COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
FILE NO :
DEFENDANT :
LAWYER :
DEFENDANT
ATTORNEY :
SUBJECT : Our response to the opposing party’s reply petition.
EXPLANATIONS
First of all, we reiterate the content of our petition for renewal of the trial,
1-
Decision about my client …….. in the file of ……… …Civil Court of First Instance in the file of ……….. manager ……….. The decision numbered ……….. was approved and finalized on …………. With the decision of the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation with ……… original number ……….
3.
The main documents attached to our petition dated ………, in which our statements were submitted with documents prior to the decision of the relevant Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, and which will greatly affect the merits of the case, and the main documents attached to this petition that will change the course of the case.
4-
On the other hand, although our petition dated …….. and the attached documents were sent by APS method, although the documents were sent to the relevant department of the Court of Cassation, as can be seen from the dated receipt document ……… and the attached petition sample, unfortunately, the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation did not examine the documents in question because it approved them on ………….
“-First of all, the work in question does not belong to the participant ………
1-
As it is known, Law No. 5846 is related to the protection of authors. Within the framework of this explanation, if a work is the result of an intellectual and intellectual work, it can be said that this work is a privileged, personalized work.
In light of these explanations, it is clear that the work in question does not belong to the participant.
Furthermore, the work in question was recorded by the participant ……….. under the name “……………” in the language ……, including the folk song in question. The said recording was not requested by the Court during the trial, but the relevant TRT organization officials stated th-at the video footage and information records of the said recording were requested by the Court.
2–
As can be understood from the documents in the file, the work in question was compiled by “………..” and the work in question was registered by ………….
In this respect, the source person of the work in question is …………, not the compiler of this work.
3-
As it is known, the performance of folk songs that have become publicly available and accepted by everyone and anonymous folk songs of unknown origin does not constitute a violation of Law No. 5846, nor does it lead to any claim. In terms of copyright law.
The work in question is a work registered by …….. 50 years ago with this anonymous feature.
However, no one as an individual has the authority to register a work.
Also,
1- The participant …….. ……… against the Turkish Radio and Television Corporation at the Intellectual and Industrial Rights Law Court, in particular “You are a rose in the gardens, the flower of summer on the Beş Parmak Mountain is a rose, I bought a handkerchief from the stream (from the city)…” The Court’s decision dated ………., as can be seen in the decision paragraph of the judgment, following the hearing of the case in which compensation was claimed in relation to the folk songs. ……….. ……….., it was decided to “dismiss the lawsuit”, and in the last part of the reasoned decision of the relevant Court;
“…It is understood that the defendant institution does not include folk songs that belong to real persons and do not have anonymous characteristics in its repertoire, that the artist who compiled the folk songs in question ……… died in 1963 and that the artist who compiled these folk songs died in 1963. The records in question have been publicly available for about fifty years in a way that the participant would personally know, that the participant is obliged to present strong evidence to encourage-prove that the anonymity of the folk songs in question is fake, which is determined from the scope of the documents issued before the above-mentioned dates or officially registered by the respondent institutions and officials due to their duties. However, such evidence has not been submitted to our Court.
For this reason, it is not possible to agree with the opinions of the second expert committee, which does not contain any reference, in the style of the personal opinion of the owner of the works subject to trial in the TRT repertoire. In the report prepared by the second expert committee, the record, official
2-
Similarly ………….. “…As explained above, the Source Person who brought the existing, known, that is, “Anonymous” melodies to the repertoire; It is not correct for ……….. to claim that the words and music of all these melodies belong to him in the reply letter dated ……….. given to the participant upon the application of the participant…”.
3.
Upon the additional application made by the participant ………….., ……… requested to be included in the repertoire as the source person for the folk song named ………… with the sequence number ………. ….. but the relevant institution also stated that “…With the establishment of Mesam, fees started to be paid for melodies in the composition genre and therefore people started to apply for this kind of music. Attempts were made to get royalties. As explained above, it is not correct for the source person ……… to claim that the words and music of these melodies are entirely his own…” and his application was rejected on the same grounds.
4-
Upon the participant’s applications ……….. As a result of the examination made by the authorized expert named ……….; “…It is unthinkable that a cultural product belonging to the society is the property of a single person. In this case, it is considered appropriate to continue the protection of the above-mentioned folk songs with their current identities.” The evaluation made by a musicologist was also forwarded to your Court of Cassation.
5-
Again, an anonymous folk song taken from the TRT archive, a handkerchief I bought from the city, from the distinguished Turkish Folk Music artists of our country ………. A notarized note sample regarding the compilation has also been submitted.
Although the counterparty attorney has requested the dismissal of the case due to the statute of limitations, it is understood that there is no such period when the decision on the merits of the case is taken according to the provisions of the renewal of the trial, that there is a finalized court decision regarding the folk song subject to the lawsuit and that the requests of the counterparty attorney are not appropriate,
Conclusion and request;
For the reasons explained
According to the documents submitted and the content of the court decisions with finalization annotation, I request that the lawsuit be dismissed and that the trial expenses and attorney’s fees be collected from the other party.
I am submitting my request here, sincerely,
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.