Problem setting. Generally copyright became so popular branch of law because many people don’t know what to do when someone breaks their rights, for example, steals transactions. Furthermore, a huge problem is that people don’t register their work, but there is a list of objects which is different in countries.
Last scientific researches and publications analysis. Such prominent scientists have researched the issue of the role of copyright and objects as V. Potehina, V. Borisova, L. Baranova and others.
Formulation of the article’s purpose. The purpose of this article is to show what can be protected by copyright in Ukraine, in the USA and why. American examples display how federal law regulates copyright and what can be borrowed in foreign legislation. In addition, the purpose is to find similarities and differences in objects in the USA and Ukraine.
The statement of basic material of research. The history of American copyright law originated with the introduction of the printing press to England in the late fifteenth century. As the number of presses grew, authorities sought to control the publication of books by granting printers a near monopoly on publishing in England (6). If we want to compare copyright in Ukraine and the USA, it would be better to explain what is copyright in objective and subjective sense. Therefore, copyright in objective sense is a collect of legal norms, which regulate a social relations connected with creating and using works of art, literature and science. Copyright in subjective sense – is a personal non-property and property rights, which arise in author when he or she creates production. (2, с.412).
According to development of contemporary technologies and a lot of human’s ideas which are materialized, copyright in world became very popular.
A Civil Code of Ukraine was adopted about 10 years ago, when the necessities to regulate that type of relations were very crucial. That is why we had borrowed a foreign countries experience. Not only the Civil Code regulates this relations. There is also an act About copyright and exclusive rights, which was adopted in 1993 year and the last changes were made in 2012 year. In contrast to Ukraine, Сopyright law in the U.S. is governed by federal statute, namely the Copyright Act of 1976. The Copyright Act prevents the unauthorized copying of a work of authorship. However, only the copying of the work is prohibited–anyone may copy the ideas contained within a work. For example, a copyright could cover a written description of a machine, but the actual machine itself is not covered. Thus, no one could copy the written description, while anyone could use the description to build the described machine (7). Moreover, it became an independent institution already in 19 century.
The production must be original and materialized – to be protected by law. This fact is similar in Ukraine. There is a list of objects that can be named production:
-works of literature;
-musical compositions, with lyrics;
-pantomime and choreographic staging;
-illustration, sculpture, graphic productions;
-works of architecture (architecture projects).
However, this list is wider in Ukraine, because there are about 16 objects that are protected by copyright according to article. For example, Ukrainian legislation determines works of literature to belletristic, publicistic, scientific, technical styles. In addition, there are some types: books, brochure, articles and so on.
To counterbalance American copyright objects in Ukraine copyright conclude works of fine arts, photographic works, maps, schemes, march productions, collections, encyclopedias as a result of creative work for selection, coordination or contents.
A legislator distinguishes computer programs and databases as a separate object of copyright in Ukraine. Nevertheless, it is registered as works of literature, with maps and in the USA, it is the same as illustration, sculpture, graphic productions (3, р.4).
A creative work – is a purposeful intellectual action, when in result emerge something qualitative and new (1, р.372). A soviet civilian Vladimir Serebrovskiy gave a specific determination in 20 century. He said, that production – is a complex of ideas, minds, images, which received it`s expressing in a specific form in the result of author creative action. So we can see 2 essential signs, which Ukrainian and American legislations give us and form it in the next scheme: complex of ideas and images + form =production.
American Act about copyright (1976 year) indicates that production couldn’t be just a simple personification of previous work. In addition, it couldn’t consist of a few words or a short phrase. In evidence, there is a verdict which was passed in a case Faist Publication v. Rural Telephone Service company in a year 1991. The Supreme Court of the USA has pointed out that original and inventive character of production is a necessary condition to protect it. Hereby, publication of telephone directory was not a breach of copyright, even if creators used company`s information. (3, с.6).
Derivative production is a production, which is a remaking, annotation, sequel or another change of existing composition, and which is an original creation in general. In a case Reyher v. Children’s Television Workshop, the book became an author`s remembrance about Russian-mother story (4). That work was derivative because it de-facto remaked public production.
Lists of objects that are not protected by copyright in both countries are the same. Ukrainian legislation provides: ideas, theories, principles, methods, procedures, processes, systems, methods, concepts, discoveries, even if they are expressed and illustrated in the production (5, р.401). Those principles in the USA have been implemented in the case of Baker v Selden. A verdict, which was passed by the Supreme Court in 1879, established two important principles of copyright:
1) Copyright in a work doesn’t apply to ideas, concepts and systems, and applies only to the form of their implementation;
2) forms which used to record information are not subject to copyright protection – they are distributed provisions of the patent. For example, blank forms, such as
time and motion maps (worksheets), graph paper, account books, yearbooks, bank checks, membership card race, address books, forms for recording judgments.
Conclusion. The Ukrainian legislation makes provision what production should contains if people want to protect it by copyright. Thereby, there is a list of objects because we can not protect all our works. The production must be original and materialized everywhere. In the USA a partition of objects is a little different because lawmaker units it in bigger groups through case law.
1. Харитонов Є.О. Цивільне право України. – К.: Істина, 2003, 456 с.
2. Борисова В.І. Цивільне право України. – К.: 2004, 521 с.
3. Потєхіна В. Охорона авторського права в США. – К. : 2004, 17 с.
4. Reyher v. Children’s Television Workshop, D.C.N.Y.1975, 387 F.Supp. 869,affirmed 533F.2d 87, certiorari denied 97 S.Ct. 492.
5. Шевченко Я.М. Цивільне право України. – К.:Ін Юре, 2003, 505 с.
6. Copyright Timeline: A History of Copyright in the United States : [Електронний ресурс] – Режим доступу: http://www.arl.org/focus-areas/copyright-ip/2486-copyright-timeline#20C.
7. Copyright Law in the United States : [Електронний ресурс] – Режим доступу: http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/
У статті розглянуті об’єкти авторського права в обох країнах, а також особливості твору. Також наводяться приклади судових справ в США та спільні й відмінні об’єкти в авторському праві США та Україні.
Ключові слова: об’єкти, твір, авторське право.
The article describes objects in both countries and shows production`s features. It produces examples in American legislation and similarities and differences of objects in copyright. in the USA and Ukraine.
Keywords: objects, production, copyright.