The Intellectual Property Court issued a ruling involving a claim for sixty thousand rubles related to the unauthorized use of a photographer’s image in a video for the song Our Economy, specifically a Sukhoi Superjet frame. The decision draws on information presented in the arbitration case file and shows how the legal process addressed the alleged infringement from the perspective of copyright law as it applies to digital media projects.
The court affirmed the decisions issued in two prior instances, which had already ordered the payment by Sergei Shnurov, the front figure of the Leningrad rock ensemble, in relation to the photographer Alexander Popov’s claims. The appellate review process reinforced the findings of lower courts, reinforcing the principle that using a photographer’s image or framing without consent constitutes a breach of copyright protections and warrants financial redress as determined by the relevant judiciary bodies.
On a recent Tuesday, the Investigative Committee rejected the plaintiff’s appeal against the August ruling of the Moscow Arbitration Court and against the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeals. This rejection confirms the stability of the judicial stance on the case as it stands, underscoring that the legal remedies pursued by Popov were appropriately grounded in the facts and regulations applicable to copyright infringement and related moral damages within the framework of Russian law.
From the records, Popov’s claim sought a total of 1.2 million rubles for copyright infringement and an additional 200 thousand rubles as compensation for moral damage. In contrast, Shnurov faced a fine of 20 thousand rubles for each of three identified violations: first, the use of Popov’s frame in the video clip; second, the inclusion of the photograph as the cover image for a musical work on digital music platforms without permission; third, the removal of copyright information without the consent of the rights holder. The courts declined any award for non-pecuniary damages beyond the assessed penalties, maintaining a clear boundary on non-economic redress in this context and emphasizing the primacy of material compensation where copyright violations are proven in the record.
The broader narrative surrounding this dispute also touched on public statements by Stas Mikhailov about a 2014 confrontation with the Leningrad group’s leader, Sergei Shnurov, a moment that has been revisited in discussions about the case and its implications for authorial rights in contemporary multimedia works. In addition, remarks by Nikas Safronov regarding the legacy of Svetlana Morgunova have been cited in related commentary, reflecting how conversations about artistic stewardship and ownership persist in the public sphere and influence perceptions of copyright enforcement in the music and video industries. These elements illustrate how timelines, reputational considerations, and legal findings intersect in high-profile IP cases while maintaining focus on the core question of rightful attribution and compensation in the digital age.