06:42:11 Wednesday, April 24
Politics Economy Agriculture Society IT Education Medicine Religion Communal Services Incidents Crime Culture Sport

Varlamov seized 210 thousand rubles from “Express” for photos published on “Penza Press” website

17:31 | 09.08.2016 | Society

Print

Penza, 9 August 2016. PenzaNews. The Arbitration Court of the Penza region decided to collect 210 thousand rubles from LLC Express Advertising Agency in favor of the famous Russian blogger Ilya Varlamov as compensation for the copyright violation expressed in illegal reproduction of 20 of his photos on Penza Press online media.

Varlamov seized 210 thousand rubles from “Express” for photos published on “Penza Press” website

© PenzaNewsBuy the photo

Moreover, Express as a defeated party is obliged to compensate expenses on payment of the national duty in the amount of 5,700 rubles and legal costs in the amount of 1,500 rubles.

In total the company should pay 217,200 rubles.

Ilya Varlamov asked the court for compensation of 420 thousand rubles for the photos made during his visit to Penza in May, 2015 as a dedicated guest of Jazz May festival.

After his visit, the famous Russian blogger, who was writing in LiveJournal under the nickname Zyalt back then, published a series of posts with his impressions, such as “Bad Penza” on May 19, “Good Penza” on the day after, and “Rubber Items” on May 23

Each post was accompanied by a large assortment of photos depicting central streets and yards of Penza, modern and historical buildings, landmarks in need of renovation, and people in the city.

During judicial session on June 27, the representative of “Express” did not agree with the claims, stating that “the articles with photographs illustrating them were produced for information purposes and in a reasonable quoting amount,” and assumed that the amount of compensation can be reduced from 420 thousand to 110 thousand rubles.

However in a month during the court session on July 26, the defendant declared “the petition for adjournment of judicial proceedings to settle the dispute peacefully.” The claimant's representative did not object to such step. As a result the court gave to the parties nearly two weeks to settle the issue, however it did not happen.

As a result during the session on Monday, August 8, the Arbitration Court reduced Varlamov’s compensation amount twice and declined the other part of the claim.

The decision can be appealed in the Eleventh arbitration court of appeal within one month.

As PenzaNews reported earlier, Alexander Tuzov addressed another lawsuit against the advertising agency “Express” in mid-February 2016 for a compensation of 1,023,000 rubles for illegal use of 31 photos of the Russian musical band DDT and its lead Yuri Schevchuk.

On April 12 2016, judge Nataliya Guk, who was also working with Ilya Varlamov’s lawsuit, stated to dismiss Alexander Tuzov’s case and issue a certificate confirming the decision. According to the judge’s verdict, the complainant took the photos “for personal purposes unrelated to business.”

Based on the available information, Alexander Tuzov intended to continue pursuing his interests as an individual in the civil court; however, no such action has been taken by him so far.

In the meantime, on 15 June 2016, Alexander Tuzov lost a lawsuit initiated by “VolgaInterMedia” – the founding body of PenzaNews – and was ordered by the court to pay 265,000 rubles of compensation for 53 facts of illegal use of copyrighted photos.

Both parties appealed the decision of the court.

The claimant, in particular, disagreed only with the decision of judge Svetlana Novikova applying p.3 Art. 1252 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, therefore lowering the compensation amount twice.

In turn Alexander Tuzov asked to cancel the decision of the Arbitration Court of the Penza region all together as “unreasonable and illegal.”

As a result, on August 8 the court of appeal of Samara left both complaints without satisfaction.

Tuzov’s case decision entered into force from the date of its acceptance and can be appealed in two-month time in Intellectual Property Rights Court.

Lastest headlines
Read also