سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

ساورایی, پرویز. (1404). تحلیل حقوقی اثر مشترک در صنعت نرم‌افزار با نگاه تطبیقی. , 28(3), 73-90. doi: 10.48308/jlr.2025.237289.2793
پرویز ساورایی. "تحلیل حقوقی اثر مشترک در صنعت نرم‌افزار با نگاه تطبیقی". , 28, 3, 1404, 73-90. doi: 10.48308/jlr.2025.237289.2793
ساورایی, پرویز. (1404). 'تحلیل حقوقی اثر مشترک در صنعت نرم‌افزار با نگاه تطبیقی', , 28(3), pp. 73-90. doi: 10.48308/jlr.2025.237289.2793
ساورایی, پرویز. تحلیل حقوقی اثر مشترک در صنعت نرم‌افزار با نگاه تطبیقی. , 1404; 28(3): 73-90. doi: 10.48308/jlr.2025.237289.2793

تحلیل حقوقی اثر مشترک در صنعت نرم‌افزار با نگاه تطبیقی

فصلنامه تحقیقات حقوقی
مقاله 6، دوره 28، شماره 3، شهریور 1404، صفحه 73-90    اصل مقاله (768.84 K)
نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.48308/jlr.2025.237289.2793
نویسنده
پرویز ساورایی*
دانشیار، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران p-savrai@sbu.ac.ir
چکیده
اثر مشترک شکلی از همکاری است که در آن دو یا چند نفر در ایجاد اثر واحد مشارکت داشته باشند و مشارکت آنها درهم تنیده، غیرقابل‌تفکیک، اصیل و قابل‌توجه باشد؛ مانند نگارش کتاب یا مقاله تحقیقاتی، نگارش نت‌های موسیقی یا کدهای نرم‌­افزاری. پدیدآورندگان مشترک در مالکیت اثر و حقوق مرتبط با آن، مانند حق تکثیر، توزیع، اجرا، یا اقتباس اثر، مشترک‌اند. بااین‌حال، اثر مشترک همچنین مسئولیت‌ها و تعهدات خاصی مانند وظیفه حسابرسی، وظیفه وفاداری و وظیفه مراقبت را برای مؤلفین مشترک به همراه دارد. در این مقاله به شرایط اثر مشترک در نرم‌افزار و الزامات کلیدی تحقق آن ازجمله قصد مشترک طرفین، تفکیک‌ناپذیری و مشارکت قابل‌توجه در بیان خلاقانه اثر و مصادیق آن در صنعت نرم‌افزار و مواردی را، که به معنای حقوقی، مشارکت محسوب نمی‌شوند، پرداخته شده است. در نهایت، این مقاله اهمیت کدنویسی در تحقق اثر مشترک در برنامه رایانه‌ای را مطرح و روشن می‌کند که فعالیت‌هایی ازجمله مشارکت در امر آموزش، ویراستاری، دستیاری در امر پژوهشی، ابراز ایده‌ها، پیشنهادها، توصیه‌ها، مصاحبه‌ها، مشارکت در تست نرم‌افزار و کمک به محتوای اصلی نرم‌افزار عموماً به خودی‌خود و به معنای مشارکت در خلق نرم‌افزار تلقی نمی‌شوند.
کلیدواژه‌ها
«اثر مشترک»؛ «کدنویسی»؛ «برنامه رایانه‌ای»؛ «کد منبع»؛ «کد شی»
عنوان مقاله [English]
Legal Analysis of Joint Work in the Software Industry with a Comparative View
نویسندگان [English]
Parviz Savrai
. Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran p-savrai@ sbu.ac.ir
چکیده [English]
Computer programs are often written by a team of software programmers, the classic example being program code written by two or more programmers, each of whom incorporates ideas, expressions, text and editorial changes into the source code or binary code. In such a situation, the rights arising from the jointly produced program will generally belong to the authors. The conditions and consequences of ownership and especially the instances of a joint work, in the case of software, are not very clear and may differ from country to country. Understanding the criteria and requirements of a joint work is very important both for authors and for those who wish to explore the complexities and legal ambiguities surrounding it. In this article, the conditions of the joint work in software and the key requirements for its realization, including the common intention of the parties, inseparability and significant contribution in the creative expression of the joint work in the software industry and its examples and the cases that are not considered joint works in the legal sense, have been discussed. This article, highlights the importance of coding in the realization of a joint work in a computer program and clarifies that activities such as participating in training, editing, research assistance, expressing ideas, suggestions, recommendations, interviews, cooperation in software testing and contribution to the main content of the software, are generally not considered as contribution in software creation. Some of the questions that arise in connection with these complexities and ambiguities include: What are the key conditions and requirements for realizing a joint work? Are these requirements the same in all legal systems? What I have tried to answer in this article is the important question of how are examples of collaboration in the software industry realized? This question raises two other questions: Has the alleged co-author made a creative contribution that represents his or her own originality? What should the nature of this contribution be? Although we are faced with legal gaps and weak legal literature in the Iranian legal system, we can answer the aforementioned questions by interpreting existing legal rules and principles and using accepted standards and experiences of other countries, especially their case law. In answering the above questions, the author has tried to use the comparative method and compare the regulations of the legal systems and case law of countries. From the above comparative discussions, I have found out that in order to enjoy the protection provisions of copyright in a joint work, the contributions of the creators must go beyond the mere expression of ideas. The contribution must be such that the main ideas, algorithms and instructions are embodied in the form of computer codes. The work is considered a joint work, when it generally meets these key requirements: 1- The creation of a joint work must be based on objective and legal facts, implying the mutual intentions of the parties. 2- The contributions of the creators must be intertwined and inseparable, otherwise, the joint work will generally not be achieved (with the exception of France). 3- Although the contributions do not have to be the same in terms of "quantity and quality", in order to fulfill the criterion of originality, the contribution of each creator must be significant and creative. Considering the importance of coding in software collaboration, the following actions will not lead to the realization of a joint work: First, mere training, guidance, negotiation, and interviewing are not sufficient to achieve a joint work. Secondly, in cases where the contribution is merely in the form of expressing ideas or suggestions and the author is free to accept or reject them, this does not grant the contributor, the right to be considered as a co-creator. Without assistance in structuring the computer program, ideas, suggestions, and recommendations, no matter how useful they are, do not lead to the realization of a joint work. If the activity of only one contributor leads to the production of a creative work, the role of another may be reduced to the level of an editor or scribe. Thirdly, actions such as technical, advisory, organizational or financial assistance, supervision and facilitation of official registration of the program, due to the lack of creative contribution, are not considered contribution in the creation of a software work. To achieve the objectives of this article, the issues in question have been discussed in two sections with a comparative perspective. The first section is dedicated to explaining the concept of a joint work and the importance of its general elements, including common intention, inseparability, and significant contribution in the creative expression of the work. In the second section, the fundamental role and importance of coding in the creation of a joint work, the complexities of identifying creators and cases where participation is not considered legal are discussed.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
Joint Work", Coding", Computer Program", Source Code", ", Object Code"
مراجع

References

Books

  1. Daniela, Simone. Copyright and Collective Authorship, Cambridge University Press, 2019.
  2. Goldstein, Paul and P. Bernt Hugenholtz. International Copyright: Principles, Law, and Practice, Oxford University, , 2012.
  3. Goldstein, Paul and P. Bernt Hugenholtz. International Copyright: Principles, Law, and Practice, Oxford University Press, Fourth Edition, 2019.
  4. Goldstein, Paul. Goldstein On Copyright, Wolters Kluwer Legal and Regulatory U.S., Third Edition, 2005.
  5. Harris, Lesley Ellen. Canadian Copyright Law, McGraw-Hill Ryerson Trade, Third Edition, 2001.
  6. Kamina, Pascal. Film Copyright in the European Union, Cambridge University Press, 2016.
  7. Lior, Zemer. The Idea of Authorship in Copyright, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2007.
  8. Melville B. and David Nimmer. Nimmer On Copyright, Matthew Bender, 2002.
  9. Ricketson, S. and Jane C Ginsburg. International Copyright and Neighbouring Rights: The Berne Convention and Beyond, Volume 1, Oxford University Press, Second Edition,
  10. S. Copyright Office, Compendium of U.S Copyright Office Practices, Glossary, Third Edition, 2017.

Articles

  1. Angelopoulos, Christina. “The Myth of European Term Harmonization: 27 Public Domains for the 27 Member States”, International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Volume 43, Issue 5, 2012.
  2. Bell, Abraham and Gideon Parchomovsky, “Copyright Trust”, 100 CORNELL L.REV., 2014.
  3. Fritz, Johannes. “The Notion of ‘Authorship’ Under EU Law—Who Can be an Author and What Makes One an Author? An Analysis of the Legislative Framework and Case Law”, Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, 2024.
  4. Hugenholtz, P. Bernt and João Pedro Quintais. “Copyright and Artificial Creation: Does EU Copyright Law Protect AI-Assisted Output?” IIC-International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Volume 52, 2021.
  5. Lattacher, Martina. “Authorship Matters! Authorship in the EU with a Focus on Film”, Stockholm Intellectual Property Law Review, Volume 4, Issue 2, 2021.
  6. Lior, Zemer. “Contribution and Collaboration in Joint Authorship: Too Many Misconceptions”, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, Volume 1, Issue 4, 2006.
  7. Rozencwaig-Feldman, Tehila. “The Author and the Other: Reexamining the Doctrine of Joint Authorship in Copyright Law”, Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J., Volume 32, Issue 1, 2021.
  8. Stobbe, Richard. “What Qualifies as Joint Authorship of Software?” Canadian Intellectual Property Review, Volume 32, 2016

Internet Resources

  1. Byrd, Peter. “The Tricky Issue of Joint Authorship in Copyright Works”, 2021. Available at: https://www.charlesrussellspeechlys.com/en/insights/expert-insights/intellectual-property/2021/the-tricky-issue-of-joint-authorship-in-copyright-works/
  2. EU Monitor, “Directive 2009/24 - Legal Protection of Computer Programs (Codified Version)” - Main contents. Available at: https://www.eumonitor.eu/9353000/1/j4nvk6yhcbpeywk_j9vvik7m1c3gyxp/vj3ecgdj6eyd
  3. Faster Capital, “Joint authorship: What is Joint Authorship and How Does It Affect Your Rights and Responsibilities”, 2024. Available at: https://fastercapital.com/content/Joint-authorship--What-is-joint-authorship-and-how-does-it-affect-your-rights-and-responsibilities.html/
  4. McChrystal, Stanley A. “Joint Authorship: What Is Joint Authorship and How Does It Affect Your Rights and Responsibilities”, 2024. Available at: https://fastercapital.com/content/Joint-authorship--What-is-joint-authorship-and-how-does-it-affect-your-rights-and-responsibilities.html/
  5. Shortt, Michael. “Seggie v. Roofdog Games Inc.: Who is the Author of Videogame Software for Copyright Purposes?” 2016. Available at: fasken.com/en/knowledge/2016/05/intellectualpropertybulletin-20160519/
  6. Stephenson Law, “Intellectual Property in Software”, Available at: https://www.stephenson.law/blog/intellectual-property-in-software/
  7. Wery, “Legal Protection of a Computer Program”, 2017. Available at: https://www.droit-technologie.org/contentieux/it-ip-litigation-in-europe-legal-protection-of-a-computer-program/
  8. Zuykov, Sergey. What Rights Does the Author of a Computer Program and Database Have? 2020. Available at: https://zuykov.com/en/about/articles/what-rights-does-author-computer-program-and-datab/

Cases

  1. Ashton-Tate Corp v Ross, 728 F Supp 597 (ND Cal 1989), aff’d 916 F (2d) 516 (9th Cir 1990).
  2. Boudreau v Lin (1997), 150 DLR (4th) 324 CPR (3d) 1 (Ont SC).
  3. Brighton v. Jones [2004] EWHC (Ch) 1157.
  4. Childress v Taylor, 945 F (2d) 500 (2nd Cir 1991).
  5. Cyprotex Discovery Limited v The University of Sheffield, [2004] EWCA Civ 380.
  6. Dion v Trottier (1986), 9 CIPR 258 (Qc SC).
  7. Dolmage v Erskine (2003), CPR (4th) 495 (Ont Sup Ct J).
  8. Drapeau c Francois Girard, [2003] RJQ 2539.
  9. Erickson v. Trinity Theatre, Inc., 13 F.3d 1061, 1069–71 (7th Cir. 1994).
  10. Fylde Microsystems Ltd v Key Radio Systems Ltd., [1998] EWHC Patents 340.
  11. Fylde Microsystems Ltd v. Key Radio Systems Ltd [1998] FSR 449 (Ch).
  12. Gould Estate v Stoddart Publishing Co., (1996), 30 OR. (3d) 520      (Gen    Div), aff’d (1998), 39 OR (3d) 545, 80 CPR (3d) 161 (CA).
  13. Hager v ECW Press Ltd., [1999] 2 FC 287 at para 24, 85 CPR (3d) 289.
  14. John Maryon International Ltd v New Brunswick Telephone Co Ltd (1982), 141 DLR (3d) 193 (NBCA), at 244.
  15. Julia Kogan v Nicholas Martin & other[2019] EWCA Civ 1645.
  16. Kantel v Grant, [1933] Ex CR 84.
  17. Le Brun SA Braesheather, Cass. 1st Civ. Chamber, Oct. 18, 1994, 164 R.I.D.A. 304, 308 (1995).
  18. Levy v Rutley (1871), LR 6 CP 523 [Levy].
  19. Neudorf v Nettwerk Productions Ltd., 1999 CanLII 7014 (BCSC).
  20. Neugebauer v. Labieniec, (2009), 349 F.T.R. 53 (FC).
  21. Neugebauer v. Labieniec, 2009 FC 666, aff’d 2010 FCA 229.
  22. Royal Doulton Tableware Ltd v Cassidy’s Ltd., (1984), 1 CPR (3d) 214 at 230 (FCTD).
  23. Seggie v. Roofdog Games Inc., 2015 QCCS 6462.
  24. Stuart v. Barrett, [1994] EMLR 448 (Ch B).
  25. Whelan Association Inc v Jaslow Dental Laboratory Inc., 609 F Supp 1307 (US Dist 1985), aff’d 797 F (2d) 1222 (3d Cir 1986).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 908
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 409