Signs of the Times

        1.  We’ve been tracking the work of the Russian Judicial Chamber on Information Disputes, the court established for specialized media cases.  On April 21, according to ITAR-TASS, the Chamber took a fairly extraordinary step: recommending that the chief editor of the newspaper Express-gazeta, dismiss its editor, Alexander Kupriyanov.  The power of the Chamber even to recommend the dismissal of a chief editor is far from clear.  At the most, it can apply to a court for this kind of relief.  As of yet, the efficacy of the decree remains in doubt, but the basis, itself, is interesting.

        The complaint against Express-Gazeta was that it had produced information that was neither reliable nor impartial.  It did not help that the articles in question were highly critical of members of the State Duma.  The newspaper argued that the information it reported was found in other newspapers.

        The tribunal found that what other papers had reported as supposition, the Express-gazeta had reported as fact.  More than that, to dramatize the significance of what it reported, the banner of “investigation” was used.  The use of this “impressive word” was at variance with journalistic ethics.

        “Our decision has nothing to do with covering the problem of the privileges of this or that branch of power.  However, it is impermissible to publish unreliable information without checking it first, no matter what the topic,” said Anatoly Vengerov, Chairman of the Chamber.

        2.  The action of the Judicial Chamber is somewhat similar to the statements of another body, the RF Committee for the Press, headed by Boris Mironov.  Readers will recall that during March, there was a report of a coup attempt against Yeltsin, “Version No. 1” in which Aleksandr Yakovlev, head of the Federal Television and Radio Service emerged as a hero.

        Vladimir Orlov, the co-director of the Russian-American Press and Information Center, sent the following note to us on the media consequences of this now-famous “forged coup” case:

    At the time of Boris Yeltsin’s brief vacation on the Black Sea shore in March “Obshchaia Gazeta” published a document which had been faxed anonymously to the paper.  Entitled “Version Nr. One” this document was allegedly a scheme of another Kremlin coup being prepared by anti-Yeltsin and anti-reformist forces in the government.  As it was found out later the document had been authored by Gleb Pavlovsky, founder, former director of the Postfactum news agency and a well known dissident journalist.  Having admitted his authorship several days after publication Pavlovsky took his family and flew away from Moscow to an unknown place of destination, probably abroad.

        Though a forgery, the document was easy to believe and caused reverberations in various directions.  Some papers reprinted it and published comments.  Quite another kind of reaction came from Boris Mironov, Chairman of the RF Committee for the Press.  The government “Rossiiskaia Gazeta” of 30 March 1994 published a Statement of the RF Committee on the Press under the heading, Capitalizing on Foul Play.  The opening paragraph of the statement read as follows:  “It is only political adventurers, who represent their own ambitions for the fundamental interests of the nation, can question the indisputable fact that Russia is now on its way to national accord.”  In conclusion the statement said:  “Taking into account the potential gravity of the consequences of the publication about an allege coup, which is directed at discrediting leaders of the Federal Assembly and the Government, the RF Committee for the Press officially warns “Obshchaia Gazeta” (founded and edited by Yegor V. Yakovlev, circulation 7.9 thousand as of 1/1/94) that its conduct is regarded as a deliberate step directed at destablizing the society, and undermining the constitutional authority.  The Committee for the Press is of the opinion that the news media leaders, who disseminate deliberately false information, should share responsibility on a par with those who authored these materials.”

        3.  The TV-6 broadcasting joint venture of Turner Broadcasting and the Eduard Sagalaev group is forcefully expanding its zone of influence by renting a communications satellite, forging distribution agreements with local broadcasters, and upgrading its Moscow transmitter.  Its signal should be available for as much as ten hours a day in certain cities including Vilnius, Lithuania, Almaty, Kazakhstan and St. Petersburg, Vologda, Rostov-on-Don and Novosibirsk.  By the end of the year, thirty cities are expected to be part of the network.  According to an April 9 report in Kommersant-Daily, TV-6’s network is the result of contracts between the license holder (MNVK) and local independents.  So far, the programs exhibited have been almost wholly U.S. in origin, but there is some promise of more Russian-produced programming in the future.

        4.  Ukraine’s first copyright law went into effect on February 23.  Coupled with the copyright provisions in the broadcasting law published in this issue, there is now broad protection for authors of original creative works, including audiovisual productions.

        The copyright law grants authors the right to exploit their works for the periods of their lifetimes plus fifty years.  No formalities are required, but registration creates a presumption of authorship.  A private right of action is provided.  Rights to audio recordings are enforceable only if they were first produced in Ukraine, were reproduced in Ukraine within thirty days of their production elsewhere, or if the foreign producer has a permanent legal residence in Ukraine.  Other collateral rights are similarly protected.

Last Updated: 11/20/99

© 1999 Post-Soviet Media Law & Policy Newsletter
Designed and maintained by Peter Yu
Web Policy