Search results

В гражданском законодательстве в области регулирования правоотношений между автором-работником и работодателем по поводу создания и использования служебных результатов интеллектуальной деятельности (РИД) существует ряд неразрешенных вопросов. Один из которых касается размера, порядка определения и уплаты вознаграждения автору произведения. Не смотря на наличие на сегодняшний день достаточного количества законных и подзаконных актов (которые отсылают друг к другу, но не дают ответы на поставленные вопросы), остается нерешенным вопрос о юридической природе вознаграждения, как материального блага, выплачиваемого автору. Ввиду чего работодатели или третьи лица часто злоупотребляют законодательными пробелами с целью заполучения объекта творческой труда без выплаты работнику по справедливости причитающегося блага.После создания служебного РИД встает вопрос о выплате или о не выплате работнику вознаграждения. Ведь для работодателя будет выгодным признать объект, созданный мыслительным путем, выполненный работником в рамках трудовой деятельности или конкретного задания работодателя. При чем, такое задание не должно выходить за рамки должностной инструкции. Поскольку вознаграждение, как правило, будет невелико. А что делать, когда объект создан за рамками трудовой функции? Каков будет справедливые и законный размер вознаграждения? Поэтому именно такие понятия как «трудовая обязанность» и «конкретное задание работодателя» становятся в практике камнем преткновения. И при решении поставленных вопросов, авторы часто начинают поиск ответов с философских истоков зарождения вознаграждения за творческих труд, используя методы сравнительного анализа, историко-правовые способы и даже философские учения древних мыслителей.Целью научной стати является разрешение проблемы при взыскании авторами служебных результатов интеллектуальной деятельности вознаграждения за созданные и использованные объекты интеллектуальной собственности с применением категорий «справедливости», «законности», «соразмерности», имеющих философский генезис.Методами научного исследования выступают: анализ действующего гражданского законодательства в области защиты авторских прав, сравнительно-исторический подход к изучению становления и развития законодательства в сфере интеллектуальной собственности, синтез знаний, сформулированных древнегреческими и средневековыми мыслителями, с целью рассмотрения выплаты вознаграждения автору через призму распределения благ в политически-организованном обществе.Область применения результатов: данные знания применимы в области защиты прав авторов своих субъективных прав на результаты интеллектуальной деятельности, созданные в рамках трудовой обязанности или конкретного задания работодателя. ; In the civil legislation in the field of regulation of legal relations between the author-worker and the employer concerning the creation and use of the service results of intellectual activity (RIA), there are a number of unresolved issues. One of them concerns the size, the procedure for determining and paying remuneration to the author of the work. Despite the availability to date of a sufficient number of legal and by-laws (which refer to each other, but do not provide answers to the questions posed), the question of the legal nature of remuneration remains unresolved, as a material benefit paid to the author. As a result, employers or third parties often abuse legislative gaps in order to obtain an object of creative work without payment to the employee for the fairness of the due goods.After the creation of the official RIA, the question arises of the payment or non-payment of remuneration to the employee. After all, it will be profitable for the employer to recognize an object created by a thoughtful way, performed by an employee in the framework of a labor activity or a specific job of the employer. At what, such task should not go beyond the scope of the job description. As compensation, as a rule, will be small. And what if the object is created outside the scope of the labor function? What will be the fair and lawful amount of remuneration? Therefore, it is precisely such concepts as «labor duty» and «specific task of the employer» that become a stumbling block in practice. And when solving the questions posed, the authors often begin to search for answers from the philosophical origins of the origin of remuneration for creative work, using methods of comparative analysis, historical legal methods and even the philosophical teachings of ancient thinkers. Let's demonstrate this on this topic.The purpose of the scientific article is to solve the problem when collecting the author's performance results of intellectual activity for the created and used intellectual property objects using the categories of «justice», «legality», «symmetry», having a philosophical genesis.Methods of scientific research are: analysis of existing civil legislation in the field of copyright protection, a comparative-historical approach to the study of the formation and development of legislation in the field of intellectual property, the synthesis of knowledge formulated by ancient Greek and medieval thinkers, to consider the payment of compensation to the author through the prism of the distribution of benefits in Politically-organized society.Results: this knowledge is applicable in the field of protecting the rights of authors of their subjective rights to the results of intellectual activity created in the framework of work activities or specific employer's work.

The article reflects the main aspects that should be taken into account in developing and changing the regulation of intellectual property sphere. Being harmful in some aspects, piracy also has a number of properties that can be useful for copyright owners: information, network and indirect effects. The paper presents a mathematical model showing the case where the protection of intellection activity result can cause more damage to public welfare than piracy itself. The findings show a need for tools more flexible than the intellectual property system so that every copyright owner can choose the required level of protection.

International audience ; Purpose The purpose of this paper is the foresight of new forms of intellectual activity in society. Design/methodology/approach This research examines the ways of predicting the development of intellectual activity. To reveal the topic, the author uses semiotics and the method of building possible worlds. The author explores intellectual activity in terms of sign systems. From this angle, the logic of the narrative expresses the order of the organization of intellectual activity. This approach reveals the connections between images of possible worlds and decision-making methods. Findings The author conceptually outlines the forms of intellectual activity in a globalized society. A globalized society is a complex of political, economic, cultural and scientific ties that spread throughout the world. The foresight of new forms of intellectual activity allows conceptually sketching the practical use of proper decision-making methods. These methods involve the use of artificial machine intelligence, collective intelligence, etc. Forms of intellectual activity are related to the worldbuilding that cause the development of culture through the development of knowledge. The description of forms of intellectual activity shows a promising way of humanitarian research in a globalized society. Research limitations/implications The research implies technological metaphors related to the history of culture and the role of intellectual activity in it. Practical implications The author examines the practical possibilities of applying traditional humanities for the development of new forms of intellectual activity in a globalized society. Social implications In the social space, exposing the effectiveness of traditional humanities helps to assess the consequences of using intellectual activity in practice. Originality/value The originality of this research is associated with the identification of links between the conceptual provisions of semiotics and the method for building possible worlds.

Purpose
The purpose of this paper is the foresight of new forms of intellectual activity in society.


Design/methodology/approach
This research examines the ways of predicting the development of intellectual activity. To reveal the topic, the author uses semiotics and the method of building possible worlds. The author explores intellectual activity in terms of sign systems. From this angle, the logic of the narrative expresses the order of the organization of intellectual activity. This approach reveals the connections between images of possible worlds and decision-making methods.


Findings
The author conceptually outlines the forms of intellectual activity in a globalized society. A globalized society is a complex of political, economic, cultural and scientific ties that spread throughout the world. The foresight of new forms of intellectual activity allows conceptually sketching the practical use of proper decision-making methods. These methods involve the use of artificial machine intelligence, collective intelligence, etc. Forms of intellectual activity are related to the worldbuilding that cause the development of culture through the development of knowledge. The description of forms of intellectual activity shows a promising way of humanitarian research in a globalized society.


Research limitations/implications
The research implies technological metaphors related to the history of culture and the role of intellectual activity in it.


Practical implications
The author examines the practical possibilities of applying traditional humanities for the development of new forms of intellectual activity in a globalized society.


Social implications
In the social space, exposing the effectiveness of traditional humanities helps to assess the consequences of using intellectual activity in practice.


Originality/value
The originality of this research is associated with the identification of links between the conceptual provisions of semiotics and the method for building possible worlds.

Terror has been officially defined by many states & international actors. Although these definitions differ from each other to a certain extent, the basic divergence appears in the definition of the terrorist, since it reveals who is considered an 'enemy' by those actors. The difference between the definitions & lists elaborated by the US & by the European Union on 'terrorism, terrorist, & terror organization' indicates their respective perceptions of the enemy as well as their differing global policies on terrorism. In Turkey, a country marked by a 20-year-long struggle against terrorism, the definition of these concepts is mostly limited to domestic polities. The objective of this paper is to compare & contrast the official definitions of terror, terrorist, & terrorist organization by these three actors, including their respective international positions on terrorism. 1 Table. Adapted from the source document.