Yaz\u0131l\u0131m geli\u015ftirdi\u011finizde, telif hakk\u0131 yasas\u0131 gere\u011fi telif hakk\u0131 kimin \u00fczerine kaydedilir? Di\u011fer t\u00fcm telif haklar\u0131 gibi, yaz\u0131l\u0131m\u0131n telif hakk\u0131 da \u00f6ncelikle yarat\u0131c\u0131s\u0131na aittir. Ancak, a\u015fa\u011f\u0131da al\u0131nt\u0131lad\u0131\u011f\u0131m\u0131z gibi, bir i\u015fin par\u00e7as\u0131 olarak yaz\u0131l\u0131m gibi telif hakk\u0131 korumas\u0131 alt\u0131ndaki bir eseri olu\u015fturdu\u011funuzda, telif hakk\u0131 yarat\u0131c\u0131ya de\u011fil, i\u015fveren \u015firkete ait olur.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nBir t\u00fczel ki\u015fi veya benzeri bir kurulu\u015fun talimat\u0131 \u00fczerine, bu t\u00fczel ki\u015fi veya benzeri kurulu\u015fun i\u015flerini y\u00fcr\u00fcten bir ki\u015fi taraf\u0131ndan i\u015f g\u00f6revi \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde olu\u015fturulan program\u0131n telif hakk\u0131, aksi belirtilmedik\u00e7e, bu t\u00fczel ki\u015fi veya benzeri kurulu\u015fa aittir.<\/p>\nMadde 15, F\u0131kra 2 <\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<\/span>Telif Hakk\u0131n\u0131n Devri Nedir?<\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\nYaz\u0131l\u0131m geli\u015ftirmeyi bir ba\u015fkas\u0131na devretti\u011finizde, bu yaz\u0131l\u0131m\u0131n telif hakk\u0131 \u00f6ncelikle yarat\u0131c\u0131 olan al\u0131c\u0131ya aittir. Geli\u015ftirme i\u015fini devretmi\u015f olman\u0131z, yaz\u0131l\u0131m\u0131n telif hakk\u0131n\u0131n otomatik olarak devreden ki\u015fiye ge\u00e7ece\u011fi anlam\u0131na gelmez. Devreden ki\u015finin yaz\u0131l\u0131m\u0131n telif hakk\u0131n\u0131 da elde etmek istemesi durumunda, bunu \u00f6nceden g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcp s\u00f6zle\u015fmeye eklemek daha g\u00fcvenlidir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Yaz\u0131l\u0131m\u0131n geli\u015ftirilmesinin ard\u0131ndan telif hakk\u0131 konusunda bir anla\u015fmazl\u0131k \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, s\u00f6zle\u015fmede telif hakk\u0131 ile ilgili bir h\u00fck\u00fcm bulunmamas\u0131 durumunda, telif hakk\u0131n\u0131n devreden ki\u015fiye ge\u00e7ti\u011fi genellikle kabul edilmez. S\u00f6zle\u015fmenin ba\u015ftan beri var olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 durumlarda, taraflar\u0131n bug\u00fcne kadar nas\u0131l bir ileti\u015fim i\u00e7inde olduklar\u0131 g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurularak, telif hakk\u0131n\u0131n devredilip devredilmedi\u011fi belirlenir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>Telif Hakk\u0131 \u0130hlali ve Cezalar\u0131<\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\nTelif hakk\u0131, yarat\u0131c\u0131n\u0131n eserini \u00e7o\u011faltma, \u00e7eviri, uyarlama, halka a\u00e7\u0131k yay\u0131n gibi eylemleri ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirme hakk\u0131d\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla, bu eylemlerin izinsiz olarak ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilmesi durumunda, telif hakk\u0131 ihlali olu\u015fur.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Telif hakk\u0131 ihlal edildi\u011finde, telif hakk\u0131 sahibinin \u015fikayeti \u00fczerine, telif hakk\u0131 ihlal eden ki\u015fi cezaland\u0131r\u0131labilir. Telif hakk\u0131 ihlali, 10 y\u0131la kadar hapis veya 10 milyon yen (yakla\u015f\u0131k 90.000 dolar) alt\u0131nda para cezas\u0131 ile cezaland\u0131r\u0131l\u0131r (Japon Telif Hakk\u0131 Yasas\u0131 Madde 119, F\u0131kra 1). Ayr\u0131ca, bir t\u00fczel ki\u015filik gibi bir kurulu\u015f telif hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal etti\u011finde, 300 milyon yen (yakla\u015f\u0131k 2.7 milyon dolar) alt\u0131nda para cezas\u0131 uygulan\u0131r (Japon Telif Hakk\u0131 Yasas\u0131 Madde 124).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>Telif Hakk\u0131n\u0131n Korundu\u011fu S\u00fcre<\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\nTelif hakk\u0131n\u0131n korundu\u011fu s\u00fcre, yarat\u0131c\u0131n\u0131n eseri olu\u015fturdu\u011fu andan itibaren yarat\u0131c\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcnden sonraki 70 y\u0131l olarak belirlenmi\u015ftir (Japon Telif Hakk\u0131 Yasas\u0131 Madde 51). Telif hakk\u0131 sahibi bir t\u00fczel ki\u015filik veya benzeri bir kurulu\u015f ise, eserin yay\u0131nland\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihten itibaren 70 y\u0131l (eser, olu\u015fturulduktan sonraki 70 y\u0131l i\u00e7inde yay\u0131nlanmam\u0131\u015fsa, olu\u015fturulduktan sonraki 70 y\u0131l) s\u00fcresince korunur (Japon Telif Hakk\u0131 Yasas\u0131 Madde 53).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>UI\u30fbEkran G\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fcn Telif Haklar\u0131 Sorun Oldu\u011fu Durumlar<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\nYaz\u0131l\u0131m\u0131n UI’si veya ekran g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fcn telif haklar\u0131 hakk\u0131nda tart\u0131\u015f\u0131lan durumlar\u0131, ba\u015fl\u0131ca iki \u00f6rnekle sizlere sunaca\u011f\u0131m. A\u015fa\u011f\u0131daki iki \u00f6rnek de, benzer yaz\u0131l\u0131mlar\u0131n telif hakk\u0131 ihlali kabul edilmedi\u011fi durumlard\u0131r.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
UI ve ekran g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fcleri, yaz\u0131l\u0131m\u0131n kullan\u0131labilirli\u011fini b\u00fcy\u00fck \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde etkileyen unsurlard\u0131r, ancak bunlar\u0131n telif haklar\u0131na sahip olma durumunun ne kadar kabul edilebilir oldu\u011fu zor bir sorundur. Ayn\u0131 i\u015flevlere sahip yaz\u0131l\u0131mlar s\u00f6z konusu oldu\u011funda, UI ve ekran g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fclerinin ka\u00e7\u0131n\u0131lmaz olarak benzer olmas\u0131 durumu vard\u0131r. \u00d6zellikle, i\u015fletmelerin kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 yaz\u0131l\u0131mlar s\u00f6z konusu oldu\u011funda, hedeflenen i\u015flevlerin benzer olmas\u0131 ve UI ve ekran g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fclerinin genellikle basitle\u015fmesi nedeniyle, benzer yaz\u0131l\u0131mlar\u0131n telif hakk\u0131 ihlali olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar vermek zorla\u015f\u0131r.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>Cybozu Office Olay\u0131<\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\nCybozu, “Cybozu Office” yaz\u0131l\u0131m\u0131n\u0131 geli\u015ftiren ve satan bir \u015firkettir. Neo Japan’\u0131n “iOffice2000 versiyon 2.43” (iOffice 2.43) ve “iOfficeV3” (iOffice V3) yaz\u0131l\u0131mlar\u0131n\u0131n, Cybozu Office’in ekran g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fclerini izinsiz olarak kopyalad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 iddia etmi\u015f ve iOffice 2.43 ve iOffice V3’un da\u011f\u0131t\u0131m\u0131 ve kullan\u0131m lisans\u0131 hakk\u0131nda ge\u00e7ici bir yasak talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Bu davan\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc Tokyo B\u00f6lge Mahkemesi,<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n“Her ne kadar \u00f6zg\u00fcn olmasa da, herkesin ayn\u0131s\u0131n\u0131 yapabilece\u011fi bir durum olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in, belirli bir ki\u015filikle somut bir ekran g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fcs\u00fc olu\u015fturulmu\u015ftur. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla, bu durumda alacakl\u0131 yaz\u0131l\u0131m\u0131nda belirli bir yarat\u0131c\u0131l\u0131k kabul edilebilir ve bu yaz\u0131l\u0131m, telif hakk\u0131 yasas\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda korunmal\u0131d\u0131r.”<\/p>\n Tokyo B\u00f6lge Mahkemesi, 13 Haziran 2001 Karar\u0131 <\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\nifadesiyle, Cybozu Office’in telif hakk\u0131 korumas\u0131na tabi oldu\u011funu kabul etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Ayr\u0131ca, iOffice V3’\u00fcn ekran g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fcs\u00fcnde Cybozu Office ile benzerlikler hissedilse de, g\u00f6z ard\u0131 edilemeyecek farkl\u0131l\u0131klar oldu\u011fu i\u00e7in telif hakk\u0131 ihlali olarak kabul edilemez. Ancak, iOffice 2.43 hakk\u0131nda,<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n“iOffice2000 versiyon 2.43, alacakl\u0131 yaz\u0131l\u0131m\u0131 (Cybozu Office) kopyalam\u0131\u015f olmasa da, bu yaz\u0131l\u0131mda ifade edilen yarat\u0131c\u0131n\u0131n temel d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncelerini ve ki\u015fili\u011fini korurken, d\u0131\u015f bi\u00e7imini biraz de\u011fi\u015ftirerek uyarlanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.”<\/p>\n Tokyo B\u00f6lge Mahkemesi, 13 Haziran 2001 Karar\u0131 <\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\nifadesiyle, “iOffice2000 versiyon 2.43″n\u0131n telif hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal etti\u011fini belirlemi\u015f ve Haziran 2001’de iletimi, da\u011f\u0131t\u0131m\u0131 ve kullan\u0131m lisans\u0131n\u0131 yasaklayan ge\u00e7ici bir karar vermi\u015ftir. (Tokyo B\u00f6lge Mahkemesi, 13 Haziran 2001 Karar\u0131)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Bu ge\u00e7ici karar\u0131n ard\u0131ndan, Neo Japan her iki \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn kullan\u0131m lisans\u0131n\u0131 s\u00fcrd\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc i\u00e7in Cybozu dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Davay\u0131 g\u00f6ren Tokyo B\u00f6lge Mahkemesi, genel olarak ekran g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fclerinin telif hakk\u0131 ile korunabilece\u011fini kabul etmi\u015ftir, ancak<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n“Her iki \u015firket aras\u0131nda, yaz\u0131l\u0131m\u0131n i\u015flevi veya kullan\u0131c\u0131n\u0131n i\u015flem kolayl\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi bak\u0131\u015f a\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131ndan ortak bir d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce kabul edilebilir. Ancak, bu ortak noktalardan yarat\u0131c\u0131 \u00f6zelliklerin ortak oldu\u011funu kabul etmek m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla, daval\u0131 yaz\u0131l\u0131m\u0131n (iOffice 2.43 ve iOffice V3) ekran g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fclerinin, davac\u0131 yaz\u0131l\u0131m\u0131n ekran g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fclerinin kopyas\u0131 veya uyarlamas\u0131 oldu\u011funu s\u00f6ylemek m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir.”<\/p>\n Tokyo B\u00f6lge Mahkemesi, 5 Eyl\u00fcl 2002 Karar\u0131 <\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\nifadesiyle, Cybozu’nun t\u00fcm taleplerini reddetmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca, bu kararda<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n“Telif hakk\u0131 ihlali kabul edilebilecek di\u011fer ekran g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fcleri, s\u00f6zde ‘dead copy’ veya buna benzer olanlarla s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 olmal\u0131d\u0131r.”<\/p>\n Tokyo B\u00f6lge Mahkemesi, 5 Eyl\u00fcl 2002 Karar\u0131 <\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\ng\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Ge\u00e7ici yasak karar\u0131 a\u015famas\u0131nda, Cybozu Office’in ekran g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fclerinin telif hakk\u0131 korumas\u0131na tabi oldu\u011fu ve Neo Japan’\u0131n telif hakk\u0131 ihlali yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 kabul edilmi\u015ftir. Ancak, sonraki davada, yarat\u0131c\u0131 \u00f6zelliklerin ortak oldu\u011funu kabul etmek m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in telif hakk\u0131 ihlali kabul edilmemi\u015ftir. Yaz\u0131l\u0131m\u0131n ekran g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fclerinin genel olarak telif hakk\u0131 korumas\u0131na tabi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anlam\u0131na gelmez, ancak telif hakk\u0131 korumas\u0131na tabi olabilmesi ve ayr\u0131ca telif hakk\u0131 ihlali kabul edilebilmesi i\u00e7in belirli bir yarat\u0131c\u0131l\u0131k gerekti\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Ayr\u0131ca, yaz\u0131l\u0131m\u0131n ekran g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fcleri hakk\u0131nda, ‘dead copy’ veya buna benzer bir seviyede benzer olmad\u0131k\u00e7a, telif hakk\u0131 ihlali olarak kabul edilmesi zordur.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>Sekisan-kun Olay\u0131<\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\nSekisan-kun olay\u0131, IC Kikaku Software House’un, \u015firketin “Sekisan-kun” yaz\u0131l\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n ekran g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fcn telif hakk\u0131n\u0131n, Comtech ve di\u011ferlerinin sat\u0131\u015fa sundu\u011fu “WARP” yaz\u0131l\u0131m\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131yla dava a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir olayd\u0131r.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Osaka B\u00f6lge Mahkemesi, bir yaz\u0131l\u0131m\u0131n ekran g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fcn telif hakk\u0131 niteli\u011fi ta\u015f\u0131yabilece\u011fini kabul etti, ancak “Sekisan-kun”un ekran g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fcn yarat\u0131c\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar vererek telif hakk\u0131 niteli\u011fini reddetti. (Osaka B\u00f6lge Mahkemesi, 30 Mart 2000 (Gregorian Takvimine g\u00f6re)) <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Genel olarak, bir yaz\u0131l\u0131m\u0131n ekran g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fcn telif hakk\u0131 niteli\u011fi ta\u015f\u0131yabilece\u011fi kabul edildi, ancak Sekisan-kun’un ekran g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fcn yarat\u0131c\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle telif hakk\u0131 niteli\u011fi reddedildi ve davac\u0131n\u0131n talebi reddedildi.<\/p>\n\n\n\n