Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 7 - The Comparative Lessons of Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier

  • Edited by Mira T. Sundara Rajan
  • Book:
    Cambridge Handbook of Intellectual Property in Central and Eastern Europe
    Published online:
    11 June 2019
    Print publication:
    13 June 2019, pp 110-131

  • Summary

    For a large part of the past century, the cold war between the Soviet Union and the United States and Russia’s continued refusal to join the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Berne Convention), the predominant international copyright agreement, have raised complicated questions concerning the protection of Russian authors in the United States.1 The case that has received considerable attention in intellectual property literature is Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc (Itar-Tass).2 Filed in the mid-1990s, shortly after Russia’s accession to the Berne Convention but before its admission to the World Trade Organization (WTO), this case covered not only choice-of-law questions in the intellectual property field but also the interrelationship between domestic law and international treaties. Less frequently explored, however, are the rich comparative lessons that the case has provided on the development of intellectual property law and policy in Central and Eastern Europe.