IP/C/W/589/Add.1  
 
14 March 2014  
(14-1575)  Page: 1/3  
Council for Trade-Related Aspects of 
Intellectual Property Rights  Original: English  
 
 REVIEW OF LEGISLATION 
 
FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS POSED BY THE UNITED STATES1 
Addendum 
By means of a communication from the delegation  of the United States, dated 21 February 2014, 
the Secretariat has received a copy of the following questions that it has communicated to the Russian Federation.  
_______________ 
  
RUSSIAN
 FEDERATION 
Follow-Up to Question 1 : We would like to confirm our understanding of your response: 
Article 1232 does not apply to works protected by copyright and related rights, and that although 
certain types of copyrighted works may register under this Article (i.e., computer programs and 
databases), such registration is voluntary and no t required to receive copyright protection. The 
phrase "means of individualization" is used a few times throughout this document and we would appreciate an explanation, perhaps just in different words, of what this phrase means. We imagine 
it may be simply a translation issue and may relate to original authorship but would be grateful for 
clarification.  
Follow-Up to Question 2 : We would like clarification regarding the first concern raised: Can an 
author provide an exclusive license limited to on ly one right (i.e., reproduction) and maintain 
ownership of the other exclusive rights? And could you confirm that there is no requirement to 
register a transfer or assignment of exclusive copyright rights?  We understand your last 
paragraph here to mean that Article 1234 does not apply to works protected by copyright or related rights; and that "result of intellectual activity" is a patent-related activity or other non-copyright activity. Is that correct? 
 
Follow-Up to Question 3 : We would like to confirm our understanding of your response: is it 
true that, like Article 1234, Article 1235 does no t apply to works protected by copyright and 
related rights?  
 Follow-Up to Question 4 : Paragraph 3 of Article 14 bis of the Berne Convention provides that 
"[u]nless the national legislation provides to the contrary, the provisions of paragraph (2)(b) 
above shall not be applicable to authors of scena rios, dialogues and musical works created for the 
making of the cinematographic work, or to the principal director thereof." Does Article 1240 or another Article of Russian law provide th at the provisions of Berne Article 14 bis be applied to 
authors of scenarios, dialogues and musical works created for the making of the cinematographic 
work? We would also like clarification of how Article 1240 impacts an author's contract with a film producer. In other words, could you describe what rights an author retains in his work when that 
work is part of a film? And could you specify where those rights are provided for in Russian law? 
                                               
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.1 
 
- 2 - 
 
  For example, can an author's contract maintain some rights, such as the right of public 
performance?  Follow-up to Question 6 : In the second paragraph, could you further explain the different 
actions one must take to transfer or assign ow nership depending on whether a computer program 
or database is registered or unregistered?  
Follow-Up to Question 7 : Is there 1) a limit on the number of copies that can be made by an 
individual as a free reproduction under Article 1273 , and/or 2) a requirement that such copies be 
made from a lawfully acquired copy of the work? And in reference to your penultimate paragraph, 
we do not see a definition of "household" within the civil code; is this meant to be understood as 
one's immediate family (as opposed to a dormitory housing fifty students, for example) 
Follow-Up to Question 9 : We remain concerned that this exception might be broader than the 
3-step test permits and would like clarification. For example, would a non-profit entity be able to 
use this exception to reproduce a work in dot-relie f type (which we understand to be Braille) when 
the copyright owner has made the work available in dot-relief type?   
Follow-Up to Question 10 : We are not concerned about the ability to provide exceptions for the 
purposes of parody and caricatures; rather, we re main concerned about the breadth of the specific 
exception itself. Is this exception limited to taking only the portion of the work necessary for the purposes of the parody? In other words, we are interested in how the parody exception itself 
complies with the three-step test. 
 Follow-Up to Question 13 : This answer seems to indicate that this Article impermissibly usurps 
the exclusive rights of the authors whose works ar e incorporated into a database. Please explain 
how Article 1334(2) accounts for the rights of authors of works included in a database.  
Follow-Up to Question 14 : We would like further clarification. Do we correctly understand that 
Chapter 71 protects scientific, literary and artist ic works after the copyright term has expired and 
those works have fallen into the public domain and Chapter 70 applies to those works while they 
are protected by copyright? What type of works could be protected under Chapter 71? Paragraph 3 
of the answer notes that "Article 1337 CC RF publisher is the citizen who lawfully made public or 
organized the making public of a work of scholarship, literature, or art previously not made public 
and that has gone into the public domain (Article 1282 CC RF) or that is in the public domain by 
virtue of the fact that it is not protected by copyright." Could you further explain what types of 
rights this would confer, and to whom?  
Also, does this Chapter protect publication of works that are outside the scope of copyright (i.e., 
"not protected by copyright"), such as ideas, procedures, methods of operation or mathematical 
concepts? This may be a translation problem, but we remain unclear about whether/how non-copyrightable works are protected and why they would be protected here. 
 
Finally, we would like to confirm understanding th at the 25-year term set forth in Article 1340 only 
applies to publications of unpublished works that occur after the term of the exclusive right set 
forth in Article 1281 has expired. 
 Follow-Up to Question 15 : We understand in your response that the Russian Federation uses 
the "rule of the shorter term," a familiar concept permitted under the Berne Convention for works. 
We would like some further clarification, however. Would a US work published in the US in 1975 be protected under Russian law? In the United States, for example, a work published here in 1975 would initially be protected under the 1909 US Copyright Act and would be protected from the date 
it was published with a copyright notice. That work  would initially have been protected for a term 
of 28 years from that date for the first term  and then, due to amendments to US law, 
automatically extended another 67 years for the second term for a total of 95 years from 1975. 
Would a US sound recording published in the US in 1975 be protected under Russian law? (keeping 
in mind that a sound recording in the US is a "work" but under Russian law a sound recording receives neighbouring rights protection, and the Rule of the Shorter Term only applies to Berne 
works).  
 IP/C/W/589/Add.1 
 
- 3 - 
 
  Could you also clarify what is meant by a work "made public" in the third paragraph of your 
response? More precisely, do you mean "published?" "first published" and/or "simultaneously published"?  
Follow-Up to Question 16(a) : Because of the manner in which it was translated, we would like 
to confirm that subpoint 3 of point 1 of Article 1256 grants protection for US authors for published 
and unpublished works. ("the works promulgated outs ide the territory of the Russian Federation or 
non-promulgated but located in any objective form outside the territory of the Russian Federation, 
and it is recognized on the territory of the Ru ssian Federation to be held by authors (their 
successors) being citizens of other states or stateless persons in accordance with international treaties of the Russian Federation.") 
 
Follow-Up to Question 16(b): : We would like to confirm that subpoint 3 of point 1 of 
Article 1256 grants protection to non-Berne authors for works first published in the US 
 
Follow-Up to Question 16(c) : We would like to confirm that subpoint 3 of point 1 of 
Article 1256 grants protection to authors who are not nationals of a Berne country but who have 
their habitual residence in the US 
 Follow-Up to Questions 16 (d) and (E) : We would like to confirm that subpoint 3 of point 1 of 
Article 1256 grants protection to 1) authors of  audiovisual works the maker of which has its 
headquarters or habitual residence in the US and 2) authors of works of architecture constructed 
in the US and 3) authors of artistic works incorporated in a building or structure located in the US  
Follow-Up to Question 17 : We would like clarification, specifically when a work is not used  
separately  but within an audiovisual work. Since authors of musical compositions contained in 
audiovisual works are considered authors of th e audiovisual work under Article 1263, does the 
author of the musical composition have a public performance right when that music is contained in 
the audiovisual works and communicated to the public  via television broadcasting or exhibited in 
theatres under Article 1263, point 3?    
Follow-Up to Question 18 : We would like to confirm our und erstanding. For audiovisual works 
created after August 2, 1993, the term of protecti on is 70 years following the death of the last 
surviving author (counting from January 1 of the year following the year of her death), and for 
audiovisual works created before August 3, 1993, th e term of protection is 70 years after the date 
of publication.   
Follow-up to Question 20 : We understand this to be a question related to TM-counterfeit goods 
but would like clarification about what "societal interests" would be considered appropriate for counterfeit goods to be recovered; what would happen to those goods; and who might benefit from that recovery (We do not understand the me aning of the phrase "subject by recovery to 
income of the Russian Federation.") 
 Follow-up to Question 21 : Article 1312 refers back to Article 1302 and we therefore understand 
this Article to amount to an injunction. Is that a correct reading? Could you describe what 
Article 1312 adds to 1302 that is not inherent in Article 1302?  
__________