The publication reveals the specifics of legal and contractual regulation of copyright objects created using unmanned aerial vehicles. Drones are a modern creative innovative means of creating light shows. Light shows are distinguished from audiovisual displays, dramatic works, works of fi ne art and lighting design. A conclusion was made on the classification of drone light shows as protected results of intellectual activity — works of art, which in Article 1259 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation are designated as “other works”.

Another area of drone use is the creation of paintings (murals). When qualifying the created object, a check for signs of a copyrighted work is maintained. Uncontrolled use of drones for photography and video recording violates the right to privacy of the owner (title holder) of the land plot, building, over the territory of which or near the territory of which the drone flies. It is proposed to use a number of legal measures. Drones are used to distribute advertising if banners are attached to them, and also to create advertising when the completed drone composition represents an advertising object. Advertising created by drones may be subject to copyright.

User-generated content on platforms involves the creation of prompts, in response to which the artifi cial intelligence (AI) system produces certain outputs that may or may not align with the user’s expectations. To obtain the desired result, the user resorts to various clarifi cations of the prompt and adjustments to the task, which may ultimately evolve into an entire “conversation” or thread of prompts submitted to the AI system as input. This process may embody the realization of the user’s creative conception, thereby raising the question of whether a protectable work has been created. The degree of the user’s creative contribution to obtaining the result determines the attribution of exclusive rights in AI-generated works. The legal regime governing those outputs issued by AI in response to a user prompt, but not accepted by the user as fi nal due to the non-realization of their conception, is characterized as part of a computer program embodying generative algorithms.

The article examines the impact of digital transformation on the system of intellectual rights and identifies new creative results that do not fall within the classic objects of copyright and related rights. It emphasizes the limitations of the closed list of complex objects (Article 1240 of the Russian Civil Code) and proposes a dichotomy: named and unnamed complex objects. Unnamed objects include, in particular, certain types of websites and accounts on online platforms, treated as complex results that combine heterogeneous objects. The article justifies, by analogy, the application of the rules of Article 1240 of the Russian Civil Code mutatis mutandis, under the basic principle in dubio pro libertate: the allocation of rights and the determination of the circle of “collective” authors are to be made by agreement of the parties or by a court, taking into account the creative contribution.

The article examines the prospects for transforming the protection and enforcement of copyright in the field of visual art under conditions of global digitalization. The study highlights the approaches of the Belarusian legislator to the regulation of this sphere, analyzed against the backdrop of the rapid development of artifi cial intelligence and blockchain technologies. It is argued that the relevant legal provisions require further clarification and detailing in view of persistent uncertainties in their application. The article draws upon examples from judicial practice concerning the safeguarding of rights in visual art. Particular attention is paid to the results of commission-based art expert examinations and their assessment by the Judicial Panel on Intellectual Property Matters of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus. The conclusion substantiates the need for the development of clear and uniform criteria for recognizing a work of visual art as the result of creative activity.

Legal and judicial positions on issues of personification in the field of information and communication relations, the concepts of mass media and editorial offices of mass media are analyzed. The main defects of law in this area are revealed, first of all, the mixing of elements of the legal status of the subject and the legal regime of the object. The comparison of the name of the media and the trademark is carried out, the shortcomings in the system characteristics of the exclusive rights to the means of individualization of a legal entity, goods, works, services and the rights to the name of the media are shown by branches of legislation. The directions of modernization of information law and unification of legislation are proposed, concerning the mandatory state registration of a legalentity for special purposes in the field under consideration, the qualification of its body, determining the place of the media in the organizational mechanism for ensuring information and communication relations, identification of the subject of cultural activity, terminology.

The issue of compliance with the principles of academic ethics and the prevention of academic fraud, including unfair borrowing, is relevant for the scientific community at the present stage. Due to the fact that the basic models of conscientious behavior in the scientific community should be instilled in scientist mind at early stages, role of supervisor increases, as does the responsibility for schooling a future researcher.

The article examines the relationship between the level of legal culture and academic integrity, expressed in compliance with the rules of academic ethics in the creation process of work of science, substantiates the importance of legal education for all participants of learning process, and describes the role of an academic adviser in the legal education of young scientists. The conclusion is made about the direct dependence of the level of legal culture of the academic adviser and his student.

The current legislation of the Russian Federation establishes the concept of creative activity, the right to freedom of creativity, and guarantees for its implementation. Creative activity involves the creation of cultural values and their interpretation. The interpretation of cultural values encompasses various forms of creative expression by the author. However, creative activity as a legal category does not solely rely on the author's vision and personal self-expression through the creative process. The result of creative activity is protected as intellectual property, despite the ongoing debate regarding the appropriateness of evaluating creativity and the inadvisability of legally protecting the resulting creative work with a so-called low level of creativity. The constitutional right to freedom of creativity is realized both in the creative process and in the creation of a legally protected result. However, the right to freedom of creativity is limited by the need for the individual to comply with legal and other generally accepted social norms in their creative activities. The state does not interfere in the creative process, but there may be exceptions established by law regarding public access to the resulting creative work.

In the article, the author notes that it is necessary to distinguish between the forms of expression of works and the methods of objectifying the content of works. Means of objectifi cation are any objects of objective reality, including other works, with the help of which the author expresses the content externally, creating a form of expression of the work, even when the form is «spoken». The form of a work is what is perceived by the human senses through means that objectify the content of the work. Therefore, there can be no «dematerialization» of a work, nor can there be a «digital form» of a work. The environment and means of objectification can be «digital». The process of creative creation of a work is the presumed independent choice by the author of the means of objectifying the content and the creation of form by them. The content of the work and the means for its objectifi cation are not subject to protection.

In this article, the author examines some of the most relevant issues related to the protection of authors' rights. The study presents a mechanism for protecting the rights of creators of works, which is based on taking into account the interests of all participants in the creation and use of authors' works. Special attention is paid to the problems related to the protection of authors' rights to remuneration and the judicial protection of exclusive rights. The mechanism for protecting authors' interests is based on public interests. The purposes of ensuring public interests are served by the deadlines for the exclusive right to a work and its transition to the public domain after these deadlines expire, as well as by the legal cases of free use of a work and other restrictions. The author draws attention to the possibility of additional exceptions and restrictions regarding works in the digital environment.

Architectural objects that have not only a functional purpose, but can also be recognized as the results of creativity, are built on the basis of architectural and engineering projects developed by architects and other specialists. In Russia and Italy, architectural projects are considered as one of the forms of expression of architectural works and are protected by copyright. The issue of recognizing engineering projects as protected works is not straightforward. The article refl ects the results of a comparative analysis of the legislative acts of Russia and Italy concerning architecture, examines the legal possibilities of recognizing engineering projects as protected results in Russia and Italy. Unlike Italy, in accordance with the legislation of which engineering projects are also protected by the Institute of related rights, in Russia, in each disputed case, the court evaluates the existence of a creative component of such objects in order to confi rm their copyright protection or compliance with the conditions of patentability of solutions that are registered as objects of patent law. At the same time, it is concluded that it is inappropriate to extend the institute of related rights to engineering facilities in Russia at the present time.

Digital technologies are revolutionizing every year, providing new formats and business models for the creation and use of copyright objects. In the article, the author draws attention to the modern evolution of copyright objects such as musical works that are developing thanks to computer technology. In this regard, copyright faces a number of problems that require a new understanding. It is noted that music perceived by ear, as well as musical notation and sound recording, generally affect the assessment of the originality of the object. The original method of creation also affects the creative musical result. In addition, the definition of originality in general in relation to musical works is influenced by the novelty of the composition (the art of forming sounds) and the different ways of its presentation. At the same time, uniqueness and atypicity, the use of additional elements to evaluate the composer's work, are already important and in demand on the music market. Consequently, comparing similar compositions based on musical notation alone is difficult and does not always justify the work of a modern composer.

The article examines various approaches to the legal nature of a theatrical production in Russian legal doctrine and judicial practice. The production is analyzed as an object of neighbouring rights, a complex intellectual property object, a derivative work, and a stage work protected through unfair competition mechanisms. Special attention is paid to the legal status of the stage director, whose creative activity is fundamentally authorial, contradicting their formal classification as a performer. The study explores provisions of Federal Law No. 43- FZ dated 28 March 2017, which introduced new criteria for protectability, including the possibility of repeated public performance while preserving audience recognizability. International experience is considered, particularly French case law, where productions are recognized as copyrightable if they bear the creator’s original imprint. It is demonstrated that current legislation effectively protects not only the live performance but also the underlying creative concept, necessitating a re-evaluation of the legal regime applicable to theatrical productions.

Celebrating the Great Victory is impossible without songs like “Road to Berlin,” “Let's Light Up,” and “When We Were at War.” In April and May 2023, the media widely reported that several composers of famous songs were banning their use in the Russian Federation due to their opposition to the Second World War. This led to a backlash and criticism from many public figures. Is copyright to blame for this, and what regulatory mechanism can be applied to remain within the legal framework and not violate the established legal system? This article attempts to explore the provisions of the Federal Law of the Russian Federation “On the Perpetuation of the Victory of the Soviet People in the Great Patriotic War of 1941—1945” in relation to the free use of works.

Intellectual property rights often arise as a result of satisfying another party's need for it. Moreover, such a party may commission its creation from several authors simultaneously. Due to the ineffective legal regulation of copyright commission agreements, controversial issues frequently arise in practice: regarding the moment of creation of a copyrighted work; ownership of exclusive rights to a work created at the request of the client; execution of the commission agreement and liability for non-performance or improper performance; creation of a derivative work, etc. These issues are particularly relevant in cases where they are not directly regulated by mutual agreement of the parties in the commission agreement. The author of this article explores the theoretical issues that arise when concluding a commissioned author's agreement, analyzes some law enforcement practice, and identifi es challenges in the application of current regulations.

This article discusses some of the specifics of exercising the right to file a claim in a court of general jurisdiction and arbitration court in disputes over the non-contractual use of a work. Particular attention is given to the condition of the court's jurisdiction and the delimitation of the jurisdiction of arbitration courts and courts of general jurisdiction in such cases. Cases are examined from judicial practice, demonstrating the complexities that arise in determining jurisdiction, firstly, in cases involving individual entrepreneurs; secondly, in cases involving the protection of the exclusive right to a designation that is both an object of copyright and a trademark, when the defendant is a person who has lost the status of an individual entrepreneur at the time the plaintiffapplies to the court; and thirdly, in cases involving an organization engaged in collective copyright management. The study concludes what courts should consider to correctly determine jurisdiction in cases involving claims over the non-contractual use of a work.

The article is devoted to the transformations of the Russian state in the twentieth century. Both the evolutionary and the revolutionary development of states takes place on the basis of national archetypes formed over many generations as deep, unconsciously formed moral traditions, lifestyles and behavior. The difference between them is that revolution matures in the depths of society and acts as a sharp jump from one qualitative state of the state to another, while transformation ignores archetypes. Transformation is a modifi cation of the state, usually under external infl uence, by embedding elements brought in from the outside. Foreign elements lead to the emergence of new inherited characteristics in the state, characteristic of the donor's body. At the heart of any transformation of the state is precisely political romanticism, which is understood as the desire of public authorities to improve society, its political and legal systems, detached from reality, especially torn out of the cultural and historical context. The thesis is argued that in the Russian history of the 20th — 21st centuries there were four stages of political transformations of the state: the February coup d'état, which gave rise to a bourgeoisdemocratic revolution, the October Socialist Revolution, which became the beginning of the Great Socialist era of the twentieth century, the constitutional reforms of 1936 and 1993. It was not until the constitutional reform of 2020 that the Russian Federation truly began to revive traditional spiritual and moral values of the multinational people and to the evolutionary formation of an effective legal and political system on the basis of these values.