COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
FILE NO :
CLAIMANT :
DEFENDANT :
DEFENDANT :
DEFENDANT :
SUBJECT : Our reply to the reply petition of the other party.
EXPLANATIONS
First of all, although we reiterate the content of our petition containing the request for renewal of the trial,
1-The decision given about my client …….. in relation to the ……… …Civil Court of First Instance’s file with the ……….. principal ………. decision number ……….. was approved and finalised on …………. with the decision of the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation with the ……… principal number ……….
2-The client has deposited the total amount of ……… TL, which is subject to compensation due to the judgement proceedings against the client, to the file of the relevant Enforcement Directorate, provided that his rights are reserved. The receipt is attached. As a result, the compensation amount subject to compensation has been fully paid by my client.
3- Before the decision of the relevant Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, our statements were submitted together with the documents, and we have also submitted our petition dated ………, which will greatly affect the merits of the case and supported with documents, and the main documents attached to this petition, which will change the course of the case.
4- On the other hand, our petition dated …….. and the documents attached to it were sent by APS method, and although the documents were sent to the relevant chamber of the Court of Cassation, as can be seen from the receipt dated ……… and the attached petition sample, unfortunately, the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation has not examined the documents in question as they were approved 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, it can be said that if a work is produced as a result of intellectual and intellectual work, it can be said that this work is the exclusive, personalised ownership of a work.
In the light of these explanations, it is clear that the work in question is not the work of the participant.
In addition, the work in question was recorded by the participant ……….. under the name of “……………” in ……, including the folk song in question. The record in question was not requested by the Court at the trial stage, but the relevant TRT organisation authorities stated that the video picture and information records of the record in question were requested by the Court.
2- As can be understood from the documents in the file, the said work was compiled by “………..” and the said work was registered by …………
In this respect, the source person of the work in question is ………… and not the compiler of this piece.
3-As it is also known, the performance of folk songs that have become popular, accepted by everyone and of anonymous folk songs of unknown origin does not constitute an offence of violation of the law numbered 5846, nor does it give rise to a claim in terms of copyright law.
The work in question is a work registered by ……. 50 years ago with this anonymous characteristic.
However, as a person, there is no authorisation for any person to register a work.
Besides,
1- In the lawsuit petition for compensation filed by the participant …….. against the Turkish Radio and Television Corporation at the Law Court of Intellectual and Industrial Rights ………, in particular “You are a rose in the gardens, Beş Parmak mountain range, the flower of summer is a rose, I bought a handkerchief from the stream (şeherden)…” As a result of the trial of the lawsuit requesting compensation in relation to the folk songs, as can be seen in the judgement paragraph of the decision of the Court dated ………. and numbered ……….. ……….., it was decided to “dismiss the lawsuit” and in the last part of the reasoned decision of the relevant Court in particular;
“…It is understood that the defendant institution did not include in its repertoire the folk songs that belong to real persons and do not qualify as anonymous, the artist who compiled the said folk songs ……… ‘s death in 1963 and the fact that the aforementioned records have been publicly available for about fifty years in a way that can be known by the participant himself, it is obvious that the participant is obliged to submit strong evidence to encourage-prove that the anonymity of the aforementioned folk songs is false, which is determined from the scope of the documents issued before the aforementioned dates or officially recorded by the defendant institutions and officials due to their duties. However, such evidence has not been presented to our Court. For this reason, it is not possible to participate in the opinions of the second expert committee in the form that the owner of the works subject to the trial in the TRT repertoire in the style of personal opinion, which does not contain any reference to any record, official or private scientific work in the report issued by the second expert committee, is the participant who is the source person.” With its interpretation and evaluation, it has determined the material reality and as a result, it has been clearly registered by the Court decision that there is no compiler of the aforementioned folk song and that the piece “I bought a handkerchief from the city” was compiled by ……………, as we stated in our appeal petition.
2-Similarly, ………….. has rejected the application with the evaluation “…As explained above, the Source Person who enables the existing, known, i.e. “Anonymous” melodies to be included in the repertoire; it is not correct for ……….. to claim that the lyrics 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 ………….., he requested that he be included in the repertoire as the source person regarding the folk song named ………… on ………, with the sequence number ……….., but in the same way, the relevant institution again stated that “…With the establishment of Mesam, a fee was started to be paid for the melodies in the composition type, and for this reason, people started to apply for such initiatives in order to receive royalties. As explained above, it is not correct for the source person ……… to claim that the lyrics and music of these melodies are entirely his own…” and his application was rejected again on the same grounds.
4- Upon the applications of the participant ……….. ………. as a result of the examination made by a competent expert; “…it is inconceivable that a cultural product that is owned by the society is under the ownership of a single person. In this case, it is thought that it would be appropriate to continue the protection of the above-mentioned folk songs with their current identity information”, and the evaluation made by a musicologist was also submitted to your Supreme Court.
5- Again, an anonymous folk song taken from the TRT archive, the folk song “I took a handkerchief from the city”, which is an anonymous folk song taken from the TRT archive, ………. from the distinguished Turkish Folk Music artists of our country, a note sample related to the compilation has also been submitted notarised.
Although the counterparty attorney has requested the dismissal of the case due to the lapse of time, it is understood that there is no time period in this direction when a decision on the merits of the case is obtained according to the provisions of the renewal of the judgement, and that there is a final court decision regarding the folk song subject to the case, and it is understood that the demands of the counterparty attorney are not appropriate,
Conclusion and request;
For the reasons explained
According to the documents submitted in relation to the request subject to the lawsuit and the content of the court decisions with finalisation annotation, I request that the lawsuit be dismissed and the judicial expenses and attorney’s fee be charged to the other party.
I hereby submit. Sincerely yours,
.
Deputy
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking