IP/C/W/592/Add.1  
 
10 June 2014  
(14-3359)  Page: 1/10  
Council for Trade-Related Aspects of 
Intellectual Property Rights  Original: English  
 
 REVIEW OF LEGISLATION 
 
RESPONSES FROM THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION TO FOLLOW-UP  
QUESTIONS POSED BY UNITED STATES 
Addendum 
By means of a communication from the delegation  of the Russian Federation, dated 10 June 2014, 
the Secretariat has received the following respon ses to follow-up questions posed by the United 
States, as circulated in document IP/C/W/589/Add.1.  
_______________ 
  The Russian Federation would like to thank the United States for questions and to provide 
responses to the questions under IP/C/W/589/Add.1 as follows. 
  
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 not required 
to receive copyright protection. The phrase "m eans of individualization" is used a few 
times throughout this document and we woul d appreciate an explanation, perhaps just 
in different words, of what this phrase mean s. We imagine it may be simply a translation 
issue and may relate to original authorship  but would be grateful for clarification. 
 We confirm that the provisions of the Article 1232 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation do 
not apply to works, protected by copyright and re lated rights. Regarding such copyright objects as 
computer programs and databases state registration is conducted at the option of the right holder 
and may be made at the Patent Office. Such registration is voluntary. Computer programs and 
databases are copyright-protected regardless of the fact that the registration has been made or 
not by the right holder (subparagraph 2 paragraph 4 of Article 1259 and paragraph 1 of Article 1262 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter - CC RF)). 
 
The term "means of individualization" is used  in the CC RF as generalized and systematic 
(paragraph 1 of Article 2; Article 128; paragrap h 4 of Article 129; paragraph 1 of Article 1225 of 
the CC RF etc.). It includes types of an intellectual property intended for individualization of legal 
entities, goods, works, services and enterprises.  
 Means of individualization include: 
(1) Trade names 
(2) Trade marks and service marks (3) Appellations of origin (4) Commercial names 
 
The means of individualization are described in chapter 76 of the CC RF.  IP/C/W/592/Add.1 
 
- 2 - 
 
  Follow-Up to Question 2: We would like clarification regarding the first concern raised: 
Can an author provide an exclusive license li mited to only one right (i.e., reproduction) 
and maintain ownership of the other exclusiv e 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? 
 
Yes, an author can provide an exclusive license lim ited to only one right (i.e., reproduction) and 
maintain ownership of the other exclusive rights.   
For example, the author of the literary composition can provide an editor with an exclusive license 
to reproduction and distribution of the copies, while maintaining other rights (particularly the right to the translation into other languages, film right,  stage right and right to bringing to the public 
etc.).  
 
We confirm that that there is no requirement to register a transfer or assignment of exclusive 
copyright and related rights. 
 
A state registration of an exclusive copyright transfer is required only in case when a computer program or database has been registered at the wish of the right holder at the Patent Office. Such 
registration is required only in case of alienation of an exclusive copyright for computer program or 
database, or in case of an exclusive copyright transfer under the procedure of universal legal 
succession (inheritance, legal entity reorganization). A state registration of a license contract for 
such computer program is not required. 
 
Article 1234 of the CC RF establishes general rules regarding the contract on the exclusive right 
alienation as special type of civil law contract. This article applies to all the law-protected types of 
intellectual property, including copyright and related rights objects. A question of a state registration of an exclusive copyright alienation (paragraph 2 of Article 1234) shall be resolved 
pursuant to the paragraph 2 of Article 1234 of the CC RF. It provides that a state registration of an 
exclusive copyright transfer or assignment is requ ired only in case when according to the law an 
exclusive right arises on the ground of mandatory state registration. An exclusive right for copyright and related rights objects arises from the moment of its creation. The registration of the 
copyright and related rights objects or compliance with other formalities is not required for origin, 
realization and protection of the copyright an d related rights (paragraph 4 of Article1259 and 
paragraph 2 of Article 1304 of the CC RF). The re quirements of the paragraph 2 of Article 1234 
regarding state registration are not applied to the exclusive copyright and related rights alienation  
contracts (except for contracts of alienation of exclusive right for a registered computer program or database – paragraph 5 of Article 1262 of the CC RF).   
 
The term "the results of intellectual activity", is used in the CC RF as generalized and systematic as 
well as term "means of individualization" (parag raph 1 of Article 2; Article 128; paragraph 4 of 
Article 129; paragraph 1 of Article 1225 of the CC RF etc.). Results of intellectual activity includes 
objects of copyright and related rights, inventions , utility models, industrial designs, breeding 
achievements, topographies of integrated circuits, secrets of production (know-how).  
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 not apply to works protected by 
copyright and related rights?    
No. Article 1234 and Article 1235 of the CC RF are located in Chapter 69 «General provisions» and 
thus apply to all the objects of intellectual pr operty, including works protected by copyright. 
 
Follow-Up to Question 4:  Paragraph 3 of Article 14 bis of the Berne Convention provides 
that "unless the national legislation provides to the contrary, the provisions of 
paragraph (2)(b) above shall not be applicab le to authors of scenarios, dialogues and 
musical works created for the making of the cinematographic work, or to the principal 
director thereof." Does Article 1240 or anothe r Article of Russian law provide that the 
provisions of Berne Article 14 bis be applied to authors of scenarios, dialogues and 
musical works created for the making of th e cinematographic work? We would also like 
clarification of how Article 1240 impacts an au thor's contract with a film producer. In IP/C/W/592/Add.1 
 
- 3 - 
 
  other words, could you describe what rights an author retains in his work when that 
work is part of a film? And could you spec ify where those rights are provided for in 
Russian law? For example, can an author's contract maintain some rights, such as the right of public performance? 
 
The provisions of paragraph (2)(b) of the Article 14 bis of the Berne Convention are provided by 
the Articles 1240 and 1263 of the CC RF. 
 
Under paragraph 2 of Article 1263 of the CC RF the authors of an audiovisual work are: 
(1) the director (2) the author of the script  
(3) the composer being the author of a musical work (with or without a text) specifically 
created for the audiovisual work 
 
If an author of the film (a producer) makes contra cts with these three persons on the alienation of 
theirs exclusive rights, the exclusive right on film will transfer to him in general. The other authors 
of the works that are incorporated in an audiovisual work, either existing before (the author of the 
work that underlies the script, and others) or create d in the course of working on it (photography 
director, art director and others) have their exclusive rights to their works (but not to a film in general). These rights shall be also acquired by  a film producer on the grounds of a contract. 
 
Article 1240 of the CC RF establishes that if an object of intellectual property is created specially to 
be included in the film, such contract shall be deemed an exclusive right alienation contract, except as otherwise envisaged by agreement of the parties. Thus, this rule applies to all three 
authors of a film (paragraph 2 of Article 1263 of the CC RF), and to any other authors, whose 
works have been specially created for this film (for example to a dialogues author, art director, 
photography director). 
 
The transfer of an exclusive right from an author to a producer is a subject to the contract. Under 
paragraph 1 of Article 1240 of the CC RF this contract is considered as an exclusive right alienation contract. This provision is defined as dispositive, so the parties of a contract have a choice to 
conclude a license contract or an exclusive right alienation contract.  
 
Paragraph 2 of Article 1240 of the CC RF provides that the terms of a license contract are invalid 
when they limits the use of the intellectual property when this property is a part of a complex 
work. This rule reflects the content of Article 14 bis of the Berne Convention as it aimed to prevent 
the refusal of an author to entitle a person who has created a complex object (inter alia, a 
producer) to use his works which are necessary to dispose the rights to use complex works in 
general. 
 
So, director, author of the script, composer, dialogue writer and any other person who created a 
work specifically for its use in a film in accordance with Article 1240 of the CC RF are covered by a 
general rule of para.2(b) Article 14 bis of the Berne Convention which complies with a provision of 
paragraph 3 Article 14 bis of the Berne Convention which allows to establish in national legislation 
the rules which are different from those set in paragraph 2(b) of the named Article. 
 
The list of rights conferred to authors of any co pyright objects is contained in paragraph 2 of 
Article 1270 of the CC RF. If the contract on the al ienation of the exclusive right is concluded, all 
the rights conferred to authors entirely transfer to a producer. Exception to this rule is the right of 
a composer for «a fair compensation» for use of his work as a part of an audiovisual work which is 
charged when this audiovisual work is publicly pe rformed and also when it is broadcasted or cable 
transmitted (paragraph 3 of Article 1263 of the CC RF ). Composer reserves this right even it has 
been alienated unless otherwise is expressly provided by his contract with a producer. 
 
Entering into a license contract the parties establish themselves a list of rights which are 
transferred from an author to a producer for using its work. However, this list cannot be narrower than it is necessary for a film use in general (paragraph 2 of Article 1240 of the CC RF). Since a 
producer needs a right of pubic performance in order to use the film in general, this right could not 
be reserved by the author.  IP/C/W/592/Add.1 
 
- 4 - 
 
  Follow-up to Question 6: In the second paragraph, could you further explain the 
different actions one must take to transfer or assign ownership depending on whether a 
computer program or database is  registered or unregistered? 
 
In accordance with paragraph 5 of Article 1262 of the CC RF contracts for the alienation of the 
exclusive right to a registered computer progra m or database as well as the transfer of the 
exclusive right to such a program or database to other persons without a contract shall be subject 
to state registration. 
 
In accordance with Article 1241 of the CC RF the transfer of an exclusive right to a registered 
computer program or database to another person without a conclusion of a contract with the right 
holder is admissible in the cases and on the grounds established by law, for instance, in line of 
universal succession (inheritance, the reorganization of a legal entity) and in the event of the levy of execution on the right holder's property. 
 
The license contracts on the granting of the ri ght to use registered computer programs and 
databases are not required to be registered. 
 
Regarding unregistered computer programs and databases there is no requirement to register transfer or granting the rights to such programs and databases.   
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)  
 
1) The CC RF doesn't contain any indications on a limit on a number of copies that can be made by an individual as a free reproduction. However, the CC RF clearly defines boundaries within which an individual is entitled to make a free copy of the work: 
 
Firstly, subparagraph 2, paragraph 5 of Article 1229 of the CC RF stipulates that the provided 
cases of free reproduction for personal use should not cause unjustified harm to the ordinary use 
of the results of intellectual activity and impair in an unjustified manner the lawful interests of the 
right holders. 
 
Secondly, paragraph 1 of Article 1273 of the CC RF states that the free reproduction is limited to a 
necessity of an individual and exclusively for pe rsonal purposes, which Article 1273 defines as the 
subsequent non-commercial use of such copy in order to satisfy personal needs or the needs of its family. 
 
2) In accordance with Article 1273 of the CC RF only legally promulgated works may be subject to free reproduction for personal purposes. 
 
Highest judicial bodies of the Russian Federation - the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation 
and the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation – also indicate such matter by 
stipulating in the paragraph 34 of the Resolution of Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian 
Federation No.5, Resolution of Plenum of the Su preme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation 
No.29 dated on 26 March 2009 «On certain issues arisen in connection with coming into effect of 
the Part IV of the Civil code of the Russian Fede ration», that while applying the Article 1273 of the 
CC RF, the courts should take into consideration the fact, that the reproduction should not be considered as a violation of the exclusive rights fo r reproduction only if at the moment of making 
the copy the work itself is used legitimately.  
 
Thus, reproduction, made with counterfeit copies of work or at unlawful bringing the work to the 
public (including the unlawful placement on the Internet) shall be considered as a violation of the 
exclusive rights to the work. 
 
The term «household» is taken not from the CC RF, and was used in our explanation to describe 
«the use for personal proposes».  
  IP/C/W/592/Add.1 
 
- 5 - 
 
   
Follow-Up to Question 9:  We remain conc erned that this exception might be broader 
than the 3-step test permits and would lik e clarification. For example, would a non-
profit entity be able to use this exception to reproduce a work in dot-relief type (which 
we understand to be Braille) when the copyright owner has made the work available in 
dot-relief type?  
No, it wouldn't. If the author published the work in dot-relief type or in any other special type 
intended for persons with visual impairment, the provisions of the subparagraph 6 paragraph 1 of Article 1274 of the CC RF are not applied. If the work was published for the first time in a legal way in any other type (not in a special type), it may be used in special type by any person in 
accordance with the provisions of subparagraph 6, paragraph1 of Article 1274 of the CC RF. 
 
Follow-Up to Question 10: We are not concer ned about the ability to provide exceptions 
for the purposes of parody and caricatures; rather, we remain 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 it self complies with the three-step test. 
 It would be rather difficult to formulate such pr ovisions in a law. For example, paragraph 4 of 
Article L122-5 of French Intellectual Property Co de does not contain any details regarding the 
possible scope of work use for the purposes of a parody creation. These questions are resolved by 
a judicial practice. The courts are also guided by three-step test. 
 
In the ruling of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated 11 
November 2013 № 5861/13 on a claim of "Pervoe muzykalnoe izdatelstvo" (English: "First music 
publishing company"), LLC to "M TF Production", LLC to recover a compensation for violation of 
exclusive rights for a musical work with lyrics, the Court satisfied claims of the plaintiff and 
reversed a judgments of courts of inferior juri sdiction. The Supreme Arbitration Court specified 
that the courts of inferior jurisdiction considered  the music video as a subject of parody but did not 
take into account that it was accompanied with the music works which had not been arranged for 
parody. So, since music works themselves were not subjects of parody, it was necessary to obtain 
the permission for their use and it means that excl usive rights for these works were infringed. It 
seems that such ruling of the court shows that judicial practice forms a right approach to such 
adjudgements.  
 
Follow-Up to Question 13: This answer seems to indicate that this Article impermissibly 
usurps the exclusive rights of the auth ors whose works are incorporated into a 
database. Please explain how Article 1334(2) accounts for the rights of authors of works 
included in a database. 
 
Wording of a paragraph 2 of Article 1334 of the CC RF  provides only that related rights arising for 
author of a database, whose creation requires significant financial, material, organizational or other costs, regarding the retrieval of data from such database don't affect copyrights on data, 
which constitutes this database, itself and also copyrights of author of such database. For 
example, similar provision is contained in paragrap h 4 of Article 1260 of the CC RF. This rule allows 
to consider exclusive rights for works from a database and rights for a database in general as 
separate, not creating a co-authorship, not absorbing each other, requiring the protection 
individually. 
 
Rights of the authors of materials included into the database are protected under paragraph 3 of 
Article 1260 of the CC RF, which states that any auth or of derivative or complied work (database is 
considered as a complied work – paragraph 2 of Article 1260 of the CC RF) exercises his copyrights p r o v i d e d  t h at  t h e  r i g h t s  o f  a u t h o r s  o f  w o r k s ,  u s e d  i n  d e r i v a t i v e  o r  c o m p l i e d  w o r k  c r e a t i o n ,  a r e  
respected.  
 
The Federal Law dated 12 March 2014 No.35 "On amendi ng Parts I, II and IV of the Civil Code of 
the Russian Federation and certain legislative acts of the Russian Federation" supplemented the 
Article 1303 of the CC RF by paragraph 3. In accordance with this paragraph «related rights are exercised with observance of the author rights to th e works of science, literature or art, used while 
creating objects of related rights. Related rights  are recognized and exercised regardless of the 
existence and operation of copyrights for these works». This provision comes into force from IP/C/W/592/Add.1 
 
- 6 - 
 
  October 1, 2014 and applies to all the cases when the related rights objects may contain objects of 
copyrights, including to the provisions of section 5 Chapter 71 of the CC RF.  Follow-Up to Question 14: We would like further clarification. Do we correctly 
understand that Chapter 71 protects scientif ic, literary and artistic 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? 
 
No, this understanding is not correct. 
 
Firstly, First, Chapter 71 of the CC RF regulates the relationships of the use of all the objects of 
related rights. The rights of the publisher are regulated by only one section (section 6) of the 
Chapter 71 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.  
 
Secondly, the right of the publisher can arise not only in case when protection of an exclusive right 
to work expired and this work has fallen into publ ic domain but also in case when the work has 
never been protected by copyright. As an example of the second case could be the publication of 
the work unknown before, whose author had created this work prior to the beginning of legal 
copyright protection in Russia (till 1828). 
 
Provisions of section 6 Chapter 71 of the CC RF are formulated by analogy with the Article 4 of the 
Directive 2006/116/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the 
term of protection of copyright and certai n related rights (the codified version).  
 
Follow-Up (to Question 14): What type of wo rks could be protected under Chapter 71?   
 
Chapter 71 of the CC RF protects the objects of related rights. Section 6 of Chapter 71 of the 
CC RF protects scientific, literary or artistic work (music works, works of art, literary works, etc.), 
previously not made public and that have fallen into the public domain or that are in the public domain by virtue of the fact that they are not protected by copyright.  
Follow-Up (to Question 14): 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 previo usly 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 furthe r explain what types of rights 
this would confer, and to whom? 
 
The publisher is a citizen who has legally promul gated or organized the promulgation of a work 
that was in the public domain and was unknown fo r the public. Such citizen could be, for example, 
someone from descendants of the dead author, but also could be any citizen who found 
somebody's manuscripts or illustrations at his attic or dustbin, provided that such works 
correspond to the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 1337 of the CC RF and a such citizen made an effort to promulgate these works. 
 
The provisions of Article 1337 of the CC RF prov ide the following rights to the publisher: 
 
(1) exclusive right to: reproduction of the wo rk, distribution, public show, import, hiring 
out, public performance, radio or tele vision broadcasting, cable communication, 
bringing the work to the notice of the public . Exclusive right of publisher covers almost 
all the authorities as the exclusive right of the author, except for the translation or 
other processing of the work as well as the pr actical implementation of an architectural, 
design, town planning or landscaping project;  
 
(2)  the right to indicate his name on copies of a work which he made public and in other 
cases of its use including translation or other processing of a work (of course this right by no means doesn't except the necessity to indicate the name of its author at this 
work). 
 Follow-Up (to Question 14): Also, does this Ch apter protect publication of works that are 
outside the scope of copyright (i.e., "not pr otected by copyright"), such as ideas, 
procedures, methods of operation or mathemat ical concepts? This may be a translation IP/C/W/592/Add.1 
 
- 7 - 
 
  problem, but we remain unclear about whether/how non-copyrightable works are 
protected and why they would be protected here.  According to paragraph 2 of Article 1337 of the CC RF the rights of the publisher extend to works 
that, irrespective of the time of creation ther eof, could be deemed objects of copyright in 
accordance with the rules of Article 1259 of the CC RF. 
 
In accordance with Article 1259 of the CC RF copyright does not extend to ideas, concepts, 
principles, methods, processes, systems, manners or  the resolution of technical, organizational or 
other problems, inventions, facts, programming languages.  
 
Thus, ideas, procedures, methods of operation and mathematical concepts are not covered by 
Chapter 71 of the CC RF.  
Follow-Up (to Question 14): Finally, we wo uld like to confirm understanding that 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. 
 
Yes, it's true. 25-year period establishes for the earlier unpublished works if the general term of 
copyright, established by Article 1281 of the CC RF, had already expired. Thus, protection of publisher rights doesn't rival the copyright for the work, but establishes in addition to such 
protection.  
 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 fu rther clarification, however. Would a US 
work published in the US in 1975 be protecte d 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 ha ve 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 te rm 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 neighboring rights  protection, and the Rule of the Shorter 
Term only applies to Berne works).   
The term of protection granted by Article 7 of th e Berne Convention doesn't depend on the date of 
accession to this Convention and by general rule shall be no less than 50 years after the death of the author (paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the Berne Convention). 
 
According to paragraph 4 of Article 1256 of the CC RF  the legal protection to the works on territory 
of Russian Federation according to international tr eaties of Russian Federation is granted to works 
which have not fallen to the public domain in the country of origin due to the expiration of such 
exclusive right validity term for these works and have not fallen to the public domain of Russian 
Federation due to the expiration of exclusive righ t validity term for them in accordance with the 
C C  R F .  A t  t h e  s a m e  t i m e  v a l i d i t y  t e r m  o f  a n  e x clusive right on territory of Russian Federation 
cannot exceed an exclusive right validity term set out in a country of origin of a work. 
 
In accordance with the provisions of the CC RF th e principle of calculating the term of protection 
depending on the date of death of the author is set as a general rule for calculating the exclusive 
right validity term: the exclusive right to a work shall be effective for the whole lifetime of the 
author and 70 years from January 1 of the year  following the year of the author's death 
(subparagraph 1. Paragraph 1 of Article 1281 of the CC RF).  
 
The exclusive right in a work created by co-authors  shall be effective for the whole lifetime of the 
author who survives the other co-authors and 70 years from January 1 of the year following the 
year of his death (subparagraph 2, paragraph 1 of Article 1281 of the CC RF). At the same time, if 
the work is promulgated after the author's death the exclusive right for such work shall be 
effective for 70 years after the promulgation thereo f from 1 January of the year following the year 
of the promulgation, provided the work is promulgated within 70 years of the death of the author 
(paragraph 3 of Article 1281 of the CC RF). IP/C/W/592/Add.1 
 
- 8 - 
 
   
Thus the work which received the protection in the US since 1975 for a general term of 95 years, will be protected under Russian legislation from  1975 for a term of the author's life and 70 years 
after his death, if the 95-years term under US legisl ation is expired earlier this term (in such case 
the protection will be expired on the base of shorter term rule). 
 
Slightly different conditions of legal protection are provided in respect of solely sound recordings 
(phonograms) - objects of related rights. 
 
In the Russian Federation recognition of foreign right holders' exclusive rights for phonograms is conducted in accordance with the international trea ties of the Russian Federation provided that two 
conditions are respected, that is: with respect to phonograms that (1) have not passed into the 
public domain in their countries of origin due to th e expiry of the effective term of exclusive rights 
to such object established in those countries, and (2) have not passed into the public domain in 
the Russian Federation due to the expiry of the ef fective term of exclusive right envisaged by the 
CC RF (paragraph 3 of Article 1304 of the CC RF). 
 
Thus, if the phonogram falls into the public domain in the country of its origin, it will not be 
protected in the Russian Federation, even if the term of protection of such phonogram has not 
expired in the Russian Federation. 
 
Both the Russian Federation and the US are the members of the WIPO Performances and 
Phonograms Treaty. In accordance with Article 17 of this Treaty the term of protection to be 
granted to performers shall last, at least, until the end of a period of 50 years computed from the 
end of the year in which the performance was fixed in a phonogram; the term of protection to be 
granted to producers of phonograms shall last, at  least, until the end of a period of 50 years 
computed from the end of the year in which the phonogram was published, or failing such 
publication within 50 years from fixation of the ph onogram, 50 years from the end of the year in 
which the fixation was made. 
 
Regarding the term of validity of the exclusive right to a phonogram, Article 1327 of the CC RF also 
fixes a 50 year term from January 1 of the year following the year in which the recording took 
place. However if the phonogram is promulgate d before the end of this 50-years term, the 
exclusive right validity term will be expired after 50 years from the moment of its promulgation but 
not from the moment of its recording.  
 
Thus, a sound recording, promulgated in the US in 1975, will be protected in accordance with the 
Russian law as an object of related rights fo r 50 years from the date of its promulgation.  
 Follow-Up (to Question 15): 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" an d/or "simultaneously published"? 
 In accordance with Article 1268 of the CC RF making the work public means an action which opens 
the work to the public for the first time by means of publication, public show, public performance, 
broadcast or cable or in any other manner.  
 
In such case the publication (release to the world) is the release for circulation of copies of the 
work which are copies of the work in any materi al form in a quantity sufficient for meeting the 
public's reasonable needs depending on the nature of the work.  
 
Thus, publication (release to the world) of the work  is one of the means of making the work public 
(promulgation of a work).  
 
Follow-Up to Question 16(a): Because of the manner in which it was translated, we 
would like to confirm that subpoint 3 of poin t 1 of Article 1256 grants protection for US 
authors for published and unpublished works. ("the works promulgated outside the 
territory of the Russian Federation or non-pr omulgated but located in any objective form 
outside the territory of the Russian Federation, and it is recognized on the territory of the Russian Federation to be held by author s (their successors) being citizens of other 
states or stateless persons in accordance with international treaties of the Russian 
Federation.") IP/C/W/592/Add.1 
 
- 9 - 
 
   
Yes, subparagraph 3, paragraph 1 of Article 1256 of the CC RF in accordance with the Berne 
Convention, both Russian Federation and the US ar e its members, grants protection to US authors 
for published and unpublished works. 
 
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 
 
Yes, subparagraph 3, paragraph 1 of Article 1256 of the CC RF in accordance with the Berne 
Convention, both Russian Federation and the US ar e its members, grants protection to non-Berne 
authors for works first published in the US 
 
Follow-Up (c): We would like to confirm that  subpoint 3 of point 1 of Article 1256 grants 
protection to authors who are not national s of a Berne country but who have their 
habitual residence in the US 
 Yes, subparagraph 3, paragraph 1 of Article 1256 of the CC RF in accordance with the Berne 
Convention, both Russian Federation and the US are its members, grants protection to authors 
who are not nationals of a Berne country but who have their habitual residence in the US  Follow-Up Questions 16(d) and (e): We would like to confirm that subpoint 3 of point 1 
of Article 1256 grants protection to 1) auth ors of audiovisual works the maker of which 
has its headquarters or habitual residenc e 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 
 
Yes, subparagraph 3, paragraph 1 of Article 1256 of the CC RF in accordance with the Berne 
Convention, both Russian Federation and the US are its members, grants protection to: 
(1) authors of audiovisual works the maker of which has its headquarters (in case of legal entities)or habitual residence (in case of indivi duals) in the US and (2) authors of works of 
architecture constructed in the US and (3) authors of any other artistic works incorporated in a 
building or structure located in the US 
 Follow-Up to Question 17: We would like clarif ication, 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 the audiovisual work under Article 1263, does the author of the musica l composition have a public performance 
right when that music is contained in th e audiovisual works and communicated to the 
public via television broadcasting or exhibi ted in theaters under Article 1263, point 3?. 
 Paragraph 3 of Article 1263 of the CC RF assigns to  the composer who is the author of a musical 
work (with or without lyrics) used in the audiovisual work only the right for "fair" remuneration for 
public performance, as well as for communication by wireless means or by wire of an audiovisual work. This right is not in any way connected to the right for public performance, including 
exhibition in theaters or communication to the public via television broadcasting. 
 
The authors of an audiovisual work on the base of the exclusive right alienation contract 
(Article 1234 of the CC RF) or on the base of a license contract (Article 1234 of the CC RF) 
transfers to the producer (creator of the audiov isual work) the right to use their work in the 
composition of a complex audiovisual work. 
 
Furthermore as we already mentioned, in accordance with Article 1240 of the CC RF the provisions 
of the license contract restricting the right to use an audiovisual work shall be invalid. Please note that we are talking about the use of an audiovisual work. 
 
Thus, by concluding contract with producer (the creator of an audiovisual work), authors transfer or grant him the rights for such a work as a wh ole, and therefore the producer has an exclusive 
right for public performance, including exhibition in theaters or communication to the public via 
television broadcasting.  Follow-Up to Question 18: We would like to  confirm our understanding. For audiovisual 
works created after August 2, 1993, the term  of protection is 70 years following the IP/C/W/592/Add.1 
 
- 10 - 
 
  death of the last surviving author (countin g from January 1 of the year following the 
year of her death), and for audiovisual works created before August 3, 1993, the term of 
protection is 70 years after the date of publication. 
 
In accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 1263 of  the CC RF the authors of an audiovisual work 
are: 1) the director; 2) the author of the script;  3) the composer being the author of a musical 
work specifically created for the audiovisual work. Taking to account this provision, if an 
audiovisual work is created after August 2, 1993 the term of its protection is 70 years following the 
1 January of the year following the year of death of the last surviving author  
 
At the same time, if an audiovisual work created after 2 August 1993 was published after the 
death of author (authors), the exclusive right to su ch work shall be effective during the course of 
70 years after the work was made public, counting fr om 1 January of the year following the year of 
its publication, provided that the work was made public within the course of 70 years after the 
death of the author (paragraph 3 of Article 1281 of the CC RF). 
 
Regarding the works created before 3 August 1993 the term of protection is 70 years from the 
date of its legal publication, and 70 years from the date of its creation if it was not published.  
 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 reco vered; what would happen to those goods; 
and who might benefit from th at recovery (We do not understand the meaning of the 
phrase "subject by recovery to in come of the Russian Federation.") 
 
The provisions of clause 2 of article 1515 of th e CC RF establish a removal from circulation of 
goods at the expense of an infringer. The exception is made for cases when commercialization of 
such goods is necessary for public interests. In this case a trademark which is being illegally used 
must be erased from goods, labels and packages at the expense of infringer. The public interest 
may be determined only by the Court or Governme ntal authority. For example, in the case of 
natural catastrophe or disaster.  
 
Expression «to the state revenue» according to the Article 1515 of the CC RF is not used. The «commer сialization» term is used in CC RF regarding not only for questions connected with 
commercial benefit, but in general sense regarding possibility of making a deal with such goods 
(including free deals) (Article 129 of the CC RF). In case a Court or any Governmental authority sets a necessity of use of goods for the public benefit, so in these cases there is no way to get 
commercial benefit. 
 
Follow-up to Question 21: Article 1312 refe rs back to Article 1302 and we therefore 
understand this Article to amount to an inj unction. Is that a correct reading? Could you 
describe what Article 1312 adds to 1302 th at is not inherent in Article 1302? 
 Article 1302 of the CC RF refers to measures to secure a claim for copyright infringement, 
including court injunction for a person to take specific actions (e.g. reproduction, sale, import) with 
the purpose of introducing into commercial circulation copies of a work suspected to be counterfeit. 
 
Article 1312 of the CC RF extends the provisions of  Article 1302 of the CC RF with relations in the 
field of related rights, which means the possibility of a court injunction for a person to take specific actions listed in Article 1302 of the CC RF, not only  in relation to works protected by copyright but 
also in relation to objects of related rights. 
 
Provisions of Article 1312 of the CC RF do not add new or limit any provisions of Article 1302 of the 
CC RF. 
 
__________