Zabaykalov A.P., Batova M.A. —
Intellectual property issues in user agreements for image creation services using artificial intelligence technology
// Law and Politics. – 2024. – ¹ 6.
– P. 100 - 117.
DOI: 10.7256/2454-0706.2024.6.71008
URL: https://en.e-notabene.ru/lpmag/article_71008.html
Read the article
Abstract: The authors analyze the user agreements of image creation services using artificial intelligence technology in terms of regulating intellectual property relations for the results obtained. In the absence of unambiguous legislative regulation on this issue, it is precisely such agreements that are of interest as a mechanism for overcoming gaps and contradictions. In addition, in the future, the norms and principles formulated in them may become customs, a kind of "lex mercatoria", and also be in demand by legislators as a basis for the development of normative acts. In particular, such services as "Kandinsky", "Fusion Brain" and "Masterpiece" are considered. Such a choice is due, on the one hand, to the popularity of these services, and, on the other hand, to their recognition of the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation, which avoids separate consideration of the issue of determining the applicable law. The research methodology is based on traditional principles, techniques and approaches for legal science: dialectics, analysis, synthesis, analogy, deduction, etc. The scientific novelty of the research and the results obtained is primarily due to the innovativeness of the relations under consideration, as well as the "lag" in the development of legislation. The analysis allows the authors to conclude that user agreements can be interpreted as recognizing the users of the corresponding service as the author of the image created using artificial intelligence. The agreements also provide for the automatic transfer of a number of rights to service owners. First of all, we are talking about providing service owners with a non-exclusive royalty-free license for a wide range of ways to use the work. At the same time, the list of methods and the approach to their description differs. In addition, certain agreements provide for the actual restriction of the rights of user authors to use the works they have created. They provide for agreements and norms that can be regarded as aimed at restricting non-property rights.
Kucherenko A.V. —
On the legalization of lobbying in modern Russia
// Trends and management. – 2017. – ¹ 1.
– P. 113 - 121.
DOI: 10.7256/2454-0730.2017.1.17506
URL: https://en.e-notabene.ru/tumag/article_17506.html
Read the article
Abstract: Research is devoted to the need to consolidate the legal and regulatory institution of lobbying activities in the Russian Federation. Indeed, on the one hand, the complete absence of legislation in this area leads to the predominance of shadow and criminal methods of lobbying, and, on the other hand, the legalization of lobbying can cause a new round of corruption. Main attention is paid to issues of diversity of approaches to the understanding of lobbying in domestic and foreign literature, the ratio of the categories of "lobbying" and "corruption", as well as the efficiency of the legalization of lobbying activities in terms of countering corruption. The research methodology is based on the traditional legal science principles, techniques and methods: the dialectic, analysis, synthesis, analogy, deduction, etc. The study author concludes on the need to create a legal form for the purpose of lobbying to somehow control this phenomenon. At the same time it expressed the view that the adoption of a law on lobbying should not be seen as a significant step in the fight against corruption. The law on lobbying can only be considered as one factor in a complex of measures, which could lead to a qualitatively new level of the interaction of government and society.
Shauro I.G., Zabaykalov A. —
Particular restrictions of the subject matter of a public-private partnership in modern Russia
// NB: Administrative Law and Administration Practice. – 2016. – ¹ 4.
– P. 15 - 21.
DOI: 10.7256/2306-9945.2016.4.19903
URL: https://en.e-notabene.ru/al/article_19903.html
Read the article
Abstract: The article considers particular elements of legal regulation of public-private partnership in modern Russia. The authors note that the latest federal legislation, unlike the one previously applied in the constituent units of the Russian Federation in this sphere, contains ungrounded restrictions. In particular, the Federal Law of 13 July 2015 No 224 “On public-private partnership, municipal-private partnership in the Russian Federation and introduction of amendments to particular statutory acts of the Russian Federation” contains the restriction of participation of foreign citizens in the relations, regulated by the law, as well as self-employed persons and associations of persons acting without forming a legal entity by a simple partnership agreement (joint cooperation agreement). The research methodology is based on traditional principles and methods of jurisprudence: dialectics, analysis, synthesis, analogy, deduction, etc. The analysis helps the authors eliminate this restriction: admit foreign citizens to participation in public-private and municipal-private partnership and allow self-employed persons acting without forming a legal entity to participate in local and municipal partnerships.
Zabaykalov A., Lotorev E. —
Responsibility for an acceptioin of an "election bribe"
// Administrative and municipal law. – 2015. – ¹ 9.
– P. 958 - 962.
DOI: 10.7256/2454-0595.2015.9.16224
Read the article
Abstract: The article deals with the introduction of responsibility of a voter for acception of an "election bribe". It is noted that the global and Russian practice provides for administrative, criminal and constitutional responsibility for the subornation of voters for candidates and other persons wishing to influence the will of the electorate. However, domestic legislation does not imply adverse consequences for the citizen who had received such an award. Taking into account the world experience, the article studies the feasibility and legal possibility of introduction of constitutional, criminal and administrative responsibility for these acts. The research methodology is based on the traditional legal science principles, techniques and approaches: dialectics, analysis, synthesis, analogy, deduction, etc. The authors conclude that it would be the most appropriate to establish administrative responsibility for such actions. And the responsibility for the voter should be less severe than for those engaged in their subornation. In addition, it is rational to provide for an exemption from the responsibility for the citizens who voluntarily reported the bribery to the competent authority, as well as in cases when bribery was conjugated with coercion, threats, deception.
Svetlov I.A., Zabaykalov A. —
Some Aspects of the 'Entrepreneurial Activity' Concept Content in Cases of Tax Disputes
// Financial Law and Management. – 2015. – ¹ 4.
– P. 427 - 431.
DOI: 10.7256/2454-0765.2015.4.16784
Read the article
Abstract: Based on judicial practices, the authors of the present article are trying to answer the question whether entrepreneurial activity can be considered as the situation when a property owner (physical entity) leases the property he or she owns. The subject of the present research is the contradictions arising between tax authorities and taxpayers regarding the matter. The authors note that providing that the tax legislation does not offer its own definition of 'entrepreneurial activity', law enforcement officials have to apply provisions of civil law. In this case, uncertain legal statements cause the need to view circumstances of a particular case. The methodology of the research is based on traditional legal principles, techniques and methods such as dialectics, analysis, synthesis, analogy and deduction and etc. The authors conclude that the situation when a physical entity leases out his property obtained for personal, family and other purposes can't be considered as entrepreneurial activity. Accordingly, the rent isn't considered as a revenue obtained in a result of entrepreneurial activity.