This article aims to analyze the legal regulation of performers’ rights in Lithuania. Analysis is divided in two parts: the first part analyses performers’ economic rights by comparing them to the authors’ economic rights and the legal regulation of performers’ rights in foreign countries; the second part of article focuses on the different content of performers’ economic rights due to the mean of fixation of performance (unfixed performance, performance fixed to the phonogram, audiovisual fixation of performance). Analysis of the Lithuanian (...) legal regulation on performers’ economic right has shown that although Copyright Law of Lithuania in general complies with international and EU acts governing performers’ rights, four main fields of legal regulation need to be revised. Firstly, Copyright Law should provide that when concluding an agreement concerning an audiovisual fixation of his performance with a producer of audiovisual work the performer transfers his exclusive rights to the producer, the performer shall retain an unwaivable right to receive an equitable remuneration for every transferred exclusive right. Secondly, the legal definition of phonogram published for the commercial purposes should be provided in the Law on Copyright of Lithuania. (shrink)

The article analyses the key issues of the legal status of the sole managing body from the perspective of the valid legal regulation, the established case-law and doctrine. The first part of the article analyses the dualism of the manager’s legal status from the perspective of civil law and labour law. The analysis of the latest case-law presented herein shows that the rule of “internal” and “external” relations between the manager and the company formulated in the case-law is applied differently, (...) and the criterion of distinguishing the manager’s as the subject of the labour law and that of the civil law statuses still remains unclear. The authors of the article are of the view that due to insufficient legal regulation in force rules established by the case-law to regulate the manager’s legal status cannot ensure the required legal certainty. Thus, the reform of the manager’s legal regulation is essential. The second part of the article strives to answer the question what legal regulation models exist and what are the main criteria of quality legal regulation. The comparative analysis of the legal status regulation of the sole managing body allows to determine the main available regulation models of the manager’s legal status and to distinguish their advantages and disadvantages. The authors of the article believe that it is necessary to take regard to other states’ practices regulating the relations at issue, however, while creating such legal regulation, the evaluation of economic, cultural and social peculiarities of Lithuania is also required. In search for the most appropriate model of the manager’s legal status, attention should be drawn to the fact that in some aspects the labour law regime is too restrictive (e.g., shareholders cannot recall the manager, who is on maternal leave, and the manager at interim does not have full authority) and uncoordinated with the doctrine of the companies’ law. Moreover, quite a few questions directly related to the issues of the manager’s authority do not fall or only partially fall into the scope of the labour law. On the other hand, the problem of the manager’s legal status involves a broader scope of points of the companies’ law than the dualism of the manager’s status, and a part of these points has already been regulated by the Law on Companies (the agreement conclusion, termination, removal from the register of legal persons, terms of notice). In regard to this, a question can be raised if it not be better to regulate the issues of the manager’s legal status by the provisions of the Law on Companies and not of the Labour Code. It is proposed to create a specific legal regulation of the companies’ law, which could meet the needs of business and match up to the doctrine of the companies’ law, which is already being applied. (shrink)

The article deals with the exception to copyright for the purposes of parody and caricature. This exception is one of the tools ensuring the balance between the authors’ interest to have the monopoly on the use of their works and the right of the members of the society to the freedom of expression. Another aim of parody exception is the promotion of creativity by the permission of the transformative use of copyrighted works. Three main aspects of this issue are discussed (...) in this article. The first one deals with the legal regulation of parody exception. The parody exception is one of the exceptions permitted by the Information Society Directive. The countries under investigation have two main schemes of legal regulation related to the parody exception. The first group are droit d’auteur countries (France and Belgium) which have a special parody exception provision in their Copyright laws. The second group are copyright countries (the United States and the United Kingdom) with no special provision regarding the parody exception in their laws; however, in the case law of these countries this exception is recognised as one of the acts of fair dealing or faire use. The Lithuanian Copyright Act permits the use of copyrighted works for the purposes of caricature and parody. (shrink)