Mehdi Zahedi; shirin sharifzadeh
Abstract
Freedom of expression includes the freedom to express, access and dissemination of information, whereas copyright, by protecting the original works of authorship, restricts use, access and dissemination of the protected works. When an expression is protected by copyright, freedom of expression or press ...
Read More
Freedom of expression includes the freedom to express, access and dissemination of information, whereas copyright, by protecting the original works of authorship, restricts use, access and dissemination of the protected works. When an expression is protected by copyright, freedom of expression or press can be restricted. Some are of the opinion that these two rights are, in fact, not in conflict with each other but rather derived from the same social values seeking to protect each right. Common goals such as flow of cultural ideas or promoting creativity in the society causes interaction and synergy between the two. Idea-expression dichotomy by determining the scope of the copyright and distinguishing what belongs to the public domain, which is not a protected, will ensure a constructive interaction between the two and protects the public interest and dose not restrict freedom of expression. This article will discuss how to strike a balance between the public interest in freedom of expression and the private interests of the copyright owners without undermining the other. Idea-expression dichotomy as a counterbalance between these two rights is the cornerstone of this article.
Abstract
Literary and artistic property law (copyright), in addition to the creation of exclusive right for author or owner and to prohibit others from its unauthorized use, with the conviction that this exclusive right limits public domain and in some cases, can hinder the development or cause to be ignoring ...
Read More
Literary and artistic property law (copyright), in addition to the creation of exclusive right for author or owner and to prohibit others from its unauthorized use, with the conviction that this exclusive right limits public domain and in some cases, can hinder the development or cause to be ignoring human rights. It also puts some of works including governmental information -that its access and usage is a part of human rights- into the public domain and excludes from the scope of protection. Berne Convention, by taking public interest in consideration, has made member States free to choose in the extension of the protection resulting copyright to this category of works and information. States following this logic and with the permission mentioned in the Berne Convention, by taking into account their national circumstances and interests have adopted a balanced position in support of this information and have excluded this information wholly or partially from the scope of protection. In this study, the Berne Convention, the provisions of European Union, U.S., France, Great Britain (according to different approaches) and Iran have been studied and while approving the compatibility of Iran’s new approach of legislative with Berne Convention, some suggestions are presented.
