![\"\"](\"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/018-cover-734x1024.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nTheory and practice of intellectual property
\u2116 5 \/ 2020<\/p>\n\n\n\n
ISSN (Print) 2308-0361
ISSN (Online) 2519-2744<\/p>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/test.inprojournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/free-icon-pdf-201153.png\"){kind=icon}
PDF (Ukrainian)<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\nDOI: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.33731\/52020.233733<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Published 2020-11-30<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n Catch-up and Time shift as ways to use copyright and related rights<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Kostiantyn Zerov<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n Abstract It was determined that these rights are granted to program service providers and other persons who retransmit programs of a broadcasting organization based on license agreements, which are paid and additional to the main contract for retransmission of a broadcasting organization’s program. Moreover, the rights to Catch-up and Time Shift are limited in time (usually up to 7 calendar days for Catch-up and 24 hours for Time Shift from the moment of live broadcast). In the absence in the agreement of the conditions regarding the type of license, territory, and term of the agreement, the general provisions set out in Part 4 of Art. 1109, part 7 of Art. 1109 and part 3. Art. 1110 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, are appliable respectively. But usually these conditions may be different and more limited from the main license agreement for retransmission, for example Catch-up and Time Shift are geo-targeted to a specific area.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Keywords: <\/strong>Catch-up, Time Shift, communication to the public, reproduction, IPTV<\/p>\n\n\n\n References<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u041f\u0440\u043e \u0430\u0432\u0442\u043e\u0440\u0441\u044c\u043a\u0435 \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043e \u0456 \u0441\u0443\u043c\u0456\u0436\u043d\u0456 \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0430 : \u0417\u0430\u043a\u043e\u043d \u0423\u043a\u0440\u0430\u0457\u043d\u0438 \u0432\u0456\u0434 23 \u0433\u0440\u0443\u0434\u043d\u044f 1993 \u0440\u043e\u043a\u0443 No 3792-XII. \u0412\u0456\u0434\u043e\u043c\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0456 \u0412\u0435\u0440\u0445\u043e\u0432\u043d\u043e\u0457 \u0420\u0430\u0434\u0438 \u0423\u043a\u0440\u0430\u0457\u043d\u0438. 1994. No 13. \u0421\u0442. 64.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u0426\u0438\u0432\u0456\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0438\u0439 \u043a\u043e\u0434\u0435\u043a\u0441 \u0423\u043a\u0440\u0430\u0457\u043d\u0438 : \u0417\u0430\u043a\u043e\u043d \u0423\u043a\u0440\u0430\u0457\u043d\u0438 \u0432\u0456\u0434 16 \u0441\u0456\u0447\u043d\u044f 2003 \u0440\u043e\u043a\u0443 No 435-IV. \u0412\u0456\u0434\u043e\u043c\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0456 \u0412\u0435\u0440\u0445\u043e\u0432\u043d\u043e\u0457 \u0420\u0430\u0434\u0438 \u0423\u043a\u0440\u0430\u0457\u043d\u0438. 2003. No 40\u221244. \u0421\u0442. 356.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Association Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part. Judgment of the Court of 4 October 2011. Football Association Premier League Ltd and Others v QC Leisure and Others (C-403\/08) and Karen Murphy v Media Protection Services Ltd (C-429\/08). ECLI:EU:C:2011:631. Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 7 March 2013 ITV Broadcasting Ltd and Others v TVCatchUp Ltd. Case C-607\/11. ECLI:EU:C:2013:147. Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 15 March 2012 Societ\u00e0 Consortile Fonografici (SCF) v Marco Del Corso. Case C-135\/10. ECLI:EU:C:2012:140. Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 June 2005. Mediakabel BV v Commissariaat voor de Media. Case C-89\/04. ECLI:EU:C:2005:348. Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 July 2005. Lagard\u00e8re Active Broadcast v Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 pour la perception de la r\u00e9mun\u00e9ration \u00e9quitable (SPRE) and Gesellschaft zur Verwertung von Leistungsschutzrechten mbH (GVL). Case C-192\/04. ECLI:EU:C:2005:475.![\"\"](\"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/CC-2.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
Ukraine
https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0003-2916-7528<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/strong>Based on the provisions of the current Ukrainian legislation and the legislation of the European Union, the legal nature of the Catch-up right and the Time Shift right is investigated, and their place among other ways of using objects of copyright and related rights is determined as a combination of the right of reproduction and the right of communication to the public. The right of reproduction is applicable in the case of Catch-up right and Time Shift because when recording on the server of the software service provider of the broadcasting and (or) broadcasting program, their new fixation is created. The right of communication to the public is applicable in the case of Catch-up right and Time Shift because it combines \u00aban act of communication\u00bb \u2014 uses a specific technical means different from that of the original communication, and is aimed at the \u00abpublic.\u00bb In the case of Catch-up right and Time Shift, it is irrelevant whether the potential recipients access the communicated objects through a one-to-one connection because this technique does not prevent a large number of persons from having access to the same work at the same time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
http:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/EN\/TXT\/PDF\/?uri=OJ:L:2014:161:FULL&from=EN<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/bit.ly\/2RomnOW<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/bit.ly\/2DafjSQ<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/bit.ly\/2CLtfl4<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
http:\/\/curia.europa.eu\/juris\/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-89\/04<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/bit.ly\/2AyWXIB<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n