TO THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
file number :
prosecutor :
attorney :
THE DEFENDANT :
attorney :
SUBJECT: These are our answers against the other party’s response petition.
descriptions
First of all, our petition containing the request for renewal of the trial reiterates its content exactly,
1-My client …….. about ……… ..The Court of First Instance ……….. the main ………. the decision regarding the file numbered decision was made by the Court of Cassation 11. By the decision of the Legal Department …….. on the basis of …………. it has been confirmed and finalized in its history.
2-The amount of follow-up that is subject to compensation due to the declared follow-up made about the client ……… TL has been deposited in the file of the relevant Enforcement Directorate, provided that its rights are reserved. The receipt of which is presented in the appendix. October 2019. As a result, the amount of compensation subject to compensation has been fully paid by my client.
3-Our statements were submitted together with the documents before the decision of the relevant Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, and we have also submitted the main documents attached to this petition … which will change the course of the case, along with our petition dated ………. which will greatly affect the merits of the case and supported by its documents ……… attached to this petition.
4-Whereas, in question ……… our dated petition and the attached documents were sent by APS method, ……… as can be seen from the example of the petition attached with the dated receipt, although the documents were sent to the relevant office of the Court of Cassation, unfortunately, the Court of Cassation 11. Legal Department the documents in question ……….. it has been approved in its history and has been excluded from examination.
“First of all, participating in the work in question …….. it doesn’t belong.
1-As it is known, the law No. 5846 is related to the protection of the owners of works. To be said within the framework of this explanation, if a work is put forward as a result of his intellectual and intellectual works, the kind of person of this work can be bet on the ownership of an exclusive, personalized work.
In the light of these explanations, it is clear that the work in question is not the work of the participant.
In addition, the work in question participated in ……….. in order to include the folk song in question …… in the year “……………” he read it on the record under his name. The plaque in question was not requested by the Court at the trial stage, but the powers of the relevant TRT organization were expressed if the video picture of the plaque in question and the information records were requested by the Court.
2-As can be understood from the documents contained in the named work file, “………..” the work compiled by and named after ………..it has also been registered by.
In this respect, the source person of the work in question is ………… he is not the person who compiled this piece.
3-Again, as it is known, if folk songs of an unknown folkloric nature, which have been owned by the public, accepted by everyone and anonymized, are performed, it does not constitute a crime of violation of the law No. 5846, nor does it give rise to a claim in terms of copyright law.
The work mentioned 50 years ago with this anonymous qualification …….’ce is a registered work.
However, as a person, any person does not have the authority to register a part.
Besides,
1-Participating ……………… In the petition for compensation filed by the Intellectual and Industrial Rights Civil Court for compensation against the Turkish Radio and Television Corporation, especially in relation to the folk songs “Smile in the gardens, Five finger mountain row, summer flower smile, I bought a handkerchief from the stream (from the city) …” As a result of the trial of the compensation claim, the Court ………. history and ……….. the main ……….. decision as can be seen in the provision paragraph of the numbered decision, it was decided to “dismiss the case” and in the last part of the reasoned decision of the relevant Court, in particular;
“…Understanding that the respondent institution does not include folk songs belonging to real people and not qualified to be anonymous in its repertoire, the artist who compiled the said folk songs ………’ in the face of his death in 1963 and the fact that the said records have been open to the public for about fifty years in a way that can also be known by the participant personally, the participant was determined from the scope of documents that were issued before the mentioned dates or officially registered by the respondent institution and its officers for their duties, it is obvious that the aforementioned folk songs must submit strong evidence to prove that the quality of anonymity is wrong. However, such evidence could not be presented to our Court. For this reason, it is not possible to participate in the opinions of the works subject to judgment in the TRT repertoire in a personal way of thinking that does not contain reference to any record in the report prepared by the second expert committee, official or private scientific work, in the form that the owner is actually the participant who is the source person.” With its interpretation and evaluation, it has determined the material reality and as a result, the aforementioned folk song is not the compiler and, as we expressed in our appeal petition, the piece “I bought a handkerchief from the city” …………… it is clearly registered by a court order that it was compiled by.
2-In the same way …………..which he gave to the participant upon the application of the participant ……….. “…As explained above, the Source Person who allows to bring existing, known, i.e. “Anonymous” melodies into the repertoire; ………..it is not true that he claims that the lyrics and music of these tunes belong to him in their entirety …”he rejected the application with his assessment.
3-Who participated again ………….. upon the October application that he made “……… in history, ……….. with ordinal number, ………… as the source person related to his folk song, he requested to be included in the repertoire, but in the same way, the relevant institution again “…With the establishment of Mesam, fees began to be paid for melodies in the composition genre, so people began to apply for such initiatives in order to receive royalties. As explained above, the Source person who allows to bring the existing, known, i.e. “Anonymous” melodies into the repertoire ………’ it is not true that he claims that the lyrics and music of these melodies belong to him in their entirety …”his application was rejected again on the same grounds as his assessment.
4-Upon the applications of the participant ……….. ………. as a result of the examination conducted by a competent expert named; “…it is unthinkable that a cultural product that has cost society should be under the ownership of a single person. In this case, it is considered that it would be appropriate to continue protecting the folk songs mentioned above with their current identity information,”the assessment made by a musicologist was also submitted to your Supreme Court.
5-I bought a handkerchief with an anonymous folk song taken from the TRT archive again, the folk song from şeherden is also one of the outstanding Turkish Folk Music artists of our country ………. an example of a note related to the compilation is also presented as notarized.
Although the attorney of the opposing party has requested the dismissal of the case due to the expiration date, it is understood that there was no time limit in this direction when a decision on the merits of the case was obtained in accordance with the provisions of the renewal of the trial, as well as a final court decision issued on the Folk Song that is the subject of the case, it is understood that the requests of the attorney of the opposing party were not in place,
Conclusion and request;
For the reasons explained,
I wish that the decision to dismiss the case and to charge the trial expenses and the proxy fee to the other party will be made according to the content of the documents submitted in relation to the claim subject to the lawsuit, the annotated court decisions to be finalized.
I will supply. Kindest regards,
.
Attorney
Klicken Sie hier, um zu unseren weiteren Artikeln und petitionsbeispielen zu gelangen
