The regime of legal protection of multimedia products under the legislation of the Russian Federation

Introduction. Among the objects referred to in Russian legislation, intellectual property and multimedia products remain the most uncertain result of intellectual activity (RID). The single mention of multimedia products in Article 1240 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation without specifying what is protected as this object, the legal protection regime leaves a wide range of multi-media objects without proper legal protection. The increasing economic importance of multimedia products actualizes this issue.

Purpose. Definition of the legal regime of legal protection of multimedia products based on Russian civil legislation.

Materials and methods. The formal legal method is used to analyze the articles of part of the fourth Civil Code of the Russian Federation, court decisions on determining the elements and protecting multimedia products. The comparative legal method made it possible to compare approaches to the protection of multimedia products in the Russian Federation, the European Union and the USA. The system analysis method is used to consider multimedia products as a single system of interacting elements, determining the status of Internet sites and computer games as complex objects. The modeling method is the basis of reasoning about the prospects for the spread of the regime of copyright works on multimedia products.

Results. The main drawback of studies that determine the legal regime for the protection of multimedia products as copyright works, we consider the unreasonable expansion of the position of the legislator set forth in Article 1240 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The creation of a multimedia product is ensured by the organizer, which can be not only individuals. Like manufacturers of phonograms, databases, programs of ethereal and cable broadcasting organizations, the legislator is not recognized as copyright to the creation of the organizer to create a multimedia product. The nature of the exclusive right arising to the multimedia product is like related rights. The organizer of the multimedia product becomes the copyright holder of the derived exclusive right to the new composition of previously created RID.

Conclusions. A mixture of “multimedia products” and “multimedia works” in modern legal literature distort the meaning of Art. 1240 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The use of the author’s work regime for the protection of multimedia products violates the legitimate interests of copyright holders of other RID, which may be included in the multimedia product because of digital modification. The development of stable criteria of multimedia products in conditions of rapid growth of multimedia technologies will lead to their rapid obsolescence. In addition, there is a threat of restriction of creativity. The narrow frames will force the creators to “adjust” their Reed for legislative requirements. A specific list of criteria of multimedia products can be established in updated technical standards. A variety of judicial practice can be reduced by endowing the court on intellectual rights by the authority to explain in the new categories of cases.

1. Shatkovskaya T.V. A complex object of intellectual rights: problems of determination and legal protection. Law and the state: theory and practice. 2022;4(208):99–101. (In Russ.)

2. Vitko V.S. On the possibility of recognizing the digital form of objective in the sense of paragraph 3 of Art. 1259 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. IS. Copyright and related rights. 2024;(5):72–84. (In Russ.)

3. Savitskaya K. D. The concept and signs of a multimedia work. IS. Copyright and related rights. 2024;(3):37–46. (In Russ.)

4. Grin E. S. Varieties of complex objects of intellectual rights: issues of judicial practice. Actual problems of Russian law. 2023;(9):112–118. (In Russ.)

5. Stamatoudi I. A. Copyright and Multimedia Products: A Comparative Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press; 2001. 318 p. (In Russ.)

6. Gemini I. A., Vitko V. S. Legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in the Decree dated 16.06.2022. № 25-P. Intellectual property. Copyright and related rights. 2022;(7):5–30. (In Russ.)

7. The right of intellectual property: Textbook. E.V. Badulina, D.A. Gavrilov, E.S. Grin et al. Under the general. Ed. L.A. Novoselova. Moscow: Statute; 2019. Vol. 1: General provisions. 512 p. (In Russ.)

8. The right of intellectual property: Textbook. E.S. Grin, V.O. Kalyatin, S.V. Mikhailov et al.: Under the general. ed. L.A. Novoselova. Moscow: Statute; 2019. Vol. 2: Copyright. 367 p. (In Russ.)

9. Grin E. S. Online courses as a kind of complex objects of intellectual rights. Actual problems of Russian law. 2024;(9):61–67. (In Russ.)

10. Kotenko E. S. Copyright for a multimedia product. Moscow: Prospekt; 2013. 128 р. (In Russ.)

11. Yugay I. I. Computer game as a genre of artistic creation at the turn of the XX – XXI centuries: dis. ... cand. art criticism. St. Petersburg; 2008. 226 р. (In Russ.)

12. Karpenko A. A. Subjects of intellectual rights to a computer game. Legal Bulletin. 2024;(3):45–55. (In Russ.)

13. Basmanova E. S. Internet site as an object of property rights: dis. ... cand. yurid. sciences. Moscow; 2010. 175 p. (In Russ.)