During the hearing, Sergei Vasiliev, the lawyer for Yuri Shatunov’s family, stated that Razin was understood to hold Turkish citizenship. The remark framed Razin’s status in terms that could influence how the case was viewed in relation to international copyright matters.
At the most recent session concerning the rights to the songs associated with Tender May, Razin’s representative introduced documentation claiming that the producer had registered Shatunov’s hits in Turkey under his own name. The court did not accept these documents, explaining that there was no bilateral agreement between Turkey and Russia regarding the protection of copyright works at the time.
Vasiliev commented that Razin appears to hold Turkish citizenship, a point raised during the proceedings that underscored the cross-border dimension of the dispute and the broader questions about how foreign registration could affect ownership claims in Russia.
On November 21 it became clear that the Shatunov family had prevailed in the lawsuit, with the Krasnodar Regional Court rejecting Razin’s objection. The decision marked a turning point in the case, affirming the family’s rights to the disputed works.
In response, Razin voiced strong dissatisfaction. He indicated that he would appeal the decision in the appellate court in the coming days and described the proceedings as a mockery of the Russian legal system. His reaction highlighted the contentious nature of the dispute and the high stakes involved in music copyright battles.
Earlier, the Sochi Khostinsky District Court had ruled in August that exclusive rights to Yuri Shatunov’s artistic output belonged to his family. The ruling covered 23 compositions attributed to the artist, among them White Roses, Gray Night, Pink Evening, And I Will Extend My Palms to You, Autumn Is Slowly Leaving, and other titles. The decision established that the family held the rights to these works, which has significant implications for performance, reproduction, and licensing in the region.
The case underscores how post-Soviet copyright disputes can involve complex cross-border elements, including attempts to register songs abroad and rely on foreign regimes for recognition of rights. In Russia, enforcement of author rights is governed by national law, and such rulings emphasize the importance of domestic jurisdiction in determining ownership and control of works.
Experts note that decisions like these affect licensing, royalties, and the ability to authorize distribution in international markets. For families of artists, the primary goal is to secure ongoing control over the use of the works and to ensure that revenue from performances and recordings is directed to those who hold the rights. The case illustrates the careful balance courts strike between preserving the rights of heirs and recognizing legitimate interests of other parties who may have claimed involvement in a work’s creation or distribution.
As the legal process continues, observers in both Russia and broader markets watch how the outcome could influence similar disputes involving posthumous rights, estate management, and cross-border registrations. The outcome will likely be cited in future cases where families pursue exclusive rights and where music producers face challenges when attempting to register songs in foreign jurisdictions. The parties have indicated readiness to pursue further remedies through the appellate system, signaling that the debate over ownership in popular music remains unsettled and ongoing.