In this work, the author raises the question of why in fact the objects of related rights are separated from the objects of copyright according to the current legislation of our state. Why is understanding this distinction important? It is important because it characterizes the legal nature of both the objects of copyright and the objects of related rights. As a result of the research conducted, due to the reflected distinction, in the author’s opinion, the importance of the technical component in the creation of objects of related rights has obviously been exaggerated, as a result of which the person of the creator (creators) who become the object of related rights is depersonalized (depersonalized), and this in turn does not comply with the provisions of Part 1 of Art. 421, Art. 418 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, as well as Art. 41, 54 of the Constitution of Ukraine. At the same time, the author of the work, at the expense of the technical component as a criterion, distinguishes objects of related rights from non-original objects to which a right of a peculiar kind (sui generis) arises. What allowed the author of the article to approach this issue and understand that it is extremely important? The answer is an analysis of the subject composition of objects of related rights, as well as forms of disposal of property rights to objects of related rights. Thus, using the example of an employment contract (contract) in terms of the distribution of property rights to a created service object of related rights, the author demonstrates the presence of a lacuna regarding the identity of the creator who created such an object, which is reflected in the fact that there is no moment of transfer of property rights to such an object. In the author’s opinion, objects of related rights have their own special legal nature, a dualistic legal nature, which consists in the fact that on the one hand there is the creator (author), albeit impersonal, and on the other there are other subjects of related rights, defined in accordance with the current legislation of our state. In this regard, the author of the work proposes that objects of related rights be included in the list of objects of copyright by presenting the relevant updated versions of the articles. At the same time, the author of the work notes that objects of related rights in terms of author’s rights are protected as objects of copyright, and therefore no structural changes are required, and the allocation of these objects into a separate group is justified.
N. H. Pecherova (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: