IP/C/W/589/Add.2  
 
27 October 2014  
(14-6234)  Page: 1/2  
Council for Trade-Related Aspects of 
Intellectual Property Rights  Original: English  
   
REVIEW OF LEGISLATION 
 
ADDITIONAL FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS POSED BY THE UNITED STATES
1 
Addendum 
 
By means of a communication from the delegati on of the United States, 24 October 2014, the 
Secretariat has received a copy of the following questions that it has communicated to the Russian 
Federation. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
RUSSIAN FEDERATION 
The United States noted the communication dated 10 June 2014, IP/C/W/592/Add.1, but requests 
further clarification as follows:  Additional Follow-Up to Question 3 : This is likely a translation problem, but we would like to 
confirm our understanding of your explanation of Article 1232 and therefore will restate our 
previous question:  Would a foreign author who enters a license contract have to register the license contract in Russia?   If a foreign author does not register the license contract in Russia, 
what consequences, if any, would the failure to do so have on the validity of the license? 
 Additional Follow-Up to Question 4: The Russian Federation notes that portions of the Russian 
Civil Code correspond to Article 14bis of the Berne Convention.  Article 14 bis permits countries to 
establish, by legislation, ownership of cinematogr aphic works.  If a country has established among 
the copyright owners in the cinematographic work the authors who have brought contributions to the making of the cinematographic work, such country may provide that authors who contribute to 
cinematographic works cannot object to certain uses  of the works (e.g., reproduction, distribution, 
public performance) in the absence of any contrary or special stipulation. The Russian Federation's answer to our question does not appear to address the specific language of Article 14 bis "in the 
absence of any contrary or special stipulation."  The Russian Civil Code appears to prohibit 
contrary and special stipulations (which 14 bis(2)(c) permits a country to require in writing).  As an 
example:  In the U.S., music composers maintain th e right of public performance in their contracts 
when their musical works are used in motion pict ures, and then license the public performance of 
their music when the motion picture is communicated to the public via television or cable.  This 
does not appear to be a possibility under your law. Please explain how Russian law complies with Article 14 bis(2)(b).  
 
Additional Follow-Up to Question 10 : We would like to confirm our understanding of the 
application of the three-step test to except ions for parody and caricatures. The Russian 
Federation's response noted that courts are generally guided by the three-step test when 
                                               
1 The original questions posed by the United States are contained in document IP/C/W/589 and the 
responses provided to them in document IP/C/W/592. IP/C/W/589/Add.2 
 
- 2 - 
 
  considering parodies and caricatures.  Please confirm our understating that in Russian law, 
parodies and caricatures are generally considered to comprise exceptions to copyright law, but that courts must apply the three step test when considering whether the parody or caricature exception is applicable in any particular case.  Also, please confirm our understanding of the 
Russian case referenced in the Government's response.  It appears that the court decided that the 
defendant's use of the musical work was an infringement because the musical work was not a subject of parody even though the music video itself was a parody.  
 
Additional Follow-Up to Question 13 : The Russian Federation's response explains that under 
the Russian Civil Code exclusive rights for works from a database and rights for a database itself are separate and "not absorbing each other." Please confirm our understanding that a copyrighted 
work that happens to be included in a database retains its separate copyright and that the right in 
the database only protects the overall se lection, coordination and arrangement.  
 
Additional Follow-Up to Question 17 : As explained in the further follow up to Question 4, the 
Russian Federation notes that portions of the Russian Civil Code correspond to Article 14 bis of the 
Berne Convention.  Article 14 bis permits countries to establish, by legislation, ownership of 
cinematographic works. If a country has established among the copyright owners in the 
cinematographic work the authors who have brought contributions to the making of the cinematographic work, such country may provide that authors who contribute to cinematographic works cannot object to certain uses of the wo rks (e.g., reproduction, distribution, public 
performance) in the absence of any contrary or special stipulation. The Russian Federation's 
answer to Questions 4 and 17 does not appear to address the specific language of Article 14 bis "in 
the absence of any contrary or special stipulation." The Russian Civil Code appears to prohibit 
contrary and special stipulations (which 14 bis(2)(c) permits a country to require in writing) and 
the response suggests that such provisions would be invalid.  As an example:  In the US, music 
composers maintain the right of public performance in their contracts when their musical works 
are used in motion pictures, and then license the public performance of their music when the 
motion picture is communicated to the public via tele vision or cable.  This does not appear to be a 
possibility under your law. Please explain how Russian law complies with the provision in Berne Convention Article 14 bis(2)(b) which allows authors who contribute to cinematographic works to 
make a special stipulation retaining the right to object to certain uses of their work (e.g., public 
performance).   
Additional Follow-Up to Question 20: Please provide examples, if any, of instances when 
courts or other governmental authorities determin ed that counterfeit goods should be recovered 
for societal interests. 
 
__________