“Monetary” paintings became the subject of a legal dispute between their producers

The company MarketLid discovered that seven interior paintings created by the company had been copied by an entrepreneur from Zheleznovodsk, Artyom Medintsev. The cost of the works ranges from 1,500 to 11,000 rubles, depending on size and materials used.

Upon discovering this fact, MarketLid filed a lawsuit seeking compensation. During the proceedings, it was revealed that the company had purchased the base images from photo banks, after which designers worked on them. The defendant, in turn, tried to prove that he had created his works independently of the competitor and even filed a counterclaim.

The court hearings went through three instances and lasted three and a half years. The fact of plagiarism was established: MarketLid proved that it had created the images much earlier than the defendant, who must now pay 130,000 rubles.

“By comparing the visual artworks owned by the plaintiff with those used by the defendant — taking into account the near-total coincidence of visual elements, color schemes, and other distinctive features — the courts concluded that A. E. Medintsev had used the works through adaptation,” the ruling of the Intellectual Property Court stated.

Rossiyskaya Gazeta asked legal experts whether two different authors can produce similar works.

“In theory, that’s certainly possible — for example, when both parties take an image from a photo bank and create independent works based on it. This is called parallel creation. In most such disputes, an expert examination is ordered, and the court’s decision depends on the experts’ opinion. Indicators of the absence of plagiarism (or the presence of parallel creation) can include the use of different details or imagery,” explained Sergey Zuykov, patent attorney and managing partner of Zuykov and Partners.

In general, Russian law recognizes the concept of parallel creation if the defendant can prove to the court that they acted independently of the plaintiff, noted Yury Yakhin, counsel for the Intellectual Property practice at Melling, Voitishkin & Partners.

“In this case, the plaintiff was able to confirm both the acquisition of rights to the original images and the commissioning of derivative works, as well as the start of exercising those rights through social media — while the defendant failed to do so,” said Yury Yakhin.

Source: Rossiyskaya Gazeta