| چکیده انگلیسی مقاله |
Abstract This article addresses three main questions: What is the legal status of digital designs from the perspective of Iranian laws and EU design law? Is protection limited to the reproduction of physical products or not? And whether the scope of protection includes dimensions such as the use of Does it cover 3D design and conversion to 2D or vice versa? There is no mention of this subject in Iranian law, and no research or writing has been devoted to it. However, in Europe, there are two general views on dimensional transformation: "abstract" and "objective" views, which are two ways of looking at the scope of protection, depending on how the protectability of digital designs is assessed. In the "abstract" theory of protection, it does not matter whether a product exists only as a digital image or has a physical form. From an "objective" point of view, however, it is more challenging to protect digital designs because the scope of protection is often linked to the reproduction of an actual physical product. This article argues that there is no answer to these and similar questions in Iranian law, but under European jurisprudence, most of the questions raised regarding the protection of digital designs and dimensional transformation can be considered resolved. Because the jurisprudence has preferred protection based on the "abstract" viewpoint to the "objective" viewpoint, it has expanded the scope of this type of protection at the level of the European :union:. This means that digital use of non-digital designs can now be considered infringement. As a result, rights holders should be more careful in the future when evaluating limitations and exceptions. In Iranian law, Article 1 of the Protection of Authors Act of 1348 refers to what is achieved through innovation as a work without considering the method or form of its expression and emergence (Rehbar and Dehghanpour, 543) (Habiba and Qaim Maggi, 1401:94) and Article 2, Clause 11, which refers to innovative work, is practically an addition (Zarkalam and Mokhuri, 2014: 27-33). Digital designs are often associated with the decision to achieve physical production, but they can also be used only in an intangible way. Designs such as icons in applications and graphical user interfaces are examples of designs made exclusively for digital use. Another example is video games, the building blocks of all games are digital designs. In the software, mobile device, and video game industries, the issue of protecting digital designs is becoming increasingly important because digital designs can be easily copied and used by others. It has been argued that industrial design protection can play a role in effectively protecting digital designs. (Church, 2019: 695) At the European :union: level, design protection is governed by two pieces of legislation: the Design Directive and the Community Design Regulation. Despite the growing importance of design protection, its scope in relation to digital designs is often unclear. These issues are particularly relevant to the question of whether protection applies to the reproduction of physical products and whether the scope of protection covers dimensional changes, such as the use of a three-dimensional design in a two-dimensional form or vice versa. This article refers to this as dimensional transformation because digitization and dimensional transformation are often intertwined. There seem to be two views on this next transformation in the EU: "abstract" and "concrete". In the "abstract" view, protection is considered for all types of production, regardless of the dimensions of the object. In some member states, such as Germany, protection is taken for granted regardless of dimensions. Any use of a protected 3D design in 2D form may be considered an infringement. An "objective" view is that protection is limited to physical goods only. Therefore, according to this view, if the design protection was originally registered for a three-dimensional figure, its use in two-dimensional form is not considered an infringement of the law, or vice versa. This perspective is particularly prevalent in England, Scandinavian countries, and the United States. Similarly, some researchers consider the lack of a tangible product to be a significant challenge for the protection of design. (McKenna, 2020: 395) The background of the research either includes the investigation of copyright in algorithms (Habiba and Ghaem Maggi, 1401) or intangible technologies (Rehbar and Dehghanpour, 1401). Maybe they have dealt with new information and communication technologies (Shakri and Jafarpour, 1401). Therefore, one of the novel points of this article is the examination of the possibility of supporting digital designs and dimensional transformation. To date, the validity of physical product design and reproduction laws has been successfully challenged at the European :union: level. However, in order to consider the problem of dimensional transformation, one must pay full attention to the design protection of digital designs. In order to achieve this, the article first briefly introduces digital designs and their role in video games before considering the copyright/design relationship in the protection of digital designs. Secondly, this article examines the legal status of digital designs. |