www.public4you.fora.pl

gguyadcadmsh

Care workers, and other complaints such as Shenzhen Youth Magazine transactions beyond the agency delegated authority to the copyright infringement case

Plaintiff: care workers, male, 69 years old.
Plaintiff: Hu Huiling, female, 66 years old.
Plaintiff: Gu fir, male, minor.
Plaintiff: Xiewen E, F, 64 years old.
Plaintiff: Zhang same, male, 70 years old.
Defendant: Shenzhen Youth Magazine.
Defendant: Journal of Industrial Company in Guangdong Province.
third person: Xiao Cong, M, 35 years old.
third person: Writers Publishing House.
Gu Cheng and Xie Ye (pen name Remy) Department of husband and wife, October 8, 1993, Gu Cheng and Xie Ye died in New Zealand. Plaintiff care workers, Hu Huiling Gu Cheng, Department of the parents, the same plaintiff Zhang, Ye Xie Xie Wene Department of the parents,MBT scarpe vendita, the plaintiff Department of Gu Cheng Gu fir, Xie Ye's son.
1993,MBT scarpe vendita, the defendant Shenzhen Youth Magazine and Journal of Industrial Company in Guangdong Province initiated the establishment of a '93 Shenzhen (China) Excellent presentation of public bidding for the first time the organizing committee (the committee), the media on This was widely publicized. The Organizing Committee in May 1993 to develop the activities of constitution (the May edition statute) provides that the purpose of this activity is to explore the commercialization of intellectual products, to maximize the protection of the legitimate rights and interests; Organizing Committee to ensure that bids will be open, fair and impartial manner; committee commissioned by obtaining the written authorization of the cases, matters of copyright trading agents. Developed by the Organizing Committee and as a charter of Annex I of the Annex VII as the Articles of Association eligible to obtain bid, but still has a published value of the presentation, by application of the organizing committee agreed, but also by the organizing committee of the trade through a permanent institution, to continue to provide the copyright of the trading services; Article IX, the presentation will not deal
the same year in July, the plaintiff care workers from the newspaper that the bid document the activities of the news, they tell time in Germany, Gu Cheng and Xie Ye, and the constitution of the Organizing Committee to develop and accessories to send copies to Gu Cheng and Xie Ye. In the same year in August, Gu Cheng and Xie Ye sent from Germany to the organizing committee signed as Gu Cheng, Remy's The They also adopted the history of Gu Cheng's agent in Germany, the other to send out a Meanwhile, also on behalf of care workers, Clip on the signature of the copyright owner has pre-written signature of Gu Cheng, together with the application fee sent from Beijing organizing committee.
1993 年 9 1 May, the organizing committee released a new activity statute (the September version of the Prospectus). Articles in the September edition of the works have emphasized the organizing committee will participate in open auction the right to re-reading the same time, made it clear that some works can not participate in public bidding would be traded. September version of the forty-fourth constitution stipulates that the auction without a qualification, but after re-reading the Committee that there are some published re-reading the value of works in the presentation of the lowest mark and the mandate from the premise, the Organizing Committee agreed to by the Organizing Committee of the copyright agent transactions. September Edition of Annex I Prospectus changed to September version of Annex VI Constitution Article V, from 1993 September 15 to October 25 only, bidders may at any time to the organizing committee of the location of activities in accordance with this bidding document requirements for access to draft and copyright trading.
1993 年 10 11, the organizing committee and the third Xiao Cong (Organizing Committee and Secretary General Wang Xing, the chief planner of the Qidi) signed a agreed: Xiao Cong made Xiao Cong committee to issue a purchase, Xiao Cong are still kept in the payment accused the magazine of Shenzhen Youth Department, the committee received from the intermediary service fee deducted 3,300 yuan. November, Xiao Cong to its purchase of the November 18, Chunyan works donated to the third person this writer Press. Writers Publishing House published the same month,
five plaintiffs to the Shenzhen Municipal Intermediate People's Court said: July 1993 held in Shenzhen from the best informed presentation newspaper auctions activities were on behalf of Gu Cheng in Germany, organized by the two defendants '93, Shenzhen (China ) The first public auction Organizing Committee excellent presentation and payment. In mid-September, the Organizing Committee care workers received a telephone call asking, But the committee was in October 12 to 33 thousand yuan will be The behavior of the defendant violated the statute enacted by the organizing committee, beyond the delegated authority to the agent and the agent of the third party collusion harm the interests of the violations. To do this requires the court to order: 1, sponsored by the organizing committee confirmed the two defendants entered into with a third party, 2, the two defendants decree 30 million for infringement damages. 3, the defendant was ordered public apology to the plaintiff, the third person who received an invalid contract, The case of two defendants bear the costs.
defendant Shenzhen Youth Magazine and Journal of Industrial Company in Guangdong Province claims that: 1, the copyright owner of the organizing committee of the trust relationships established. August 1993, Gu Cheng and Xie Ye sent from Germany to the organizing committee signed Gu Cheng, Remy's is agreed by the principal. Gu Cheng letters to their relatives and testament, the As evidence, the plaintiff and the defendant had no objection to the above facts, the agency should be recognized the right of the organizing committee was established behavior authorization of copyright law. 2, the organizing committee does not violate Constitution, agent turnover, An agent turnover, Articles in the September edition in force, the May edition Prospectus has been automatically lapse. The defendant in the Gu Gu Cheng's work is not an agent, not entitled to receive for the constitution of Gu Cheng. So in May edition statute irrelevant. Even if agents receive the May edition statute, because the constitution sets out the agent has the right to re-reading and interpretation of statute, its On the contrary there are letters on the document then proceeds to action, so the law should be recognized Gu Cheng is willing to accept

Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court said: rights and the right to remuneration according to the law that is the case transferred to their heirs the plaintiff. Two defendants set up the constitution of the Organizing Committee to develop clear and specific attachments to the related issue of, should be regarded as the organizing committee issued a proxy to the copyright of the offer to conduct the transaction, shall be binding on the organizing committee. Hired to Gu Cheng and Xie Ye May edition constitution committee forwarded its annexes, Gu Cheng and Xie Ye Ming, directly and through the history of the two manuscripts were sent to the Organizing Committee, and personally fill out the to the Organizing Committee, on behalf of care workers and the application fee to the Organizing Committee, the plaintiff and the defendant were admitted to the above facts, the organizing committee should identify the author of agent behavior established. Version of the organizing committee in accordance with provisions of the Constitution in May, the actual bid document is the work of 5-year auction of exclusive rights, re-reading of the standard and not by the organizing committee decided not to auction the works,christian louboutin chaussures _3310 debriefing report , deputy director of Post, the Organizing Committee if the application for sanction of works shall be subject to specially commissioned or obtained authorization of, or need the work returned to authors. September Edition by re-reading the articles of association members decided not to participate in the auction works, the Organizing Committee through other channels by the copyright agency of the transaction. The defendant claims in September Edition Prospectus has been delivered by care workers, Therefore, the committee has not been of the application, but also no evidence to prove otherwise specifically delegated authority of the act, it will be civil liability. In this connection, the plaintiff requested the defendant to apologize, it should support. The plaintiff claims the Organizing Committee Organizing Committee will work to sell the family members, agents and third party in collusion are the principal interests of the damage due to lack of evidence, not determined. Decree requires defendant to compensate the plaintiff 300,000 yuan of two, no sufficient evidence against it. Under the >
a defendant Shenzhen Youth Magazine and Journal of Industrial Company in Guangdong Province associated damages to the plaintiff 50,000 yuan (two defendants the burden of 25,000 yuan.)
Second, the defendant Shenzhen Youth Magazine and Journal of Industrial Company in Guangdong Province in the effective date of this decision within one month,
three, dismissed the plaintiff's other claims.
After the verdict, the parties did not appeal, the decision takes legal effect.

case involves several legal issues to be resolved. First, the legal implications of bidding document. Bidding document is not a legal term, so we must find the appropriate corresponding legal provisions, to be able to correctly grasp it. We believe that the presentation is the case in the right to use copyright works, bids should be understood as In the planned economy, the spirit of the results has been excluded from economic life, just as a pure manifestation of ideology. After reform and opening up, with the establishment of market economy system, market system and the integrity of the market mechanism, the spirit of the legal regulation of the results into the area began to become the intellectual property rights. As the inevitable result of civil rights, copyright, of course, like other property, you can enter the field of exchange and become the object of the auction relations. By law, property auction, the auction commission means the client organization, marked by open auction or sell the way, the particular property sold to the highest price of the trading activities. The case of auction houses is the organizing committee, which is the approval authority in accordance with the right to set up the temporary files copyright auction institutions. The law also required to engage in or participate in the auction shall abide by the law, principles of openness, fairness, justice and the principle of competition to obtain the highest bidder to carry out.
Second, the auction of works commissioned by the nature of organizational behavior and auction finds. We believe that the copyright owner of the The constitution of the Organizing Committee to develop clear and specific attachments to the related issue of, auction houses should be identified as agents of copyright to the copyright owner to issue an offer to conduct the auction. Copyright owner to submit the auction sale of the original works,MBT scarpe vendita, commissioned papers and works of information and facts after the parties had no objection to the above, should be found between the elements of a complete consignment, legal and valid. But not according to the principal organizers promised consignment procedures and conditions for transactions, but to work 5-year exclusive rights through non-auction sale to a third person, should be recognized for this behavior is beyond the powers of behavior and this behavior of the auction institution shall bear civil liability to the copyright owner. Hearing in this case, no sufficient evidence to prove the plaintiff as an agent with the third auction houses have colluded to the detriment of the principal interests of conduct, it is good for maintenance and protection of the interests of a third party transaction security considerations, identify groups Commission agents and third party copyright owner of the But the court also asked the committee to go beyond the powers of the damage caused to the copyright owner's civil liability for acts committed. This is determined based on civil law principles of apparent agency. Apparent in the Supreme Court hearing on the economic contract disputes in the specific application of the economic contract law in a number of questions answered (the Economic Development Act No. 20 of 1987) and has been embodied in the Chinese judicial practice there are cases of practice. Therefore, the principle decision so the case, has some basis, but also try to meaning.
Editor at:

in China, according to the spirit of copyright legislation does not buy the so-called copyright trading, can only work a certain period of exclusive right to use transactions. Copyright © intermediary organizations and even by auction in the form of copyright trade in China is only in the market economy was the emergence of new transactions, but still only occasionally's. This new way to trade, and the transfer of copyright works under the inherent right of exclusive use as compared to not pay more attention to the content of the relationship between copyright law, but in the commission, brokerage, agency and auction its contractual relationship the specific mode of transactions, dealing with the case as well.
case the so-called bid document, in fact, the nature of the auction. Therefore, the organizing committee to develop and bid document issued by the constitution and other documents with the nature of the auction offer, the same issue of the And fill out the form to see the articles of association of the the trading of copyright works for its trade practices. Organizing Committee received the client's This case the client as a After the committee has not received the appropriate way to express different views, should be the version by May the contents of the articles of association accepted the commission. In this case, the organizing committee (the defendant) can not be made if the appropriate way to achieve the new commission with the client the contents of the agreement of the evidence that should be in May to verify the version of the content of the articles of association with the client commissioned between content. He now only put forward their own version of statute, there has been evidence in September, because September edition May edition of the Articles of Association Articles of Association on the rights of the Organizing Committee made major changes, so the organizing committee of a greater obligation to notify the client accordingly, and is not the way to announce to the community that their changes. To the public way to change the legal relationship to the contents of the legal relationship has been established not binding unless the other party may be clear that the implementation of the new constitution; of the legal relationship has not been set up in this after the potential client can delegate with a corresponding impact. So, if there is no evidence that the committee has September edition content to the appropriate way of Constitution inform the client and the client version accepted September statute constraints mean that the September edition of association of the case have no legal significance. It is beyond the delegated authority to confirm whether the organizing committee for the copyright trade links based on facts and logic.
in the present case, the principal has entrusted the organizing committee of the copyright of his works deal is the real meaning of the client and want to achieve that goal. However, due to the activities of the special way of bidding document to the Organizing Committee to name their own name rather than the principal dealing with the relative, the relative who do not know the specific contents of commission, so there is no evidence that the committee has colluded with the relative transaction case, the counterpart are good traders. Accordance with the Apparent Agency, should be given special protection relative good faith, that recognizes the validity of transactions, not because of the organizing committee beyond the delegated authority to deny the validity of transactions, so this case is determined based on the effective transaction. But the organizing committee (the defendant) does not thereby waive the principal interests of the damage should bear the civil liability act. At this point, because to maintain the effectiveness of the transaction, the organizing committee (the defendant) if only to transactions over to the principal, equal to not accept any responsibility, this is the trustee in the trust relationships in the delivery of fiduciary services to the interests of clients obligation requirements. Therefore, the price higher than the transaction price by the Organizing Committee (the defendant) liability is reasonable.