Legal Protection of Copyright in Palestine/Contrastive Study

Our study handled the lawful protection for the author's right in Palestine from the prospective of the law of the right of the British printing and authorship issued in 1911 and applied in Palestine according to 1924 decree which entered execution in 1934 after being published in Palestine. This study aimed at deepening the civil protection for the author's right in Palestine in the shade of a common belief which is the non existence of law concerned in the author's right applied in Palestine or the absence of validity and feasibility for this law as an old one since its issue. This study aimed at answering the following inquiries. What is the extent of the lawful protection which the creative author enjoys in Palestine? In the shade of an old British legislation applied in Palestine and is this protection sufficient or will there be a necessity for issuing a new law? This study handled the author's right protection which is considered the most prominent of nations in creativity and Excellency, and their incitement on the rights, freedoms and firing the atmosphere for the free thinking without fear in order to establish the real civilizations. What cares us is the lawful protection for the author's right in Palestine and the lawful methods for achieving this protection. This subject hadn't been hit by the researcher much in his study in the shade of the British 1911 law applied in Palestine according to a decree in 1924. I divided the study subject into there main chapters within a comparison between the 1911 law and the Jordan and Egyptian laws. In the first chapter, I sought the significance of the author's right from its definition and division into two main searches. The first includes the quiddity of the author's and its division into two main demands The first: I handled the lawful nature for the author's right. In the second, the ineffectual work in general. Also in the second research: the author's intellectual deeps and divided into two main demands instead of the protection. The second: the author is the owner of the intellectual deep, and in it. I handled all what bad proceeded. It was shown that the intellectual deep to be inventive as occurs in the text of the first article and the first paragraph of the law which secured the creative deep. After it had been clear of Driton's official credited translation, the word original had been eliminated that led to defect in the meaning, and it was shown that the concept of creativity in 1911 law and the jurisdiction applications might conform with the concept of creativity in the French system which is the author's personal finger-print and creativity conditions to be legal as there is no shameful protection or immoral or non-ethical or non-religions An addition to this condition must be added to be placed in a classified form whatever the method expression may be. And it had been clear that it protects all classifications, and it had been defined. Some of the classifications as an example in the art and technical classifications. And it had been clear that the author' in the origin is the creative human being but it is an exclusion that may lead to the abstract person. There are images to the author ascribed that the author in article of the law and there was an error in Driton's translation as he translated collection wok dropped the law reader in confusion. How can the law define the collective work twice. One in article 3/16 and another in article 35. And once he conditions to be indispensable and another to be separable. It had been clear the error in Driton's translation it was attributed to the original text which showed that 1911 law included the correct author's principles, and the collection classifier principles, and the law trend he does not acknowledge to the abstract person but only exclusion as an author. In the text, the legislative joint author expressed, while in article 35 defined on the collective classifier, and the law included the employed author's principles. I reached to the nature of the author's right that is a double right, and the past jurisdiction principle of 1911 law and of the 1911 texts. In the first article, it concentrated on the right of publication attacked to the author's financial right. In the second chapter, I sought for the author's right. I divided it into two main demands. The first: the significance of the moral right and its peculiarities. The second: the authorities of the moral right. The second research: the author's financial right which I divided into two demands. The first is the author's financial right and peculiarities. The second the methods of the classifier's exploitation, and I reached to that the author's right includes two rights. The first: to the human's friendship which is indispensible ceding. And neither oldness nor detention. And it is considered perpetual and known within the general rules in the common law countries and the 1911 law defined in the most moral rights in publication determination right in the articles one and two. The third chapter: As for the lawful protection for the author I divided it into two main chapters. The first: the limits of the author's right I divided it into two main demands. The first, the protection period for the classifications. The second the intellectual right's outside the protection limit. But in the second research, I divided it into four main demands. The first depository. The second the proceeding protection. The third the objectivity. The fourth the criminal protection. It was clear to me that the general rule for the period of the classifications protection was fifty years after the author's death. But there were exclusions like the images from the history passivity and other special proceedings. I reached to that there were rights outside the protection limit listed inside the idiom of the just trading and it was seen that the 1911 law emanated from the school of the general law puts a general criterain for the just trading unlimited in a restricted extent like the Arabic legislations. And through my study to the second research, it was clear that 1911 law determined the depository and it didn't make the lawful protection pledged with it affected by Bern protocol. For the civil protection its principles included kinds of time preceding protection and the objectivity in the origin of right. In the sixth article of the 1911 law it included a special definition. If right of printing and authorship the owner of the mentioned right could resort to all ways of judgment that the law entitled him the concerning the aggression on that right. This means that any protection granted by the law either the law of printing and authorship or the law of the civil and trading judging principles. In the same definition, I mention the procedures for example, and in the civil protection, the 1911 law compensated the moral harm in incident proceeded the 1911 law and in the applications for the 1911 law, and in the criminal protection the law granted the protection to the Initiated deeps, and incriminated any aggression falls on the author's right. Then at last it include the most conclusions and recommendations and suggestions that I reached to through this thesis.