2016, vol. 54, br. 7-9, str. 390-403
|
|
Fotografija kao autorsko delo
Photography as a work of autorship
Apelacioni sud u Beogradu
Sažetak
Shvatanje da Zakon o autorskim i srodnim pravima štiti svako fotografsko delo, pa i ono koje nije nastalo kao rezultat duhovne tvorevine čoveka, direktno je suprotstavljeno odredbi člana 2, stav 1, tačka 9. i članu 9. tog zakona, jer za fotografiju, kao autorsko delo, Zakon predviđa isti uslov da je nastala kao intelektualna tvorevina čoveka. Stoga se pitanje da li je fotografija ipso facto autorsko delo mora posmatrati u kontekstu navedenog zakona kao celine, ciljnim tumačenjem onoga što je zakonodavac želeo da zaštiti. Nije u duhu Zakona o autorskim i srodnim pravima da kao autorsko delo bude zaštićen običan proizvod tehnike, bez originalnog doprinosa ljudskog uma. Da li je fotografija autorsko delo, u konkretnom slučaju može se utvrditi putem veštačenja, ali da bi postojalo autorsko delo, osnovno je da je kreirano ljudskim intelektom, a ne da ga je stvorio slučaj, aparat itd. Fotografija je autorsko delo pod istim uslovima koji važe za ostala autorska dela, te je jedinstvena i dužina roka trajanja zaštite po Zakonu. Za nastanak nematerijalne štete, nužno je da duševne bolove i/ili strah, kao njene vidove, pretrpi autor koji zbog povrede moralnog autorskog prava, i to u svim zakonom priznatim oblicima, pretenduje na novčanu naknadu. Istovremeno, sama povreda autorskog prava nije dovoljan uslov za novčanu naknadu štete, a po tom osnovu dosuđena naknada vodi 'tarifiranju povrede prava', što nije u duhu Zakona o obligacionim odnosima.
Abstract
The viewpoint that the Law on Copyright and Related Rights protects all photographic work, even that which was not created as a result of man's spiritual creation, is directly opposed to the provisions of Article 2, paragraph 1, item 9 and Article 9 of said Law, since the Law provides the same condition for photography as a work of authorship - that it emerged as an intellectual creation of man. Therefore, the question of whether the photographs are ipso facto works of authorship must be viewed in the context of said Law as a whole, teleologically interpreting what the legislator wanted to protect. It is not in the spirit of the Law on Copyright and Related Rights to protect ordinary technical products without original contribution of the human mind, as works of authorship. Whether a photograph is a work of authorship, can be determined by expertise in particular cases, but in order for it to be considered a work of authorship, it is essential that it was created by human intellect, not that it was made automatically, by chance, etc. Photography is considered a work of authorship under the same conditions as other works of authorship, and thus has the same duration of protection under the Law. In order for non-material damage to occur, it is necessary for the author who aspires to monetary compensation due to infringement of moral rights in all legally recognized forms, to withstand mental pain and/or fear as its aspects. Concurrently, mere infringement of copyright is not a sufficient condition for monetary compensation; compensation awarded on that basis leads to 'tariffing violations of rights', which is not in the spirit of the Law on Obligations.
|