Türk Fikir ve Sanat Hukuku'nda eser sahipliği
Özet
The Intellectual Property Law aiming to protect an idea which can be established concretely, attachs importance to establish the owner of a work, due to a work has moral worth. In such a situation that?s impossible to establish the owner of a work, it intends to establish the owner of a work or a person who is authorized to do prosedures on behalf of ıt?s owners, by the means of indirect evidences (circumstantial evidences). The Law of Idea and Art did such arrangement to make the owner dominant in procedures.The Law regard that whoever make up the work owns it. The creation phenomenon is a material action so the rights and authorities appear automatically at the time of creation. It?s not necessarry any judicial procedure for ownership even so those has not the mental capacity can have work trough the creation phenomen is essential.Same thing is valid for correlative holder of right, correlative rights are achieved trough the Law. The Law appropriates correlative rights in case of absence of moral factor except for executives also expanded scope of the Law, contrary to systematics of the Law, through protecting to establish every voice.Some regulation are annuled such the work by officer, servants and workers by doing jobs belongs to their employer or appointer and regulations which indicates that the owner is the publisher of the work which is made in a plan established by publishers it?s admitted that right on the Works by officer, servants and workers belongs to the employer, for real or judicial person on the condition not the understand opposite from a private contract or characteristics of the work. The Law doesn?t indicates that the rights which is used by employer is not fiscal rights.In scope of employment relation for employers (real or judicial person) in order to use fiscal rights, works must be done during the work and in scope of the job and for judicial person it?s necessary that the act of the organ doing the work, concern with the establishment purpose and activity field of the judicial person.The Law admitted a criteria that everybody can seperate their own part in joint work to determine joint and compound work ownership and the judicial regime they subjected to, In our opinion this criteria should be evaluated in two ways. The first way, whether a work maintain an original work if it?s seperated from the main work. Second an essential way, whether the rest of work maintain an original work, in a seperation.The occupation unions are obligatory for effective protection the rights whom endeavouring against the speed of technological development. In our opinion, different from the competition law because of it?s essential for occupation unions to strength the monopoly of work owners. We thing that it?s usefull to establish strong and unique occupation union for every group of work.