Autorių teisių ir "sui generis" teisių į duomenų bazes subjektai

LTStraipsnyje analizuojamos dvi problemos, susijusios su teisių į duomenų bazes subjektais. Pirma, kadangi duomenų bazė gali būti saugoma tiek autorių teisių, tiek sui generis teisių, atitinkamai reikia nustatyti, kurie asmenys gali būti laikomi nurodytų išimtinių teisių subjektais. Iš straipsnyje nagrinėjamo teisinio reglamentavimo ir teismų praktikos analizės matyti, kad atsakymas į šį klausimą anaiptol nėra akivaizdus ir praktikoje sukelia daug ginčų. Antra, kadangi autorių teisės ir sui generis teisės yra tarpusavyje nepriklausomos, bet gali atsirasti tos pačios duomenų bazės pagrindu, gali nutikti, kad abiejų išimtinių teisių subjektais bus skirtingi asmenys. Tokiu atveju reikia atsakyti į klausimą, kaip suderinti abiejų teisių subjektų interesus. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Duomenų bazės; Sui generis teisės; Databases; Sui generis right; Autorius; Autorių teisių subjektas; Duomenų bazės gamintojas; Author; Owner of copyright; The maker of database.

ENDirective 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the legal protection of databases of 11 March 1996, which was intended to protect the interests of the makers of databases, determined that databases could be protected by double rights: copyright and sui generis right. The article first of all analyses what persons are entitled to be acknowledged as holders of copyright and sui generis right in respect of a newly created database. As the issue of the owner of copyright is not regulated by the 1996 Directive, this is determined by the application of national provisions. Pursuant to the Law on Copyright and Related Rights of the Republic of Lithuania, the owner of copyright may mean, depending on the situation, a natural person - the author of a database or a group of authors, the holder of the right to a collective work, or an employer. The analysis presented in the article indicates that predominantly it is the author (authors) of a database who is held to be the owner of the copyright. Courts tend to interpret the rule concerning the transfer of copyright to the employer in a restrictive way; besides, in accordance with the specifics of the Lithuanian legal regulation, economic rights are transferred to the employer only for the period of 5 years. The category of collective work is of a subsidiary character and may be applied only in exclusive cases. Therefore, when a database is created upon the commission of another person, including the employer, the customer is expected to form a written agreement where the transfer of economic rights to the customer is clearly defined.Meanwhile, in accordance with the 1996 Directive and the Law on Copyright and Related Rights, the sui generis right belongs to the maker of a database, which means a person who is considered to have applied the most initiative and investment in creating the database. The author of the article assumes that such discrepancy in the regulation with respect of the primary owners of copyright and sui generis right is determined by different theoretic foundations of the relevant laws. This gives rise to the second problem examined in the article: as the copyright and the sui generis right, though mutually independent but may arise to the same database, there is a possibility that the owners of both rights may turn to be different persons. Such an eventuality, therefore, will require reconciliation of possibly opposing interests. The author of the article draws a conclusion that the limitations applied to both the copyright and the sui generis right are not adequate in order to reconcile the conflicting interests of the holders of those rights if the database concerned is intended for commercial use. A possible solution for a court in hearing a dispute would be to resort to the general provision that prohibits the abuse of rights, though this approach would not eliminate the legal uncertainty as any abuse of rights is necessary to be proved. Therefore, a conclusion is drawn that it is vitally important for a person who is intending to use a database to conclude a proper agreement that would entitle him to both the copyright and the sui generis right. [From the publication]