.
  5. زاهدی، مهدی، شریف­زاده، شیرین، 1397ش، «آثار گردآوری­شده و اصالت»، فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق عمومی، ش۶۰، پاییز.
  6. زرکلام، ستار، 1388ش، حقوق مالکیت ادبی و هنری، قم، سمت، چ 2.
  7. قانون حمایت از حقوق مؤلفان و مصنفان و هنرمندان(1348).
  8. لایحه حمایت از مالکیت ادبی و هنری و حقوق مرتبط(1395).
  9. یاسینی،فرشته­ سادات،1388ش، «جایگاه قوه خیال در نظام فلسفی صدرالمتألهین»، فرهنگ پژوهش،ش4،پاییز.
  10. Abrams, Howard (1992).“Originality and Creativity in Copyright Law”, Law and Contemporary Problems,55(2).
  11. Amsterdam v, Triangle Publications, 93F,Supp, 79, 82 (E,D, Penn, 1950).
  12. Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works(1886).
  13. Blunt v, Patten, 3F,Cas,763 (No, 1580)(1828).
  14. Brauneis, Robert. F.(2009). Intellectual Property Protection of Fact-based Works:Copyright and Its Alternatives, Edward Elger Publishing.
  15. Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co, v Sarony, 111U,S, 53(1884).
  16. Denicola , Robert. C. (1981). “Copyright in Collections of Facts:A Theory for the Protection of Nonfiction Literary Works”, Columbia Law Review، 81(3).
  17. Eisenschimal v Fawcett Publications, Inc,246F,2d 598(7th Cir,)cert, denied, 355 U,S, 907(1968).
  18. Ets-Hokin v, Skyy Spirits 225 F,3d 1068(9th cir 2000).
  19. Farley, Christine Haight(2004).”The Lingering Effects of Copyrights Response to the Invention of Photography”. University of Pittsburgh Law Review.65(3).
  20. Feist Publications, Inc, v Rural Telephone Service Co, 499 US, 340 (1991).
  21. General Drafting Co, v Andrews, 37 F,2d 54(2nd Cir,1930).
  22. Gervais, Daniel (2002).“Feist Goes Global:A Comparative Analysis of the Notion of Originality in Copyright Law”, Journal of the Copyright Society of the U,S,A, 49.
  23. Huie v, National Broadcasting Co,184F, Supp,198(S,D,N,Y, 1960).
  24. Janssen, Katleen. & Dumortier, Jos(2006). “The Protection of Maps and Spatial Databases in Europe and the United States by Copyright and the Sui Generis Right”, The John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law, 24(2).
  25. Jones، H.(1990).“The Myth of Idea/Expression Dichotomy in Copyright Law”, Pace Law Review,10(3).
  26. Karjala, Dennis.S.(1995). “Copyright in electronic maps”, Jurimetrics Journal,35(4).
  27. Lewis Jr, Gerard. J. (1992). “Copyright Protection for Purely Factual Compilations Under Feist Publications, Inc, v, Rural Telephone Service Co,:How Does Feist Protect Electronic Data Bases of Facts?”, Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal,8 (1).
  28. Littrell, Ryan (2002). “Toward a Stricter Originality Standard for Copyright Law”, Boston College Law Review, 43(1).
  29. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English(LDOCE),6th ed,2014.
  30. Mason v, Montgomery Data Inc,967 F,2d 135(5th Cir,1992).
  31. Merriam-Webster app,2020.
  32. Miller V, Universal City Studio, Inc, 460F,Supp,948(S,D,Fla, 1978), rev’d, 541pat,T,M, & Copyright J,(BNA)A-1(5th Cir, 1981).
  33. Murray, Michael (2006). “Copyright, Originality, and the End of the Scenes a Faire and Merger Doctrines for Visual Works”, Illinois Public Law and Legal Theory Research Papers Series.
  34. Oxford Elementary Learner’s Dictionary (2000), Oxford University Press, 2nd
  35. Park, Jee Hi (1988).”The chilling effect of overprotecting facutal narrative works”, Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal(Comm/Ent),11(1).
  36. Standler, Ronald. B.(2009). “Idea Not Copyrightable”, Available at: http://www, Rbs2,com/cidea,pdf, (last visited:6/7/2020).
  37. Standler, Ronald. B. (2013). “Copyright Protection for Nonfiction or Compilations of Facts in the USA”, Available at: http://www, Rbs2,com/cfact,pdf, (last visited:6/7/2020).
  38. Temin, Marc. K.(2006).“The irrelevance of creativity: Feist's wrong turn and scope of copyright protection for factual works”,Penn State Law Review ,111(2).
  39. Toksvig V, Bruce Publishing Co,181F, 2d 664 (7th Cir,1950).
  40. U,S Copyright Law (1976)(U.S).
  41. U,S, v Hamilton, 583 F, 2d 448 (9th Cir,1978).
  42. Vaver, David (2002). Principles of Copyright, Cases and Materials, WIPO.
  43. Wipo guide to the BERNE CONVENTION for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works(1987).1st ed, WIPO.
  44. Wolf, David. B. (1992). “New landscape in the copyright protection for maps: Mason v montgomery data, inc”, Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA, 40(3).
Send comment about this article
CAPTCHA Image
Comparative Studies on Islamic and Western Law
Volume 8, Issue 3 - Serial Number 29
September 2021
Pages 89-116

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics