THE PROPERTY COMPONENT OF PERSONAL NON-PROPERTY COPYRIGHT: ISSUES OF THEORY AND PRACTICE

Abstract

Issues related to the definition of the legal nature of personal non-property copyright remain the focus of many scientists, but, despite this, certain aspects of the named institution have not received an unambiguous interpretation in the modern doctrine. Among such debatable aspects is the question of the presence of a property component in the content of these powers, which has become particularly relevant against the background of the total commercialization of civil circulation. The purpose of the author is to identify and analyze those features of personal non-property copyrights that do not fully correspond to their legal regulation and traditional understanding. It is shown, in particular, that copyright for the publication of a work, its inviolability and its recall are of a dualistic nature, since the implementation of the powers under consideration, reflecting the spiritual and creative world of the author, as a rule, also affects his property sphere, giving economic content to the emerging legal relations. It is the presence of a property element in the content of the rights under consideration that makes it possible for them to pass to the heirs of the deceased author, which means that they are not always inextricably linked with the personality of the author. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of situations in which the author creates a work commissioned by a person interested in its promotion as a result of their own intellectual activity. In such cases, there is a transfer for compensation not only of the exclusive right, but also absolutely non-transferable and inalienable personal non-property copyrights — the right of authorship and the right to a name, in connection with which there are many theoretical and practical problems that need to be analyzed and resolved. The main conclusion is as follows: the legal essence of personal non-property copyrights is as complex and multifaceted as creative activity is infinitely complex, therefore the law cannot always clothe them in a standard legal form inherent in other personal non-property rights. This explains the diversity of views and judgments presented to the doctrine, which create a theoretical basis for further improvement of the relevant section of Russian legislation.