SOURCE: Loeber, Dietrich A. “Samizdat under Soviet Law.”¹ In Contemporary Soviet Law: Essays in Honor of John N. Hazard, edited by Donald D. Barry, William E. Butler, and George Ginsburgs, pp. 84-123. The Hague, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff, 1974.

[In the following essay, Loeber outlines in detail the procedure for publishing materials in the Soviet Union and then presents an account of the legal aspects of samizdat literature in this context, including excerpts from the Soviet constitution and copyright law.]

Publishing is normally performed by state or cooperative agencies in the Soviet Union. Individual citizens are not supposed to engage in such activities. They are barred from acquiring duplicating facilities, from using printing equipment, and from running printing establishments. For persons wishing to reproduce and circulate literary works privately, only a few avenues are open, such as producing handwritten or typewritten copies and distributing them from hand to hand.

This and other forms of private publishing are being used increasingly in the Soviet Union. Colloquially, they are called samizdat (self-publishing) and have become known under this name abroad as well. Samizdat may be said to constitute a peculiar species of publishing since about 1966, although earlier instances of self-publishing are reported. At first, mainly belles-lettres appeared by way of samizdat. Later this channel was used for disseminating materials of a political nature. The authors are frequently, but not exclusively, dissidents speaking on behalf of national and religious minorities or of other groups. A common motive of those who engage in samizdat is to act independently of the guidance exercised by party and state agencies and to evade the limits imposed by governmental censorship.

Although samizdat accounts for only a negligible share of the over-all volume of Soviet publications, it has received considerable publicity. Much has been written on the political, social, and cultural significance of this type of literature, but nothing on its legal aspects, neither within nor outside of the Soviet Union.

To view samizdat in the proper perspective one must first understand the normal procedure for publishing materials.

REGULAR PUBLISHING

Regular publishing has several aspects, which will be dealt with here briefly on three levels: (1) on the inter-citizen level, the rights and duties of authors vis-à-vis their fellow citizens are covered by the traditional field of copyright law; (2) with regard to the rights and duties of authors vis-à-vis the party and the state, we shall consider the administrative and labor law aspects; and (3) on the international level, we will examine the status of domestic authors in foreign countries and vice versa.

1. COPYRIGHT

Copyrights “apply to works of science, literature, or art” that are “published or that are … expressed in some kind of objective form making it possible to reproduce the result of the author's creative activity.”² No formalities, such as registration, are necessary to effect copyright. A copyright “belongs to an author for life.” It passes to the author's heirs for a maximum period of twenty-five years;³ the payment of royalties to heirs is limited to 50 per cent.⁴ An author has the “right to publish, reproduce, and circulate his work.” He has furthermore a right “to inviolability of the work” and “to receive royalties for the use of his work.”⁵ Any published work may be translated only with the consent of the author.⁶

2. INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT

The Soviet Union grants international copyright protection⁷ in accordance with the Universal Copyright Convention of 1952,⁸ to which it acceded on February 27, 1973.⁹ The Convention, pursuant to Article 9, enters into force “three months” thereafter, i.e., on May 27, 1973. The Convention obliges each member-state to provide copyright protection equivalent to that enjoyed by its own citizens (national treatment standard). A USSR Edict amending the all-union copyright legislation with a view to adapting it to the requirements of the Convention applies to “relationships arising after June 1, 1973.”¹⁰

(A) WORKS OF FOREIGN AUTHORS PUBLISHED IN THE SOVIET UNION

Works published for the first time in the USSR are recognized as belonging to the author regardless of his citizenship. The same applies to unpublished works available in the Soviet Union.¹¹ Authors from “bourgeois” countries whose works are selected for publication in the Soviet Union did not enjoy fully a right to inviolability of their works before the Soviet Union acceded to the Universal Copyright Convention. A 1959 Decree of the CPSU obliged the Publishing House of Foreign Literature to publish works of “bourgeois authors” in “limited editions excluding from the text parts not representing scientific or practical interest, to add full prefaces and notes.”¹² Soviet publishing practice lived up to these demands.¹³

The CPSU Decree is incompatible with the obligations of the Soviet Union under the Universal Copyright Convention. It discriminates against “bourgeois” authors, since other authors protected under Soviet copyright law enjoy a right to inviolability of their works. This right includes protection against adding a preface or commentaries to the work without the consent of the author.¹⁴ But the “state monopoly over all … publishing and distribution activities” continues to ensure “that only foreign works which are ideologically palatable will be imported or locally produced.”¹⁵

The royalties a foreign author earns in the Soviet Union are paid in nonconvertible local currency. A transfer of these sums abroad requires the permission of Soviet authorities.¹⁶ In practice, it has been difficult to obtain such permission.

(B) SOVIET WORKS PUBLISHED ABROAD

Soviet authors are free to deal with foreign publishers so long as these relations lack a commercial character. That is said to be the case, so far, in relations between Soviet authors and publishers in the socialist countries.¹⁷ Publishing contracts with publishers in capitalist countries, on the other hand, which provide for royalties are considered to have a commercial character. Since physical and juridical persons may not perform commercial transactions abroad without permission,¹⁸ the USSR Ministry of Foreign Trade has empowered a special agency to handle relations connected with the publication of Soviet works abroad.¹⁹ It is the foreign trade combine “Mezhdunarodnaia kniga” (International Book) in Moscow.²⁰

The main function of “Mezhdunarodnaia kniga” is to import and export books. In addition, it concludes contracts with publishers in capitalist countries for the translation or other use of Soviet works abroad.²¹ In doing so, “Mezhdunarodnaia kniga” acts in its own name. It usually assumes the obligation not to transfer the same right to other publishers. The foreign publisher acquires an exclusive right (license) in such case²² and undertakes, “as a rule,” to pay royalties to the Soviet author.²³ Of the sums actually received from abroad 75 per cent are paid to the author. The rest is withheld by “Mezhdunarodnaia kniga” as a commission fee. This is stipulated in a little known USSR Decree of 1944²⁴ which has never appeared in the official legal gazette.²⁵

The procedure for the transfer by a Soviet author of his right to use a work abroad will be regulated by all-union legislation.²⁶ No pertinent statute had been published as of May 1973. It is likely to provide an obligation for Soviet authors willing to transfer publishing rights abroad to use the services of a central governmental agency specializing in international copyright relations.²⁷

Sanctions for not observing the transfer procedure could, perhaps, include such measures as confiscation²⁸ or compulsory purchase of the work in question.²⁹ Confiscation may be ordered as a criminal sanction³⁰ or as a measure of civil law responsibility.³¹ A fine as a measure of administrative responsibility would presuppose a statute expressly providing for such sanction.³² Compulsory purchase by the state of an author's right requires in the RSFSR a decree of the Council of Ministers for each individual case.³³

Concentrating relations with foreign publishers in the hands of one specialized governmental agency has definite advantages for those in control of Soviet publications. It permits guidance in conformity with the political aims of the CPSU, “showing solicitude for the correct orientation of the development of literature and art and for their ideological and artistic standards.”³⁴ The advantages were already apparent when the use of Soviet works abroad was legally free. This was so because a number of foreign publishers chose to seek the consent of the Soviet author. The need for a centralization of relations with foreign publishers is even more urgent in the eyes of the Soviet cultural bureaucracy now that the Soviet Union has joined the Universal Copyright Convention. Foreign publishers must secure the consent of a Soviet author if they wish to use his work.³⁵

A centralized agency for transfer of copyright would bring advantages to both the Soviet author and the foreign publisher. The Soviet author is likely to work through the governmental agency if he is interested in royalties from the foreign publisher, since the contract involving foreign royalties affects the foreign trade monopoly of the USSR³⁶ and requires a permit.³⁷ Theoretically, the Soviet author could apply for the permit on his own initiative. Statutes of the early years specifically envisaged applications of “private citizens” for licensing foreign trade transactions.³⁸ But these regulations are either repealed or obsolete today.³⁹ A Soviet citizen stands no chance of obtaining the permit for a publishing contract involving royalties from a foreign publisher unless the governmental agency administering international copyright relations approves of such a transaction and supports the application.

A Soviet author also requires the permit in view of the foreign exchange monopoly exercised by the USSR. Foreign exchange transactions may be performed in the Soviet Union only with permission of and through the State Bank of the USSR (Gosbank).⁴⁰ Violation of this monopoly entails criminal responsibility.⁴¹ The wording of the criminal provision in question also would cover violations of the foreign trade monopoly.⁴²

The incentives for a foreign publisher to follow the established procedure for transfer of the right to use a Soviet work may be equally strong. He will enjoy copyright protection in the Soviet Union for his publication only if he works through the governmental agency administering the transfer.⁴³ Of greater consequence may be commercial considerations. If the foreign publisher is interested in continuing to publish works of Soviet authors, he would be well advised to cultivate his relations with the Soviet governmental agency. If he publishes a Soviet work and bypasses that agency, he will have little chance to conclude subsequent contracts.

The Soviet Union is obliged under the Universal Copyright Convention to protect not only works of Soviet authors published abroad but also works of foreign authors.⁴⁴

(C) BILATERAL COPYRIGHT AGREEMENTS OF THE SOVIET UNION

The Soviet Union has entered into bilateral copyright agreements with Hungary (1967)⁴⁵ and Bulgaria (1971).⁴⁶ The contracting parties mutually recognize copyright of their authors. The protection is limited, however, personally and in substance. Copyrights are recognized only for citizens of the other party residing on its territory and only if their work has been first made available in the territory of the other party. Emigres⁴⁷ and citizens of third states are thus excluded. The effect is limited in substance inasmuch as no minimum rights are envisaged; it is rather the standard of the party providing the least protection which prevails. This applies, for example, to the obligation to pay royalties. The duration of protection has been set at fifteen years, although it is twenty-five years under the Universal Copyright Convention⁴⁸ now binding for both the Soviet Union and Hungary.⁴⁹

In 1972 the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia agreed to work out a system of copyright protection facilitating a broad popularization of the cultural values of both parties.⁵⁰

3. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

A Soviet author wishing to make use of his manuscript has to approach a publishing house. Legally, the author and the representative of the state agency meet as equals. In fact, however, they negotiate from rather unequal positions because the state holds an actual monopoly of all “material requisites” necessary for the exercise of the rights of an author.⁵¹ This monopoly is effectively used to direct and to guide the political and cultural life of the country.

(A) FUNCTIONS OF THE STATE COMMITTEES FOR PUBLICATIONS

The functions of direction and guidance on the state level are performed by the State Committees for Publications. They are attached to the councils of ministers of the Union and of the union republics. The Statute of the USSR Committee defines the tasks of the agency in the following terms:

• (a) to guide the field of publishing, of printing establishments, and of the book trade in the country;
• (b) to check on an all-state scale the contents and direction of literature of all kinds and to supervise the execution of decisions of the Party and Government in the field of publishing, of printing establishments, and of the book trade, the safeguarding of military and state secrets in publications.⁵²

The Statute has been confirmed by the USSR Council of Ministers. It regulates the legal relations of this agency vis-à-vis other state organs of equal or subordinate status. The Statute is thus addressed to state agencies within the administrative system of the Committee and to agencies in other administrative branches. The forms of guidance are manifold.⁵³ Its aim is “to ensure a high ideological-theoretical level of published works.”⁵⁴

A network of administrative rules serves as a basis for the guidance. It includes regulations on the contents of publications,⁵⁵ as well as instructions on a continuous check of books kept by bookstores or held in libraries.⁵⁶ These rules do not directly bind authors or artists, to be sure. But they clearly affect their rights and duties, since the state agencies are their only partners. The agencies are obliged to live up to the rules addressed to them. They have to follow them not only internally, but also in their dealings with authors.⁵⁷

(B) REGULATIONS FOR EDITORS IN PUBLISHING HOUSES

To illustrate the extent and type of guidance in the form of regulations, one statute shall be taken here as an example.

Editors are instructed to evaluate manuscripts before they are accepted for publication with regard to “the theme … (and) its treatment (from an ideological, political, scientific, ideological-artistic point of view) …”⁵⁸ Once a manuscript is accepted for publication, a standard publishing contract⁵⁹ is filled out and signed. The manuscript is then edited “with the aim of advancing the ideological, scientific, and literary qualities of the work …”⁶⁰ If the editor suggests changes,⁶¹ the author is granted the right to defend his views. Details are laid down in the 1967 Model Statute on Preparing a Manuscript for Publication as follows:

The author may accept the observations of the publishing house … or refuse them … The author has a right to defend his conception and views if they are founded scientifically, do not contradict the interests of a socialist state, the principle of party-minded literature, and the task of protecting state secrets … If the editorial office and the author do not reach a mutually acceptable solution, differences are decided by the management of the publishing house.⁶²

The author may appeal the decision to the next higher agency of the publishing house up to the respective ministry. But these organs are part of one and the same departmental (administrative) system. “Given such a ‘correlation of forces’, the author is not always certain,” a Soviet legal scholar observes, “that his dispute is considered dispassionately and resolved objectively.”⁶³ If the author fails to carry out the suggestions of the publishing house, the latter is entitled to rescind the publishing contract and to reject the manuscript.⁶⁴

(C) GUIDANCE BY HIGHER AGENCIES AND THE CENSORSHIP REQUIREMENT

The work of publishing houses and other enterprises in the field of literature and arts is supervised by a number of agencies, including the next higher administrative body. Publishing houses, for example, are required “to submit for approval to their higher agency a draft of the annual thematic plan of works to be published.”⁶⁵ The higher agency has far-reaching organizational and financial powers. Among them are the power to hire and fire, as well as to award bonuses to leading personnel.⁶⁶

Works appearing “in print” are subject to preventive censorship. In the twenties and thirties they used to be examined by an agency commonly known under the Russian abbreviation “Glavlit.” An RSFSR Decree of 1931 made it obligatory for publishing houses to present “books, brochures, journals, bulletins, newspapers, leaflets …” for censorship before publication.⁶⁷ The number of the local “Glavlit” representative had to appear on each published work. The Decree has not been included in a collection of statutes in force as of 1968⁶⁸ and probably has been replaced or repealed by an unpublished decree. Soviet publications continue to appear with censorship numbers, which suggests that censorship is still required. But it is not openly regulated as it was in pre-revolutionary Russia.⁶⁹

4. PARTY DIRECTIVES

The Party claims and exercises the right to “appoint the editorial board of central newspapers and journals operating under its control” and to “guide the local press, radio, and television.”⁷⁰ The establishment of new newspapers, journals, and publishing houses requires Party approval.⁷¹ Party organs also decide such questions as the title of newspapers, the number and size of copies to be printed, and the price.⁷²

Party guidance over the contents of publications finds its expression, among others, through controlling the work of the State Committees for Publications,⁷³ by checking the thematic plans of publishing houses for political literature⁷⁴ and for political posters,⁷⁵ and by issuing directives on the limits of discussion and criticism. It has been decreed, for example, that criticism may be directed against individual functionaries, but not against decisions of Party organs.⁷⁶ Party directives operate independently of and in addition to legal norms issued by state organs.

Given this mechanism of dependence, guidance, and control, both the editor and the author are likely to feel constrained to conform to the demands presented to them.

5. LABOR LAW ASPECTS

The responsible editor determines the author's fees. The area of discretion on the side of the publisher is limited, for author's fees are fixed in union republic decrees. The fees vary with the type of literature, the length of the book, and the number of copies to be printed. Fees are not based on actual sales. Belles-lettres in prose, for example, merit between 150 and 400 rubles⁷⁷ for each author's sheet (16 pages). If more than 15,000 copies are printed, the fees increase proportionally. Translations of belles-lettres in prose earn 50-150 rubles per author's sheet, whereas political literature of the scientific-popular type is remunerated with 100-300 rubles for the first ten author's sheets. If more than 15,000 copies are published, additional fees are due, amounting to 50 per cent and more. The rates for scientific literature are similar, regardless of the number of copies printed. The best reward for an author is a second edition of his work. It entitles him to 60 per cent of the previous fee; thereafter the scale decreases, until it reaches 10 per cent for the seventh edition.⁷⁸

Some leeway is envisaged in fixing the author's fee between a minimum and a maximum. It is supposed to serve the ends of Soviet cultural policy. Thus, authors agreeing to write “literary works on historical-revolutionary topics” may receive the maximum fee for the type of literature in question; half of this fee can be paid out as an advance.⁷⁹

Authors of translated works are not paid as a general rule, although exception is made for belles-lettres. Here the authors receive 60 per cent of their original fee if the translation is made from Latvian, etc. into Russian.⁸⁰ A Russian author, on the other hand, until 1969 was not entitled to a fee if his work was translated into Latvian, etc.⁸¹ Now they are paid the minimum fee. Spreading Russian literature among the non-Russian peoples has thus stopped being a free service. Translating Russian works now brings profits to their Russian authors, which could be impressive considering the number of non-Russian nationalities in the USSR. The monetary aspects becomes even more apparent in the light of tax law. Author's fees exceeding 1800 rubles a year are taxed not progressively, but at a flat rate of 13 per cent.⁸²

Part of the labor law scene is the social security system for authors and artists. Those who are employed can choose to have their old-age pensions based either on their regular pay or on their author's fees. Successful and prominent authors will prefer the latter, but they may do so only if they are members of the Writers' Union or of the respective trade union.⁸³

SAMIZDAT

This legal superstructure is clear enough if socialist organizations handle the publication, reproduction, and circulation of literary works. But does it also apply to samizdat works?

1. DEFINING SAMIZDAT

Samizdat publications include literary works, political writings, newsletters, petitions, open letters, trial transcripts, and similar material.⁸⁴ The publication and dissemination of an election platform by a non-communist group also could be considered an example of samizdat. Such an attempt was made by an association of “democratic electors” in Latvia after Soviet leaders had imposed a pro-communist government in 1940 and after parliamentary elections had been ordered.⁸⁵

There is no official or generally accepted definition of samizdat.⁸⁶ The word samizdat is a Russian abbreviation in use since about 1967. It is a colloquialism in the Soviet Union and is a play on the names of state publishing houses like Gospolitizdat or Akademizdat. Literally the word means self-publishing.

For legal purposes the following criteria are relevant: it is (1) a work of literature available in material form in the Soviet Union;⁸⁷ (2) published, reproduced, or circulated privately in the Soviet Union; (3) for the use of an indefinite number of persons.⁸⁸ These three criteria are not sufficient, however. They would not help to distinguish a samizdat work from, say, the letter of a boy to his girl-friend circulating among her schoolmates and their friends. We have to add at least one functional criterion: (4) private publishing, reproduction, or circulation is used as a substitute for services generally performed by Soviet socialist organizations.

One question of practical importance is whether the term samizdat extends to both published and unpublished materials. Colloquially, it is understood to comprise both. Some privately reproduced works pass from hand to hand among trusted friends known to each other. As long as this group remains closed, the work has not been “published” within the meaning of Soviet copyright law.⁸⁹ It may be otherwise with samizdat works circulating among an indefinite group of persons. But even these materials do not necessarily meet the requirements of “publication” in the sense of being “generally available.” Publication presupposes the distribution of a sufficient number of copies, an “activité industrielle.”⁹⁰

A number of considerations are irrelevant to the legal notion of a samizdat, on the other hand; for example, the motives for using private publishing as a substitute for regular publishing. It may be that the manuscript has not been accepted for publication by a socialist organization or that it is not likely to be accepted because of current editorial policies of Soviet publishing houses, whereas the author wishes to see his work appear; alternatively, the manuscript may be acceptable, but the author prefers private publishing. The same applies to the content of a samizdat work. It does not matter whether it is of literary or political significance⁹¹ or whether it is an original or a translation.

It is also irrelevant whether the author of a work has consented to its use in samizdat form or not. If the consent is lacking, the samizdat publisher has violated the (personal or property) copyright of the author.⁹² The notion of samizdat thus refers not only to publications by the author but also to private publication by third persons. The latter usually come from among those who read the works of the author. They reproduce the work (in typescript or otherwise) and pass it on. As a matter of fact, probably the majority of samizdat materials fall into this category.⁹³

A samizdat work remains in this category if it is subsequently published, reproduced or circulated outside of the Soviet Union (so-called tamizdat, i.e. “published out there”).⁹⁴ The method of reproduction is equally without relevance to the notion of samizdat. It makes no difference whether the samizdat work is reproduced by hand, typewriter, mimeograph, print, or tape. Nor does method of circulation—by hand, by mail, etc.—matter. Circulation by hand bears some similarity to the “chain-post” (kol'tsevaia pochta) officially encouraged in the 1920s for distributing newspapers then in short supply.⁹⁵ It is of no importance in terms of copyright law whether samizdat works are distributed without cost or against payment.

In instances of reproduction and circulation by way of samizdat it is irrelevant whether the work has been previously published or not. The need for samizdat may have arisen because earlier editions are sold out or are withdrawn from circulation in the state book trade and are relegated to the “special funds” (spetsfondy) of libraries. One example is Solzhenitsyn's One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich.⁹⁶ Samizdat is used also to circulate works published abroad. They include, among others, foreign broadcasts copied on tape and circulated in the Soviet Union (so-called radizdat).⁹⁷

Samizdat usually refers to works of literature. But it could be understood to cover also—at least by analogy—photographic works or phonographic records.⁹⁸

2. COPYRIGHT

To answer the question of whether copyright applies to samizdat works, it is useful to distinguish between the acquisition of the right and its protection.

(A) ACQUISITION OF COPYRIGHT

Copyright comes into existence as works of science, literature, and art are created. It is linked to a factual process and applies “regardless of the form, purpose, and merit of the work or of the method of its reproduction.”⁹⁹ Once a work is created, it does not matter in terms of copyright whether it is subsequently published, reproduced, or distributed by way of samizdat. It is likewise of no consequence if a work does not appear in print. Certain types of scholarly manuscripts, for example, are not created for publication but to be deposited as reference material.¹⁰⁰

An author who publishes his work himself is making use of his “right to publish, reproduce, and circulate his work by any method allowed by the law.”¹⁰¹ The law has not abolished or limited the right of self-publishing. It only may be exercised subject to the requirements laid down in constitutional, administrative, criminal, and other norms of law.¹⁰² Non-observance of these norms may have administrative, criminal or other consequences, but it does not abolish or limit the copyright of the author. A person using a samizdat work without permission violates the copyright of the author, although he is free to use it for personal purposes.¹⁰³

(B) PROTECTION OF COPYRIGHT

A second question is whether the copyright of a samizdat author is “protected by law.” It is not if the copyrights are “exercised in conflict with the purpose of these rights in a socialist society in the period of building communism.”¹⁰⁴ The purpose of Soviet civil legislation (which includes copyright) is “to foster” the “protection of the … cultural interest of citizens and the correct combination of these interests with those of society as a whole.”¹⁰⁵ Soviet courts may find that some samizdat works do not correctly combine the interests of citizens and society as a whole.¹⁰⁶ If this argument prevails, samizdat authors will be denied judicial protection; they would remain unprotected against an unauthorized publication, reproduction, and circulation of their work. They would also be deprived of the right to inviolability.¹⁰⁷

3. INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT

The international protection of samizdat materials raises a number of issues. Some of them have been the subject of lawsuits.

(A) SOVIET SAMIZDAT MATERIALS PUBLISHED ABROAD

Soviet samizdat materials will rarely appear abroad in accordance with the procedure established for the transfer of publishing rights.¹⁰⁸ They normally reach foreign users through by-passing the Soviet governmental agency entrusted with handling such transfers.¹⁰⁹ This would have at least two legal consequences: (1) the Soviet author may not legally claim or receive royalties from the foreign users of the samizdat material. Stipulating a fee would amount to a violation of the monopolies of foreign trade and foreign exchange.¹¹⁰ It would be legal, however, to grant publishing rights gratuitously. A foreign exchange transaction in the form of a gift is not punishable under Soviet criminal law;¹¹¹ (2) the foreign users of the samizdat material is denied copyright protection in the Soviet Union.¹¹² But he may be protected in another country whose courts may consider samizdat works not to have been properly “published” under its own law.

The British High Court of Justice was called upon in 1971 to decide whether a Russian novel by a Soviet author printed and distributed in Paris had been previously “published” in the Soviet Union. The defendant claimed that the novel was published there by way of samizdat. The court found no evidence to support this view and observed as dictum that samizdat works have not been issued to the public. Samizdat works probably could not be treated as a “publication” within the meaning of the British Copyright Act of 1956 since they do not “satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public.” Samizdat means “rather a clandestine circulation which intentionally disregarded such requirements because they could not lawfully be voiced by potential readers or satisfied by the author.”¹¹³

A German court reached a similar decision in 1972. A “circulation of the work by way of samizdat—if it has taken place at all—can not be considered a first publication within the meaning of Article 6, para. 1, (and Article 4, para. 4 of the Revised Berne Convention) because the author has not authorized the alleged samizdat edition,” the court held. A publication, in the view of the court, presupposes, moreover, “that the work is made available to the public in a sufficient number of copies by way of a central act of distribution, an ‘activité industrielle’, e.g. through the book-trade.”¹¹⁴ Both decisions were made in cases involving Solzhenitsyn's novel August 1914.

The Universal Copyright Convention provides for a similar solution. “Publication,” as used in Article 6 of the Convention, means the reproduction and the “general distribution to the public” of copies of a work. Publication presupposes, furthermore, “authority of the author or other copyright proprietor” (Article 3). “Distribution” requires, according to a generally recognized view in legal doctrine, a circulation of a sufficient number of copies.¹¹⁵

The attitude of Soviet law toward samizdat materials is irrelevant in this context. Member-states of the Universal Copyright Convention grant protection in accordance with their own national standard.¹¹⁶ If this standard entitles the samizdat author to protection, it does not matter whether his home country denies it. The reasons for such denial, for example, the failure to observe a transfer procedure, are equally of no consequence in the country where protection is sought.

Protection under the Universal Copyright Convention is justified only if and when the Soviet author agrees to the use of his work abroad. This follows from his copyright, which includes the right to determine whether and when his work should be made available to the public.¹¹⁷ In the cases decided by the British and the German courts the consent of the author was present. Solzhenitsyn had expressly transferred publishing rights to the plaintiffs. The judgments continue to be relevant, therefore, although they were made in 1971 and 1972, before the Soviet Union was a member-state of the Universal Copyright Convention.

The foreign user of samizdat material ordinarily has no direct contact with its author. Use of the material can nonetheless be legal if the consent of the author can be inferred. An open letter with the notation “multiply and circulate” would be an obvious example. In many other cases, too, consent will be implied. Such consent will be a general one, as a rule. It does not grant exclusive rights to a user who happens to be the first or to one who chooses to claim exclusive rights. In such cases a parallel use would constitute no copyright violation.

Works published in the Soviet Union and subsequently circulating there by way of samizdat (e.g., because they have been withdrawn from the book trade network)¹¹⁸ are in a different category. Here the author may be bound by the publishing contract he concluded with his Soviet publisher. The standard publishing contract which serves as a basis for individual contracts¹¹⁹ prohibits a transfer of publishing rights as long as the contract is in force. Publishing contracts are concluded for a maximum period of three years.¹²⁰ The period begins from the day the work has been approved for publication. The author is free to transfer publishing rights after this period has elapsed.

(B) FOREIGN WORKS USED IN SOVIET SAMIZDAT

Reproduction and circulation of works of non-Soviet authors in the Soviet Union by way of samizdat would be in accordance with Soviet law as long as the work is used to satisfy personal needs.¹²¹ Use for other purposes would constitute a violation of copyright. Foreign authors are now protected in such cases, an improvement over their status before the Soviet Union acceded to the Universal Copyright Convention.

(C) BILATERAL COPYRIGHT AGREEMENTS OF THE SOVIET UNION

The bilateral agreements of the Soviet Union with Hungary and with Bulgaria exclude the protection of samizdat authors. The agreements provide for publication of works in the partner-country only “with the consent of the competent organs of the Contracting Parties.”¹²² The parties undertook, moreover, to agree on a regulation for “the transfer of the rights needed for the exploitation of works.”¹²³

4. CIVIL LAW

One question of civil law is whether the legal capacity of Soviet citizens includes a civil right to publish their works. Gringol'ts, a prominent Soviet specialist on copyright, states that “performing a publishing, theatrical, or similar activity lies outside the limits of the legal capacity of citizens.”¹²⁴ This statement may reflect the law in action, but it is not necessarily in conformity with the law in the books. The following provisions on the content of legal capacity of citizens are relevant:

Citizens may in accordance with the law … have author's rights … and also have other property and personal non-property rights.¹²⁵ No one may be restricted in legal capacity … other than in cases established by law.¹²⁶

No statutes have been published expressly limiting the legal capacity of citizens in such a way as to deprive individuals of the civil right to publish their works.¹²⁷

5. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

(A) FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS

The Constitution proclaims freedom of the press. This right is “guaranteed” by “placing at the disposal of the working people and their organizations printing presses, stocks of paper … and other material requisites” necessary for its exercise. The wording clearly includes a right of individuals to engage in samizdat. But such constitutional right can be used only “in conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to strengthen the socialist system.”¹²⁸

Samizdat works may or may not comply with this requirement. Much depends on the political judgment of those in control of publications. A glimpse into the reasoning of the authorities at the time the Constitution was drafted can be gained from a leading article of Pravda in 1936. According to the editorial, “freedom of speech and press serves as a mighty means for strengthening the socialist order … He who sets himself the task of undermining the socialist order … is an enemy of the people. He will not receive a shred of paper, he will not cross the threshold of a printing shop to carry out his vile intent.”¹²⁹ Vyshinskii offered a similar interpretation in 1938.¹³⁰

In our state, naturally, there is and can be no place for freedom of speech, press, and so on for the foes of socialism. Every sort of attempt on their part to utilize to the detriment of the state—that is to say, to the detriment of all the toilers—these freedoms granted to the toilers must be classified as a counterrevolutionary crime to which Article 58, paragraph 10, or one of the corresponding articles of the Criminal Code¹³¹ is applicable.

Soviet practice has lived up to these demands, as the following example shows. Shortly before the incorporation of Estonia into the Soviet Union on August 6, 1940, one Electoral District Committee declared an electoral platform not sponsored by the Soviet leadership to be null and void. These were the reasons given:

The electoral platform demands freedom of speech, press, meetings, and other freedoms for all citizens; it follows that this demand includes also enemies of the state and of the people. It, thus, violates Article 31, para. 8, of the Election law where it is said that elections may not be abused for purposes hostile to the state and to the people.¹³²

Contemporary textbooks emphasize that freedom of speech and freedom of the press may not be used “to the detriment of the toiling population.”¹³³

It should be noted that the opposition press was suppressed in Soviet Russia three days after the October Revolution in 1917. An Edict empowered the Council of People's Commissars to close, temporarily or permanently, any organ of the press: (1) “inciting to open resistance or disobedience …”; (2) “sowing confusion by means of … perversion of facts”; and (3) “inciting to acts of a criminal character …” The Edict, according to its Article 3, “is of a temporary nature and will be repealed by special edict when normal conditions of public life will be reestablished.”¹³⁴ It has not been repealed, however.

(B) FREEDOM OF TRADE AND CRAFTS

The Constitution permits “the small private economy of individual … handcraftsmen based on their own labor.”¹³⁵ This basic right does not exclude publishing as a trade nor any other crafts related to the field of literature and art if it is carried out by the owner himself.¹³⁶ But engaging in such crafts is subject to administrative regulations.

6. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

(A) SAMIZDAT AS A TRADE

Some trades are prohibited if carried out privately, i.e., not by state or socialist organizations. The proscribed list includes “polygraphic trades (typographic … photocopying … trades).”¹³⁷ The opening of printing enterprises (e.g., by cooperatives) is subject to permission of the State Committee for Publications and of the police.¹³⁸ Even the acquisition of typewriters by citizens¹³⁹ and of duplicating machines by agencies and organizations has been regulated; the supply is legal “only with special permission” of the police.¹⁴⁰ This rule, issued in 1932, has not been repealed by a published statute.¹⁴¹ Establishment of publishing houses is a prerogative of the competent State Committee for Publications.¹⁴² The private publishing houses which were permitted in the twenties¹⁴³ have long been liquidated.¹⁴⁴ In short, there is no legal basis for engaging in samizdat as a trade.

(B) SELF-PUBLISHING ON A NON-COMMERCIAL BASIS

Many samizdat works are apparently not produced as a trade nor for profit, but on an ad hoc basis and for literary, political, or other non-material purposes. Publication and circulation of works of literature carried out privately and non-commercially is not subject to limitations established by administrative law. The statutes in force do not provide, e.g., an obligation to register works published privately or to procure permission for such activity.

This is in contrast to the legal situation prevailing in the field of art and broadcasting. The creation and the sale of works of fine arts is prohibited in the Soviet Union as long as samples of these works have not been “approved” by the competent agencies of the Ministry of Culture.¹⁴⁵ This means that artists are allowed to make use of the results of their creative work only after this has been permitted by an administrative act. The construction and use of a radio-transmitter likewise requires a licence. This applies also to amateur radio broadcasts. Violators are subject to fines.¹⁴⁶

A Soviet citizen, on the other hand, has no opportunity to use the services of state publishing houses for private purposes. An author can not, for example, entrust a state publishing house to publish and distribute his work at his own expense. Hungarian state publishing houses, on the contrary, are allowed to publish and distribute works as a service to citizens against payment. A prior permission by the competent agency for publications is required.¹⁴⁷

(C) LIMITS AND REQUIREMENTS OF PUBLISHING

Publishing houses of state and socialist organizations are subject to the control of the State Committee for Publications.¹⁴⁸ Private publishers operate outside of the network of state and socialist organizations. Administrative regulations on the procedure for publishing addressed to state agencies and enterprises do not apply, therefore, to private publishers. But citizens are bound by the generally applicable rules.

The law provides no restrictions with respect to the type of work to be published. Thus, theoretically, textbooks could be published privately; the law envisages merely a special procedure for approving textbooks for use in educational institutions.¹⁴⁹ Special statutes monopolize the right to publish the works of Marx and Engels¹⁵⁰ and of Lenin.¹⁵¹ Similar restrictions have to be observed in the case of authors whose works have been nationalized.¹⁵² Producing photographic works¹⁵³ is generally free, but certain objects of military importance may not be photographed.¹⁵⁴ Likewise, there is no ban on collecting information for purposes of publication, but the “circulation of foreign and all-union information within the territory of the USSR” is monopolized, being a prerogative of TASS.¹⁵⁵ These exceptions confirm the general rule that administrative law places no restrictions on producing copyrighted works unless some statutes establish specific limits.

Two requirements connected with the publishing process need consideration, however. The first requirement is an obligation to deposit copies (obiazatel'nyi ekzempliar') of published works with designated libraries. The obligation covers, according to a 1933 Decree, “books, brochures, journals, bulletins, [musical] notes, geographical maps, and plans, as well as newspapers of the capitals of all the union republics.”¹⁵⁶ Materials produced “on a mimeograph machine [na steklografe] or with the help of other multiplying devices,” on the other hand, “presently do not come within the meaning of the legal deposit copy.”¹⁵⁷ This excludes samizdat materials, as a rule. The union republics are permitted to impose additional obligations.¹⁵⁸ In the RSFSR “polygraphic enterprises” are ordered to deposit seven copies of books and other publications.¹⁵⁹ The RSFSR regulation is not addressed to individual citizens. No sanctions are provided for a violation of the obligations mentioned.

A second requirement pertains to censorship.¹⁶⁰ A 1928 Circular instruction of the censorship agency “Glavlit” exempted, among others, “all materials in print and manuscript, of a … general and everyday-character,” as well as “wall papers written by hand or typed on a typewriter.”¹⁶¹ But this circular instruction was not included in a collection of regulations as of 1936. It was apparently superseded by other norms not providing for such exemptions.¹⁶² According to a RSFSR Decree of 1931, the tasks of the censorship agency include “control over items prepared for publication or dissemination in the press, over manuscripts …”¹⁶³ The agency was empowered to issue “rules … binding on all agencies, organizations, and private persons.”¹⁶⁴ It seems doubtful that these regulations are still in force. Censorship rules addressed to “private persons” have not been made public. It cannot be established with certainty, therefore, whether or not samizdat materials come within the category of works subject to censorship.

7. PARTY DIRECTIVES

The Party is the “leading core” of all state and social organizations.¹⁶⁵ On the basis of this principle, the Party claims the right to guide all publication activities in the country. Party directives issued to achieve control over publications do not reach into the area of private publishing but are addressed to Party organs for guidance and execution. Publishers of samizdat, who are not subject to Party discipline, legally remain outside of Party control. The status of citizens differs in this respect from that of social organizations. The latter are not permitted to publish literature “bypassing” the commercial publishing houses¹⁶⁶ unless they are granted “publishing rights.”¹⁶⁷ The power to grant such rights rests with regional and higher Party agencies. Party directives define the scope within which such rights may be granted, e.g., for publishing literature for official use,¹⁶⁸ which is distributed without cost. In 1966 more than 3300 organizations engaged in publishing activities bypassing state publishing houses. The books and brochures produced in 1970 in such way accounted for more than 47 per cent of all titles published.¹⁶⁹

Another example of official self-publication is the wall paper (stennaia gazeta). It is published in single or a few copies and displayed in enterprises and organizations. Although publishers are advised to call the wall papers “newspapers of the workers of a given enterprise or of the farmers of a given village,”¹⁷⁰ Party organs are instructed to exercise tight control over their contents.¹⁷¹ The trade union takes an active part in organizing the wall paper and other means of visual agitation.¹⁷² Radio broadcasting on an enterprise level is similarly sanctioned and supervised by the local Party committee.¹⁷³ The practice of “official self-publishing” thus represents a peculiar parallel to private samizdat.

The legal status of self-publishers can be further clarified by comparing it to that of amateur groups performing artistic works. There are about 320,000 such lay collectives in the Soviet Union,¹⁷⁴ and their activities include music, dance, and theater performances. They are usually organized at places of work, operating under the guidance of trade unions. In addition, party and state agencies consider it their task to facilitate the work of self-entertainment collectives and to supervise them.¹⁷⁵ The trade unions apply a variety of measures to guide the artistic lay-groups, among them the “approval” of performance plans and the selection of ballet-masters, conductors of choirs, producers, and club-directors. Trade union decrees serve as the legal basis.¹⁷⁶

It is relevant in our context that trade unions do not enjoy similar publishing rights. Self-publishing workers are not expected to submit their publication plans to the local trade union committee for approval.

8. LABOR LAW

The use of socialist property for private publishing purposes is not in itself a violation of any formal provision of labor law. This is obvious if the use has been authorized. Even unauthorized use is not necessarily illegal as long as the user is properly “taking care” of the property in question, as all workers and employees are required to do.¹⁷⁷ But a publisher of samizdat could be accused of having violated the spirit of labor legislation if he used state property “without authorization for personal ends.” Cases of this sort are handled by social institutions called “comrades' courts.”¹⁷⁸ If state property is used to make personal profit, disciplinary measures may be applied,¹⁷⁹ and if such acts have caused “substantial damage,” criminal sanctions.¹⁸⁰ Independently of these measures, damages can be claimed if the user caused property damage to the state. The state may have suffered a loss, for example, if the user fails to replace stocks of paper or other materials used.¹⁸¹ Loss might also be seen in the depreciation of the facilities used,¹⁸² but it would be negligible as a rule. If the duplicating machine or the material used was the property of a social organization, the legal consequences would be similar.

9. CRIMINAL LAW

(A) SAMIZDAT—NOT A CRIMINAL OFFENSE

The criminal codes in force provide no sanction for publishing and circulating samizdat materials. This is true even if some administrative regulations should have been violated by such activity.

The non-criminal character of samizdat activities should be noted for two reasons. First, samizdat is somehow associated with the notion of illegality in the minds of some non-lawyers within and without the Soviet Union. There is no basis in criminal law for such a view. Second, the present situation contrasts with that existing prior to 1960. The RSFSR Criminal Code of 1926 made it a criminal offense to violate “rules established regarding multiplication and issuance of printed matters as well as [violation] of censorship for photographs and movies” (Article 185). A “violation of rules concerning the procedure required for opening and running of printing shops, lithographic, and similar establishment” was likewise criminally punishable (Article 190).¹⁸³ The provisions were copied from the first RSFSR Criminal Code of 1922 (Articles 224 and 225 respectively).¹⁸⁴ These crimes have been eliminated in the new RSFSR Criminal Code which took effect in 1960.¹⁸⁵

(B) CRIMINAL OFFENSES POTENTIALLY CONNECTED WITH SAMIZDAT ACTIVITIES

Persons engaging in samizdat activities are not exempted, of course, from criminal responsibility for other punishable acts. Among the many crimes provided in the criminal codes, the ones most likely connected with self-publishing activities fall into the following categories:

(1) Crimes against the rights of citizens, for example, violation of authors' rights. The “illegal reproduction or distribution” of another's literary work is a crime provided for in Article 141 of the 1960 RSFSR Criminal Code;

(2) Crimes against the socio-economic order; for example, a person using a state-owned duplicating machine may be accused of having caused “property damage to the state … through … abuse of trust” (Article 94). If the accused engaged in samizdat as a business, he could be convicted for “private entrepreneurial activity” provided “state, cooperative, or other social forms” were utilized (Article 153). Criminal responsibility is envisaged also for “engaging in a trade concerning which there is a special prohibition” (Article 162).¹⁸⁶

(3) Crimes against the public order or the state, where criminal responsibility follows from the contents of the material published or circulated. Examples include materials revealing state secrets (Article 75),¹⁸⁷ pornographic materials (Article 228) or documents violating the laws on separation of church and state (Article 142).¹⁸⁸ Cases in this group involve also “the preparation or circulation in written, printed, or any other form” of “fabrications known to be false, which defame the Soviet state and social system” (Article 190-1).¹⁸⁹ If the fabrications are “slanderous” and are prepared or circulated “for the purpose of subverting or weakening the Soviet regime,” the act may be punished as “anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda”; which is an “especially dangerous crime against the state” (Article 70). The same applies to the mere “keeping, for the same purpose, of literature of such content” (Article 70).¹⁹⁰ Cases in this group have attracted considerable attention in the Soviet Union and abroad.

(C) CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR PREPARING, CIRCULATING, OR KEEPING MATERIALS CONSIDERED TO BE POLITICALLY HARMFUL

The danger of preparing or circulating politically harmful materials is negligible if the ordinary procedure for publication is followed. Preventive censorship is likely to eliminate statements which may give reason for criminal prosecution. The situation is otherwise with samizdat material. Private publishing is used as a substitute for services generally performed by state publishing houses. In some cases authors resort to it to avoid censorship. This perhaps explains why samizdat occasionally is considered an activity bordering on illegality.

The wording of Articles 70 and 190-1¹⁹¹ “is so broad that it is possible in practice to catch almost any strong expression of political dissent.”¹⁹² This is illustrated by some cases:

(1) In the Siniavskii-Daniel' trial (1966) the accused writers were convicted of anti-Soviet propaganda found in some passages of their literary works published abroad. The writers denied that they had intended to subvert or to weaken the Soviet regime, but the court inferred the intent from their writings;¹⁹³

(2) A group of Jews in the Leningrad hijacking case (1971) was charged with among other things preparing and circulating zionist materials;¹⁹⁴

(3) A group of Baptists was sentenced in Rostov-on-Don (1966) for, among other things, setting up a printing press and mimeographing religious literature. The court held that the defendants through their acts had violated the laws on separation of church and state.¹⁹⁵

(4) Dr. Fricis Menders was convicted of anti-Soviet propaganda and agitation for permitting an American Ph.D candidate to take notes of answers Menders gave on questions about recent Latvian history. Menders was the former Chairman of the Socialist Democratic Party of Latvia during her independence. He was 84 at the time of the trial in Riga (1969).¹⁹⁶

More trials of a similar character are known to have taken place.¹⁹⁷

In some cases the accused may have believed the defamatory statement to be true. This, “theoretically,” would constitute “a complete defense.” But it has “been ineffectual in practice, except possibly as a basis for commitment to a psychiatric hospital,” writes Berman. He adds that “Soviet courts will apparently not admit that any sane Soviet citizen can honestly make a statement attacking the Soviet political or social system.”¹⁹⁸

CONCLUSION

It can be said that Soviet citizens enjoy the right to engage in samizdat. But the concentration of publishing facilities in the hands of the state limits in fact the free exercise of this right. A private publisher is further handicapped since the regime in power attempts to control political and cultural life in the country. Such a regime is bound to view samizdat with distrust; it will even tend to associate it with anti-Soviet attitudes.

Notes

1. The present study revises and expands a paper presented to the Third International Baltic Conference at Toronto in May 1972 and published in Problems of Mininations: Baltic Perspectives (San José, 1973) pp. 175-192. A German version appeared in Rabels Zeitschrift für auslandisches und internationales Privatrecht, XXXVII (1973), 515-544. The author acknowledges with appreciation the opportunity to work on this study at the Rockefeller Foundation Study and Conference Center, Villa Serbelloni, Bellagio, Italy.

2. Article 96, Fundamental Principles of Civil Legislation of the USSR and Union Republics; Article 475, RSFSR Civil Code; and corresponding articles in the other union republic civil codes. For normative materials and bibliographic data on Soviet copyright law as of 1966, see D. A. Loeber, Urheberrecht der Sowjetunion: Einführung und Quellen (Frankfurt, 1966).

3. Article 105, Fundamental Principles of Civil Legislation, as amended February 21, 1973. Vedomosti SSSR (1973), no. 9, item 138; English transl. of Edict of February 21, 1973: A Chronicle of Human Rights in the USSR [New York], no. 1 (1973), pp. 74-77; Article 496, RSFSR Civil Code.

4. Article 496, RSFSR Civil Code.

5. Article 98, Fundamental Principles of Civil Legislation, as amended, note 3 above; Article 479, RSFSR Civil Code.

6. Article 102, Fundamental Principles of Civil Legislation, as amended, note 3 above; Articles 489, 491, RSFSR Civil Code. For literature published before the USSR acceded to the Universal Copyright Convention, see G. A. Kudriavtseva, “The Principle of Freedom of Translation in Soviet Copyright Law,” Soviet Law and Government, IX, no. 2 (1970), pp. 159-171; M. M. Boguslavskii, GRUR International (1973), pp. 244-247.

7. Article 97, Fundamental Principles of Civil Legislation, as amended, note 3 above; Articles 477, 478, RSFSR Civil Code.

8. Text in A. Bogsch, The Law of Copyright Under the Universal Convention (2d ed.; Leiden, 1968), pp. 153-161. Amendments to the Convention in 1971 granted some privileges to developing countries. Revised text: Le Droit d'Auteur, LXXXV (1972), 22-28. The amendments are not yet in force.

9. Copyright Bulletin (published by UNESCO), VII, no. 1 (1973), p. 39. For literature on the accession of the USSR see M. M. Boguslavskii, SGiP, no. 7 (1973), pp. 56-62; E. Ulmer, GRUR International (1973), pp. 93-95.

10. Article 2 of the Edict of February 21, 1973, note 2 above, provides: “In the event of contractual and other relations arising before June 1, 1973, the rules of the … Edict apply to such rights and duties as arise after June 1, 1973.” This means that works published outside of the Soviet Union before May 27, 1973, continue to lack protection in the Soviet Union and that works published in the Soviet Union before that date do not come within the terms of the Convention. It is difficult to explain the curious gap of a few days (May 28-31, 1973) during which Soviet legislation fails to provide international copyright protection as required in the Convention. The copyright symbol © has to be used on all works published in the USSR after May 27, 1973, according to section 11 of an Instruction of March 28, 1973, approved by the USSR State Committee for Publishing. See Biulleten' normativnykh aktov ministerstv i vedomstv SSSR, no. 7 (1973), pp. 44-46. The Instruction applies to printed works and other works reproduced mechanically (Article 1).

11. Article 97, Fundamental Principles of Civil Legislation, as amended, note 3 above; Article 2, Universal Copyright Convention.

12. Paragraph (g), Decree of the Central Committee of the CPSU, June 4, 1959, published in Voprosy ideologicheskoi raboty; sbornik vazhneishikh reshenii KPSS (1954-1961 gody) (Moscow, 1961), p. 276; reprinted in O partiinoi i sovetskoi pechati, radioveshchanii i televidenii; sbornik dokumentov i materialov (Moscow, 1972), p. 462; excerpt transl.: Survey, XLI (1962), 171-172.

13. On Soviet translations of “bourgeois” legal literature, see D. Frenzke, Osteuropa Recht, VIII (1962), 121-127; P. Sand, ibid., X (1964), 165.

14. Article 98, Fundamental Principles of Civil Legislation, as amended, note 3 above; Article 480, 489, RSFSR Civil Code.

15. S. Pisar, Coexistence and Commerce (New York, 1970), p. 378. This is corroborated by B. Stukalin, the Chairman of the USSR State Committee for Publishing (see note 52 below), who proclaimed in 1973; “writings advocating … ways of life alien to us will not be disseminated” in the Soviet Union. New Times [Moscow], no. 11, (1973), p. 14, col. 3.

16. Permission is required in each individual case. A transfer of sums inherited from Soviet citizens by foreigners living abroad, on the other hand, is generally permitted, according to an USSR Decree of April 21, 1955. The Decree has not been published in the legal gazette, but appeared in Sbornik postanovlenii … po finansovo-khoziastvennym voprosam, no. 11 (1959), p. 31 (quoted from A. Rubanov, Nasledovanie v mezhdunarodnom chastnom prave (Moscow, 1966), p. 70, note 49).

17. A. N. Bykov, “Voprosy avtorskogo prava vo vneshnei torgovle SSSR,” in Pravovoe regulirovanie vneshnei torgovli SSSR (Moscow, 1961), p. 358. This chapter and others were omitted from a German translation: Der Aussenhandel und seine rechtliche Regelung in der UdSSR (East-Berlin, 1963).

18. Articles 14, 77, USSR Constitution; Articles 3, 124-126, Fundamental Principles of Civil Legislation; Articles 3, 564-566, RSFSR Civil Code.

19. Bykov, note 17 above, p. 359.

20. “Mezhdunarodnaia kniga” was established in 1923 (cf. reports in Vneshniaia torgovlia, no. 14 (1923), p. 24; no. 24, p. 26). For some time until 1951 its functions in the publishing field were performed by the “Literaturno-muzykal'noe agentstvo.” A Charter of Mezhdunarodnaia kniga has been confirmed by the USSR People's Commissar of Foreign Trade in 1932 (Vneshniaia torgovlia, no. 14-15 (1932), pp. 35-36; this Charter may have been superseded by a more recent, but unpublished enactment. Cf. Bykov, note 16 above, p. 358. Six administrative regulations on Mezhdunarodnaia kniga are collected in L. G. Fogelevich, Deistvuiushchee zakonodatel'stvo o pechati; sistematicheskii sbornik (3d ed.; Moscow, 1931), pp. 167-171, four in the fourth edition (Moscow, 1934), pp. 172-175, but only one such regulation appeared in the sixth edition, published under the title: Osnovnye direktivy i zakonodatel'stvo o pechati (Moscow, 1937), p. 243. Bykov's is a revealing and apparently the only published study in Soviet legal literature on the activities of Mezhdunarodnaia kniga (note 17 above). For articles on the occasion of its 50th anniversary see Novye knigi, no. 15 (1973), pp. 77-80 and Vneshniaia torgovlia, no. 4 (1973), pp. 24-27. For literature in English, see B. Gorokhoff, Publishing in the USSR (Bloomington, 1959), pp. 180-183; Foreign Trade (Moscow), no. 4, (1973), pp. 24-27.

21. Bykov, note 17 above, pp. 360-362. The functions of Mezhdunarodnaia kniga should be distinguished from those of the foreign trade combine Vneshtorgizdat. The latter is entitled to place orders “for the printing of literature abroad,” presumably to serve the needs of the USSR Ministry of Foreign Trade. See Article 6, Charter of Vneshtorgizdat, in Vneshniaia torgovlia, no. 4 (1961), pp. 45-46.

22. Bykov, note 17 above, p. 362.

23. Ibid., p. 359, and information based on a contract of Mezhdunarodnaia kniga with a western publisher. The contract, concluded in 1966, consists of thirty articles; a copy is in the possession of the present author. On the relations of the “Econ” publishing firm in Düsseldorf with Mezhdunarodnaia kniga, see R. Italiaander, “USSR—About the Necessity of a Copyright Agreement,” GEMA News, no. 7 (1967), p. 44; also published in French and Spanish, and in GEMA Nachrichten, no. 71 (1966).

24. USSR Decree of December 13, 1944, published in Sbornik normativnykh materialov po voprosam vneshnei torgovli SSSR (Moscow, 1956), p. 436.

25. Failure to publish the decree in the official legal gazette does not preclude its being in force according to Soviet law. See Loeber, “Legal Rules ‘For Internal Use Only’,” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, XIX (1970), 76-77.

26. Article 98, Fundamental Principles of Civil Legislation, as amended, note 3 above. A Rumanian law of 1971 prohibits one to export, to circulate, or to publish abroad manuscripts or works which may harm the interests of the Rumanian state (Law on State Secrets of December 17, 1971, Article 5, Buletinul oficial (1971), Parte 1, no. 157, pp. 1126-1113; excerpts in German transl.: Osteuropa, XXII (1972), pp. A 633-A 634). For reports on measures against Czechoslovak authors who publish works abroad harming the interests of the CSSR see Neue Züricher Zeitung, June 4, 1972, p. 6 and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, November 7, 1972, p. 28.

27. The Writers' Union and its All-Union Administration for the Protection of Authors' Rights may be called upon to cooperate. On the functions of these bodies see the Statute of the Writers' Union of 1971 (Article 25) (reprinted in Piatyi s”ezd pisatelei SSSR. Stenograficheskii otchet [Moscow, 1972], pp. 173-176) and the Statute of the All-Union Administration for the Protection of Author's Rights of 1956, excerpt in: N. Zil'bershtein, Avtorskoe pravo na muzykal'nye proizvedeniia (Moscow, 1960), pp. 185-186. For literature see V. Chertkov, “Rol' tvorcheskikh soiuzov v okhrane avtorskikh prav ikh chlenov,” in Tvorcheskie soiuzy v SSSR (Moscow, 1970), pp. 216-252.

28. Article 31, Fundamental Principles of Civil Legislation; Article 149, RSFSR Civil Code.

29. Article 106, Fundamental Principles of Civil Legislation; Article 501, RSFSR Civil Code.

30. Article 21, para. 10, RSFSR Criminal Code. Confiscation may be applied only as a supplementary punishment (Article 22) and only for crimes against the state of grave mercenary crimes (Article 35).

31. Under Article 149, RSFSR Civil Code, confiscation is permitted only in cases provided for in all-union or RSFSR legislation. One example is transactions whose purpose “deliberately conflicts with the interest of the socialist state and society.” Article 49, ibid.; Article 14, Fundamental Principles of Civil Legislation.

32. USSR Edict of June 21, 1961, as amended, in Sbornik zakonodatel'nykh i normativnykh aktov ob administrativnoi otvetstvennosti (2d ed.; Moscow, 1972), pp. 15-22; English transl., Soviet Statutes and Decisions, V, no. 1 (1968), pp. 7-14.

33. Article 501, RSFSR Civil Code. Cf. Loeber, note 1 above, p. 52.

34. Part 2, sec. V(4), 1961 Program of the CPSU (emphasis supplied).

35. Articles 101, 102, Fundamental Principles of Civil Legislation, as amended, note 3 above; cf. Articles 3, 5, Universal Copyright Convention.

36. Note 18 above.

37. This is true only if a publishing contract is considered to be a foreign trade transaction. See Bykov, note 17 above, who refers to its “commercial character.” On foreign trade transactions, see for example, A. V. Dozortsev and D. M. Genkin, in ibid., pp. 94-96; M. L. Gorodiiskii, Litsenzii vo vneshnei torgovle SSSR (Moscow, 1972), pp. 36-37; L. A. Lunts, Vneshnetorgovaia kuplia-prodazha (Moscow, 1972), pp. 13-18. This view was not always generally accepted. In 1926 Chel'tsov maintained that publishing contracts do not fall within the category of foreign trade transactions, but were merely subject to the regulating influence of the Ministry of Trade. Iu. Chel'tsov, “Poniatie vneshnetorgovoi sdelki po zakonodatel'stvu SSSR,” Revoliutsionnaia zakonnost', no. 15-18 (1926), p. 18. Contracts with authors abroad providing for fees in foreign currency may be concluded only within the limits of foreign currency regulations established by the USSR People's Commissar of Finances: Circular of the USSR Committee for Press Affairs of April 8, 1928, reproduced in Fogelevich, note 20 above (4th ed.), p. 152.

38. An undated RSFSR decree of 1920 and another of February 15, 1923, published respectively in SU RSFSR (1920), no. 53, item 235; (1923), no. 15, item 189; also see Decree of the People's Commissar of Foreign Trade of the RSFSR, November 10, 1922, SU RSFSR (1922), no. 76, item 945. Extracts of the latter two decrees appeared in A. Ganin et al. (comps.), Grazhdanskii kodeks (3d ed.; Moscow, 1928), pp. 72, 216-217. The 1922 RSFSR Civil Code provided in Article 17 that “all persons … shall participate in foreign trade only through the medium of the government.” Gsovski observed that “although the … practice” of issuing foreign trade licenses to private “persons has been discontinued, there is no statutory obstacle to its restoration.” V. Gsovski, Soviet Civil Law (Ann Arbor, 1948), I, p. 469.

39. The materials cited in note 38 above are not included in volume 1 of Sbornik normativnykh materialov po voprosam vneshnei torgovli SSSR (Moscow, 1970).

40. Articles 137, 175, RSFSR Civil Code; USSR Decree, January 7, 1937, SZ SSSR (1937), no. 8, item 25; extracts published in Grazhdanskii kodeks RSFSR (Moscow, 1972), p. 178; Sbornik normativnykh materialov po vneshnei torgovle SSSR (Moscow, 1961), I, pp. 53-54.

41. Article 88, RSFSR Criminal Code. Cf. Vedomosti SSSR (1970), no. 13, item 108 and USSR Customs Code of 1964, Vedomosti SSSR (1964), no. 20, item 242; V. Samoilov, Sots. zak., no. 11 (1970), pp. 64-66.

42. Until 1958, a violation of the foreign trade monopoly was itself a crime; see Article 59-11 of the 1926 RSFSR Criminal Code and corresponding provisions of criminal codes of the other union republics.

43. Article 97, Fundamental Principles of Civil Legislation, as amended, note 3 above.

44. Article 2, Universal Copyright Convention.

45. SP SSSR (1967), no. 30, item 213; English transl.: Hungarian Law Review, no. 1 (1968), pp. 84-86. The duration of the Agreements was extended in 1971 to the end of 1977. Le Droit d'Auteur, LXXXIV (1971), p. 123. Also see G. Boyta, GRUR International (1968), pp. 159-162; id., ibid. (1969), pp. 439-445; K. Knap, Aktualni otazky prava autorskeho … [Prague], no. 1 (1969), pp. 103-106; F. Majoros, Osteuropa Recht, XIV (1968), 175-196; id., ibid., XVIII (1972), 61-97; I. Timar, Hungarian Law Review, no. 1 (1968), pp. 15-20; id., Le Droit d'Auteur, LXXXI (1968), 68-71; E. Ulmer, GRUR International (1968), pp. 411-412; English transl.: International Review of Industrial Property [Weinheim], I (1970), 32-47.

46. SP SSSR (1972), no. 1, item 4; French transl.: Revue internationale du droit d'auteur, no. 74 (1972), pp. 170-171. See also the Bulgarian Decree implementing the Agreement in Drzhaven Vestnik, (1972), no. 9, pp. 2-3. The Agreement has been concluded for 3 years (Article 9), i.e., until the end of 1974. For literature see F. Majoros, Osteuropa Recht, XVIII (1972), 247-254.

47. Refugees enjoy the same copyright protection as nationals of the country in which the refugees habitually reside, according to the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951 (Article 14). None of the socialist countries, except Yugoslavia, adhere to the Convention.

48. Note 3 above. On the effects of the principle of substantive reciprocity embodied in these provisions in relation to Soviet law, see, among others, Boyta (1969), pp. 440-441; Majoros (1968), pp. 183-184, 194-195; and Timar, pp. 18 and 70 respectively, all cited in note 45 above. Also see note 6 above and notes 80 and 81 below.

49. The Hungarian instrument of ratification was deposited on September 15, 1972. See Copyright Bulletin, VI, no. 4 (1972), p. 3. Its membership became effective on December 15, 1972. See text note 9 above.

50. Article 16, Soviet-Czechoslovak Agreement on Cultural and Scientific Cooperation, February 28, 1972, SP SSSR (1973), no. 4, item 18.

51. Article 125, USSR Constitution.

52. Article 2, “Polozhenie Gosudarstvennogo komiteta Soveta ministrov SSSR po delam izdatel'stv, poligrafii i knizhnoi torgovli,” September 22, 1964, SP SSSR (1964), no. 18, item 117; reprinted in O partiinoi, note 12 above, pp. 473-479. Similar formulations are found in union republic statutes. For the RSFSR Statute, see SP RSFSR (1965), no. 3, item 18; the Latvian SSR statute, Zinotajs (1965), no. 10, pp. 455-459, 483-487. The subordination and name of the committees has been changed several times, most recently in 1972. Vedomosti SSSR (1972), no. 32, item 277; no. 39, item 350, and corresponding union republic sources. On the history of the RSFSR Committee, see Tsentral'nyi gosudarstvennyi arkhiv RSFSR, Vysshie organy gosudarstvennoi vlasti i organy tsentral'nogo upravleniia RSFSR (1917-1967). Spravochnik (Moscow, 1971), p. 476 and Loeber, note 1 above, pp. 36-37, 103, 106-107.

53. Loeber, note 2 above, pp. 31-36. Id., “Administration of Culture in Soviet Latvia,” in Res Baltica (Leyden, 1968), pp. 133-145.

54. Article 3, Polozhenie, note 52 above. Similar obligations for publishing houses are laid down in a 1968 statute on the socialist state publishing house and a 1967 model statute on preparing a manuscript for publication. See Spravochnik normativnykh materialov dlia izdatel'skikh rabotnikov (Moscow, 1969), pp. 14-30, 92-110. Cf. Zinotajs (1968), no. 44, pp. 1020, 1039.

55. Cf. notes 52 and 53 above, and notes 58-65, 67, 73-76, 138, and 165 below.

56. Loeber, note 2 above, pp. 41-42. Cf. Article 5, Decree of the Latvian SSR, October 16, 1967, Zinotajs (1967), no. 48, pp. 1823, 1830; also, Biulleten' ministerstva vysshego i srednego spetsial'nogo obrazovaniia SSSR, no. 9 (1967), p. 3.

57. Loeber, note 2 above, p. 90.

58. Article 30, model statute, note 54 above.

59. The publishing contract is based on all-union model publishing contracts of 1967, reproduced in Spravochnik, note 54 above, pp. 137-149 (and translated in Book Publishing in the USSR [2nd ed.; Cambridge, Mass., 1971], pp. 45-50), as required in Article 506, RSFSR Civil Code, and the other union republic civil codes. Cf. Article 101, Fundamental Principles of Civil Legislation.

60. Article 47, model statute, note 54 above. Cf. the article on the responsibility of the publisher by B. Stukalin, Chairman of the State Committee of the USSR for publishing, in Sovetskaia kul'tura, February 20, 1973. Stukalin urges “an atmosphere of high exigence in the selection, evaluation, and editing of manuscripts. There must be no concession of any kind to alien ideologies … Control over the ideological and scholarly level of literature can be most effective when it is exercised above all at the stage of planning, reviewing, and evaluation of manuscripts.”

61. Articles 30, 39, model statute, note 54 above.

62. Article 40, ibid. On the right of an author to defend his views against the publishing house, see A. Vaksberg, Izdatel'stvo i avtor (2d ed.; Moscow, 1958), pp. 98-100; V. Kamyshev, Prava avtorov literaturnykh proizvedenii (Moscow, 1972), pp. 29-31.

63. V. Chertkov, Sudebnaia zashchita prav i interesov avtorov (Moscow, 1971), p. 7 and id., in Tvorcheskie soiuzy, note 27 above, pp. 240-241.

64. Article 511, RSFSR Civil Code.

65. Article 42, 1968 statute, note 54 above.

66. Loeber, Administration, note 53 above, p. 138. The awarding of bonuses to publishing house personnel is regulated by a 1971 model statute published in Biulleten' Gosudarstvennogo komiteta Soveta ministrov SSSR po voprosam truda i zarabotnoi platy, no. 7 (1971), pp. 2-6. See especially Articles 6, 10, and 13.

67. RSFSR Decree, August 10, 1931, “O poriadke vypuska proizvedenii pechati,” reprinted in Fogelevich, note 20 above (6th ed.), pp. 129-130; KhS RSFSR (1959), II, pp. 176-178. Cf. note 183 below. The obligation of publishing houses to supply “control copies” (or “signal copies”) is linked with control of contents. See Loeber, note 2 above, pp. 31, 34, and 37. On the history of Glavlit see Vysshie organy, note 52 above, p. 472. On Soviet censorship see, among others, Studies on the Soviet Union, XI, no. 2 (1971), pp. 1-148; M. Dewhirst and R. Farrell, The Soviet Censorship (Metuchen, N. J., 1973).

68. Cf. SS RSFSR, XV, p. 288.

69. In prerevolutionary Russia censorship was carried out openly. The censorship agency was part of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and operated on the basis of the “Ustav o tsenzure i pechati,” the text of which was published in Svod zakonov, XIV (on the censorship agency as part of the ministerial system, see ibid., I, Part 2, Book 5, Chapter 3, Articles 308, 330-338). Also see M. Lemke, Ocherki po istorii russkoi tsenzury i zhurnalistiki XIX stoletiia (St. Petersburg, 1904; reprint ed., 1972); V. Rozenberg, Russkaia pechat' i tsenzura v proshlom i nastoiashchem (Moscow, 1905); D. Val'denberg, Spravochnaia kniga o pechati (St. Petersburg 1907); P. Tolstoi, Ogranichenie svobody pechati (St. Petersburg, 1912). On censorship and the Bolshevik struggle for freedom of the press prior to 1917, see A. Berezhnoi, Tsarskaia tsenzura i bor'ba bolshevikov za svobodu pechati 1895-1914 (Leningrad, 1967). On the Polar Star edited by Alexander Herzen in London from 1855-1868 and its secret correspondents in Russia, see N. Eidel'man, Tainye korrespondenty “Poliarnoi zvezdy” (Moscow, 1966). Books censored by prerevolutionary censorship agencies are listed by M. Klevenskii et al., Russkaia podpol'naia i zarubezhnaia pechat'; bibliograficheskii ukazatel': 1831-1879 (Moscow, 1935); L. Dobrovol'skii, Zapreshchennaia kniga v Rossii 1825-1904 (Moscow, 1962).

70. Articles 34, 42, Rules of the CPSU.

71. Decrees of the Central Committee of the CPSU, June 18, 1956 (Article 1); January 6, 1959 (Article 9); July 31, 1959 (Article 9); June 22, 1960 (Article 3); January 29, 1966; and March 6, 1966. Texts published in O partiinoi, note 12 above, pp. 298, 318-319, 329-334, 469-471, 481-483, 360-363. On violations of the Decree of March 6, 1966, see the Decree of the Central Committee of the CPSU, March 20, 1968, in Spravochnik partiinogo rabotnika (Moscow, 1968), VIII, p. 284; Voprosy ideologicheskoi raboty; sbornik vazhneishikh reshenii KPSS (1965-1972) (Moscow, 1972), pp. 541-542.

72. Decrees of the Central Committee of the CPSU, July 24, 1953; June 18, 1956 (Article 3); July 31, 1959 (Article 2), in O partiinoi, note 12 above, pp. 292, 298, 329-334.

73. Decree of the Central Committee of the CPSU, February 17, 1967, in O partiinoi, note 12 above, pp. 488-491. Also see note 52 above. Cf. A. Drizul, in Gazeta-organ partiinogo komiteta (Moscow, 1972), pp. 111-117, here p. 115.

74. Decree of February 17, 1967, note 73 above.

75. Decree of the Central Committee of the CPSU, November 1948, in O partiinoi, note 12 above, pp. 428-429.

76. Decrees of the 14th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party, December 1925, and of the Central Committee of the CPSU, July 25, 1939, in ibid. note 12 above, pp. 141, 198. Also see Voprosy partiinoi raboty (Moscow, 1959), p. 335. Cf. Articles 2 and 3, Rules of the CPSU. For a summary of some Party directives on the contents of publications, see Loeber, note 2 above, pp. 32-33.

77. As of June 1, 1973, one ruble equaled about ＄1.40.

78. The royalty scales are governed by all-union and republic legislation. See Article 98, Fundamental Principles of Civil Legislation, as amended, note 3 above. Union republic materials as of April 1, 1966, are collected in Sbornik normativnykh materialov po avtorskomu pravu na literaturno-khudozhestvennye i muzykal'nye proizvedeniia (Moscow, 1966). Also see Avtors'ke pravo na tvori literaturi; zbirnik ofitsial'nykh materialiv (Kiev, 1969); P. Anton (comp.), Autorioigus Eesti NSV-s; juhendmaterjale (Tallinn, 1969). For the RSFSR, see Grazhdanskii kodeks RSFSR (Moscow, 1972), pp. 240-241. For the Latvian SSR, see the Decree of September 14, 1967, as amended, Zinotajs (1968), no. 2, pp. 26-39, 44-60; amended (1969), no. 7, pp. 237, 249; no. 33, pp. 956, 967; (1970), no. 16, pp. 542, 569.

79. Decree of the Estonian SSR, February 23, 1972, Teataja (1972), no. 9, item 80. Cf. Decrees of the Central Committee of the CPSU, December 24, 1953, and of February 17, 1967, reprinted in O partiinoi, note 12 above, pp. 442-444, 488-491.

80. Article 1(e), RSFSR Decree of September 9, 1968, SP RSFSR (1968), no. 17, item 90; Decree of the Latvian SSR, September 14, 1967, note 78 above; and corresponding decrees of other union republics. Kamyshev, note 62 above, pp. 179-180.

81. RSFSR Decree of April 7, 1960, SP RSFSR (1960), no. 16, item 64, as amended by Decree of September 9, 1968, note 80 above. The union republic regulations are not uniform. Cf. the literature cited in note 48 above.

82. Article 16, USSR Decree of April 30, 1943, reprinted in Sbornik zakonov SSSR i ukazov Prezidiuma verkhovnogo soveta SSSR (Moscow, 1968), II, pp. 294-304, as applied in accordance with Instructions of the USSR Ministry of Finances, reproduced in Sbornik normativnykh materialov po sovetskomu finansovomu pravu (Moscow, 1967), p. 157. Earlier sources mention 1200 rubles per year as the income above which the flat rate commences. See Spravochnik raionnogo finansovogo rabotnika (Moscow, 1952), I, p. 347; Spravochnik nalogovogo rabotnika (Moscow, 1951), p. 112; (1958 ed.), p. 39; (1963 ed.), p. 39.

83. USSR pension law, July 14, 1956, reprinted in Sotsial'noe obespechenie i strakhovanie v SSSR (Moscow, 1972), pp. 179-193; USSR Decree providing pension security for writers, composers, and others, August 7, 1957, in SP SSSR (1957), no. 10, item 106; and a Ministerial instruction on pensions for writers in the Latvian SSSR, January 30, 1965, reprinted in Likumdosanas akti par pensiju pieskirsanas un izmaksas kartibu (Riga, 1966), pp. 319-322. Also see S. Smirnov, Kak ischisliaiutsia i vyplachivaiutsia pensii chlenam tvorcheskikh soiuzov i artistam (Moscow, 1962); A. Tsepin, in Tvorcheskie soiuzy, note 27 above, pp. 169-200.

84. Some samizdat works are translated in the West: A. Brumberg (ed.), In Quest of Justice: Protest and Dissent in the Soviet Union Today (New York, 1970); M. Browne (ed.), Ferment in the Ukraine (New York, 1971); P. Reddaway (ed.), Uncensored Russia (London, 1972); La voix de l'opposition communiste en U.R.S.S. (Paris, 1969). Also see C. Gerstenmaier, The Voices of the Silent (New York, 1972) (German 3d ed.; Stuttgart, 1971).

85. The association succeeded in publishing the election platform, but the authorities prevented its distribution. The Central Election Commission refused to accept the association's list of candidates. See Socialistiskas revolucijas uzvara Latvija 1940 gada; Dokumenti un materiali (Riga, 1963), pp. 225, 310, 427; cf. also pp. 417, 430, 495. The election platform of early July 1940 appears in Report of the Select Committee to Investigate Communist Aggression and the Forced Incorporation of the Baltic States into the USSR (83d Congress, 2d Session; Washington D.C., 1954) (reprinted 1972 by Wm. S. Hein & Co., Buffalo, New York), p. 305. Also see B. Kalnins, Latvijas socialdemokratijas piecdesmit gadi (Stockholm, 1956), pp. 282-284; V. Miller, Sozdanie sovetskoi gosudarstvennosti v Latvii (Riga, 1967), pp. 383-386; and A. Berzins, I Saw Vishinsky Bolshevize Latvia (Washington D.C., 1948), pp. 33-37; A. Komsars, Universitas [New York], no. 21 (1968), pp. 8-11; R. Turks, ibid., no. 25 (1970), pp. 30-32. Cf. note 132 below.

86. On the history, significance, and utilization of samizdat, see the pioneering study of A. Boiter, Samizdat: Primary Source Material in the Study of Current Soviet Affairs (mimeo., 1972), portions of which are published in Osteuropa, XXII (1972), 645-654, and in The Russian Review, XXXI (1972), 282-285. For an evaluation of samizdat practice in the USSR, see an article by a samizdat author; French transl.: S. Topolev “Du samizdat au kolizdat,” Cahiers samizdat [Brussels], no. 5 (January 1973), document no. 22 (mimeo.). A Soviet comment on samizdat appears in Visty z Ukrainy, June 15, 1972, p. 4, summarized in ABSEES, III (1972), 50.

87. Article 96, Fundamental Principles of Civil Legislation; Article 475, RSFSR Civil Code.

88. Article 476, RSFSR Civil Code.

89. “If only specially invited or admitted persons can acquaint themselves with the work, it is not considered to have been published.” Works reproduced “as manuscripts,” on the other hand, are to be treated as published “in the majority of cases.” I. Gringol'ts, in Kommentarii k GK RSFSR (2d ed.; Moscow, 1970), p. 705. Also see note 88 above. Also see A. Makovskii, in Kommentarii k Grazhdanskomu kodeksu Moldavskoi SSR (Kishinev, 1971), p. 448; A. Bespalova, in Kommentarii k Grazhdanskomu kodeksu Kazakhskoi SSR (Alma-Ata, 1965), p. 544; O. Ioffe, Sovetskoe grazhdanskoe pravo (Leningrad, 1965), III, p. 39; N. Gusev, in Sots. zak., no. 11 (1968), p. 21; Kommentarii k Ugolovnomu kodeksu RSFSR (Moscow, 1971), p. 305.

90. Article 6, Universal Copyright Convention; and notes 113 and 114 below. Russian legal terminology distinguishes between “making a work available to the public” (proizvedenie vypushchennoe v svet) and “producing a work in print” (izdannoe proizvedenie). Cf. Articles 96-104, Fundamental Principles of Civil Legislation; Articles 475-495, RSFSR Civil Code. Both terms are commonly translated into English by the same word: published or publication.

91. See note 87 above.

92. On the civil law consequences of such violations, see Articles 499-500, RSFSR Civil Code; on criminal law consequences, see text after note 185 below. Cf. the Decree of the Plenum of the USSR Supreme Court, December 19, 1967, section 2. An author whose work in fact has been used may claim royalties and other copyrights regardless of whether a publishing contract has been concluded as required by law in Article 488 of the RSFSR Civil Code. Biull. SSSR, no. 1 (1968), pp. 13-16; see also the survey of court practice in copyright cases, ibid., no. 5 (1968), p. 43.

93. G. Kline, in Dissent in the Soviet Union (Hamilton, Ontario, 1972), p. 113 (Papers and Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Conference, Interdepartmental Committee on Communist Affairs, McMaster University) (mimeo).

94. Boiter, note 86 above, p. 3; cf. notes 107-119 below. Rules for bringing printed (6th ed.), pp. 243-252. Also see Article 78, RSFSR Criminal Code and Loeber, note 2 above, pp. 43-44.

95. Articles 5, 7, Decree regarding the Organization Bureau of the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party, February 16, 1925, reprinted in O partiinoi, note 12 above, pp. 127-130.

96. This and other examples are mentioned by V. Samarin, “Samizdat,” Zarubezh'e [Munich], no. 1 (1972), pp. 14-15.

97. Boiter, note 86 above, p. 3; M. Bourdeaux, Religious Ferment in Russia (London, 1968), p. 49. Cf. notes 121 and 146 below.

98. On the practice of engaging in private photographic work, see Loeber, note 2 above, p. 40. Cf. notes 153-154 below.

99. Article 96, Fundamental Principles of Civil Legislation; Article 475, RSFSR Civil Code.

100. V. Rassudovskii, “Nauchnaia informatsiia i avtorskoe pravo,” SGiP, no. 2 (1971), pp. 41-43; V. Rassudovskii, “Okhrana prav avtorov deponirovannykh rukopisei …” Sov. iust., no. 8 (1973), pp. 11-12. Cf. Decree of December 25, 1970, Voprosy, note 71 above, pp. 554-559.

101. Article 98, Fundamental Principles of Civil Legislation, as amended, note 3 above; Article 479, RSFSR Civil Code.

102. Cf. Articles 476, 479, RSFSR Civil Code; Decree of USSR Supreme Court Plenum, note 92 above.

103. Article 493, RSFSR Civil Code.

104. Article 5, Fundamental Principles of Civil Legislation; Article 5, RSFSR Civil Code. A. Eroshenko, Pravovedenie, no. 4 (1972), pp. 27-35; E. L. Johnson, “Abuse of Rights in Soviet Civil Law,” The Solicitor, I (1962), 320-335.

105. Preamble, Fundamental Principles of Civil Legislation; Preamble, RSFSR Civil Code.

106. In a 1930 decision, the RSFSR Supreme Court refused to recognize a copyright on musical works to be performed at religious rites. The Court reasoned that the labor expended on creating such works was not socially useful. Sudebnaia praktika RSFSR, no. 7 (1930), p. 1.

107. See note 92 above.

108. See text at note 26 above.

109. Soviet citizens are legally free to establish and maintain contacts with foreigners, whereas governmental agencies (and their officials) are under an obligation to observe certain procedures in making such contacts. See USSR Edict of December 16, 1947, on the Procedure for Relations of Governmental Agencies of the USSR … with Agencies of Foreign States, reprinted in: Sbornik zakonov SSSR, note 82 above, I, pp. 605-607.

110. See text at notes 18, 36, 40 and 41, above. Cf. the Open Letter of March 22, 1973, by Academician A. Sakharov and others to UNESCO protesting against the suppression of a free flow of literature by means of the foreign trade monopoly, translated in A Chronicle of Human Rights in the USSR [New York], no. 1 (1973), pp. 55-56; Cahiers samizdat [Brussels], no. 8 (April 1973), document no. 29; English summary in Human Rights in U.S.S.R. [Brussels], no. 4 (1973), pp. 2-3; German summary in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, March 27, 1973, p. 28.

111. Ugolovnyi kodeks Estonskoi SSR; kommentirovannoe izdanie (Tallin, 1968), p. 216. Cf. note 41 above.

112. See text at note 43 above.

113. Bodley Head Ltd. v. Flegon, The Times, November 11, 1971, p. 18; (1972) 1 Weekly Law Reports 680. The decision became final in December 1972. On the conflict of law aspects of the case see M. B. Nimmer, GRUR International (1973), pp. 302-306.

114. Landgericht Stuttgart, Partial Judgment of August 3, 1972, In Re Luchterhand Verlag GmbH v. Albert Langen-Georg Muller Verlag GmbH (file 17 o 325/71), p. 45. The decision was upheld by the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart in a judgment of February 21, 1973, which has been appealed to the Bundesgerichtshof. Cf. an article by Solzhenitsyn's lawyer in Zürich, Dr. Fritz Heeb, “Die unheberrechtliche Stellung eines sowjetisches Schriftstellers im Westen,” Neue Zurcher Zeitung, November 4, 1971. Solzhenitsyn commented on the cases as follows in an interview with a western correspondent on March 30, 1972: “through the pirate-edition of Flegon and Langen-Muller, they [meaning the security organs of the USSR—D. L.] wanted to undermine the system of international protection for my books.” Vestnik russkogo studencheskogo khrist'ianskogo dvizheniia [Paris], no. 103 (1972), p. 190; E. Tervooren, “Solsjenitzin en zijn auteursrechten,” Juridische Studentenblad Ars Aequi, XX no. 2, (1971), pp. 41-46.

115. See Bogsch, note 8 above, pp. 75-77; W. Bappert and E. Wagner, Internationales Urheberrecht (Munich-Berlin, 1956), pp. 69-71; A. Troller, Die mehrseitigen Völkerrechtlichen Vertrage im internationalen gewerblichen Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht (Basel, 1965), pp. 116-117.

116. Articles 2, 3(2), Universal Copyright Convention. For recent literature see H. Bloom, “The End of Samizdat. The Soviet Union Signs the Universal Copyright Convention,” Index [London], II, no. 2 (1973), pp. 3-18 and A. Bromberg, “ZSRR i Konwencja Genewska,” Kultura [Paris], (1973), pp. 92-100.

117. This right of an author is generally recognized. See Article 98, Fundamental Principles of Civil Legislation; Article 479, RSFSR Civil Code; Articles 1, 2, United States Copyright Law of 1947; Article 12, Urheberrechtsgesetz of 1965, Federal Republic of Germany. Cf. Article 3 (1), Universal Copyright Convention.

118. Article 101, Fundamental Principles of Civil Legislation; Article 506, RSFSR Civil Code.

119. The contract may be rescinded, for example, if the “control agencies” have ordered the work withdrawn from the book trade. In this event, publishing houses draw up a Protocol on the discontinuance of publication. See V. Leman, Ekonomika i planirovanie v knizhnom izdatel'stve (Moscow, 1963), pp. 224-226, 271. On the legal effect of suppression orders in relation to the author, publishing house, and book stores, see Loeber, note 2 above, pp. 38, 41. Also see text at note 96 above.

120. Article 509, RSFSR Civil Code; Articles 1, 4, standard publishing contracts for literary and political works, note 59 above.

121. See note 103 above.

122. Article 2, Soviet-Hungarian agreement, note 45 above; Article 2, Soviet-Bulgarian agreement, note 46 above.

123. Article 7, Soviet-Hungarian agreement, note 45 above; Article 7, Soviet-Bulgarian agreement, note 46 above. A working agreement has been concluded between competent Soviet and Hungarian agencies on the procedure for implementing the Agreement on November 30, 1967. See Kudriavtseva, note 6 above, p. 171 and V. Kamyshev, Izdatel'skii dogovor (Moscow, 1968), pp. 138-143.

124. Gringol'ts, note 89 above, p. 708. Similar views were expressed earlier by B. Antimonov and E. Fleishits, Avtorskoe pravo (Moscow, 1957), p. 164. A USSR decree of May 20, 1932, cited by Antimonov and Fleishits to support their view provides no limitation on legal capacity in publishing, however. The relevant part of the decree reads (Article 10): “It shall not be permitted to open stores and small shops by private tradesmen.” Text in Direktivy KPSS po khoziaistvennym voprosam (Moscow, 1957), II, pp. 348-349. Cf. V. Serebrovskii, in Sovetskoe grazdanskoe pravo (Moscow, 1938), II, p. 305; (1944 ed.), II, p. 240.

125. Article 9, Fundamental Principles of Civil Legislation; Article 10, RSFSR Civil Code.

126. Article 8, Fundamental Principles of Civil Legislation; Article 12, RSFSR Civil Code.

127. See text at note 102 above. On the question of exercising the right to publish, see M. Gordon, Sovetskoe avtorskoe pravo (Moscow, 1955), pp. 79-80, 127; Antimonov and Fleishits, note 124 above, pp. 46, 51-52; Kamyshev, note 62 above, p. 26; Loeber, note 2 above, p. 39.

128. Article 125, USSR Constitution.

129. “Svoboda slova i pechati,” Pravda, June 22, 1936, p. 1; reprinted in Fogelevich, note 20 above, (6th ed.), pp. 3-5. Cf. Krylenko (then People's Commissar of Justice of the USSR): “… the toilers of the Soviet Union will never permit that state property—the printing establishments … —are abused against the socialist society. The legal guarantees [freedom of opinion and freedom of the press—D. L.] do not apply, therefore, to enemies of socialist society.” N. V. Krylenko, Rechte und Pflichten des Sowjetburgers (Moscow, 1936), p. 31; id., Stalinskaia konstitutsiia v voprosakh i otvetakh (Moscow, 1936), p. 56.

130. A. Ia. Vyshinskii, The Law of the Soviet State (New York, 1948), p. 617; transl. from Sovetskoe gosudarstvennoe pravo (Moscow, 1938), p. 555.

131. Article 58, sec. 10, made counter-revolutionary agitation and propaganda a crime; it corresponds, with some changes, to Article 70 of the 1960 RSFSR Criminal Code now in force. See note 185 below.

132. Protocol no. 6 of the Electoral District Committee in Virumaa, Estonia, July 11, 1940; German transl.: Dokumente zu den kommunistischen “Volkswahlen” in Estland, Vierteljahrhefte für Zeitgeschichte, II (1954), 113-114. See note 85 above.

133. A. Lepeshkin, Kurs sovetskogo gosudarstvennogo prava (Moscow, 1961), I, p. 516. Also see V. M. Safronov, in Kurs sovetskogo gosudarstvennogo prava (Moscow, 1971), p. 224.

134. RSFSR Edict of October 27 (November 9), 1917, reprinted in Dekrety sovetskoi vlasti (Moscow, 1957), I, pp. 24-25; English transl. by J. Meisel and E. Kozera (eds.), Materials for the Study of the Soviet System (2d ed.; Ann Arbor, 1953), pp. 23-24.

135. Article 9, USSR Constitution; also see Article 115, RSFSR Civil Code.

136. J. N. Hazard, The Soviet System of Government (4th ed.; Chicago, 1968), p. 57.

137. Article 4, USSR decree confirming rules for the registration of non-cooperative artisans and handicraftsmen of 1949. The official text was not published; cf. note 25 above. As amended on April 22, 1958, Article 4 is reprinted in Grazhdanskii kodeks RSFSR (Moscow, 1961), pp. 166-173, and excerpted in Sbornik, note 32 above, pp. 170-174. The rules were amended by USSR decrees of September 8, 1953, April 22, 1958, and June 3, 1963. Excerpts in English are published in J. N. Hazard, I. Shapiro, and P. B. Maggs, The Soviet Legal System (2d ed.; Dobbs Ferry, 1969), pp. 89-90, 167-169, 170. Also see the criminal sanctions provided in Article 162 of the 1960 RSFSR Criminal Code and in other union republic codes. See note 186 below.

138. Article 4(b), Polozhenie, note 52 above, and also of the RSFSR and Latvian SSR statutes. Article 1, USSR Decree of July 12, 1952, as amended April 1, 1965. SP SSSR (1965), no. 10, item 73, amendment item 1. The police also are charged with verifying the observance of the procedure for opening polygraphic enterprises. See Article 5(a), “Polozhenie o Ministerstve vnutrennykh del RSFSR,” April 25, 1961, SP RSFSR (1961), no. 12, item 47, reprinted in Sbornik normativnykh aktov po sovetskomu administrativnomu pravu (Moscow, 1964), pp. 504-508; Article 5(10), “Polozhenie o Ministerstve vnutrennykh del Estonskoi SSR,” February 13, 1973, Vedomosti ESSR (1973), no. 11, item 93. The procedure for opening printing establishments in the Ukrainian SSR is regulated by a Decree of July 23, 1952, cited in KhS URSR (Kiev, 1964), VII, p. 291.

139. Decree of the Lithuanian SSR of January 4, 1945, Khronologicheskoe sobranie zakonov Litovskoi SSR … (Vil'nius, 1957), I, pp. 106-107. The right to own typewriters was granted only to persons needing them professionally; typewriters owned by other persons were subject to expropriation (iz”iatie) against compensation. Similar decrees may have been enacted also in other union republics. But in 1932 typewriters could be acquired and used in the RSFSR without a permit: Article 25, RSFSR Instruction of September 23, 1932. Fogelevich, note 20 above, 4th ed., pp. 164-171.

140. Article 1, RSFSR Decree of June 26, 1932, reprinted in KhS RSFSR (Moscow, 1949), III, pp. 399-310; English transl. in Hazard, Shapiro, and Maggs, note 137 above, p. 89. Article 20 of an Instruction issued on the basis of this Decree (note 139 above) obliges agencies entitled to acquire duplicating machines to use them “only for purposes indicated in the permit” and to keep them in a place “guaranteeing the impossibility of their use not in conformity with such aims.” A plan for the activities of the special department of the Latvian State University prepared in late 1940 or early 1941 allegedly envisaged the following instruction: “The Special Department shall be obliged: … to control all multiplying facilities and the carrying out of all photographic and printing works.” A German text appears in Bolschewistische Kulturpolitik (n.p., n.d.), p. 94; the book evidently was published by German occupation authorities in the Baltic States ca. 1942 on the basis of captured Soviet documents. The use of photocopying machines in the Soviet Union is restricted also at present, as reported by H. Smith, “Copiers Multiply Soviet Censors' Task,” New York Times, January 20, 1973, p. 10.

141. The decree was not included in the SS RSFSR but is treated as being in force and has been commented on by: A Lunev, Administrativnaia otvetstvennost' za pravonarushenniia (Moscow, 1961), p. 142; Iu. Kozlov, Upravlenie v oblasti administrativno-politicheskoi deiatel'nosti sovetskogo gosudarstva (Moscow, 1961), p. 40; id., Sovetskoe administrativnoe pravo; osobennaia chast' (Moscow, 1964), pp. 268-269; M. Eropkin, Upravlenie v oblasti okhrany obshchestvennogo poriadka (Moscow, 1965), p. 110; V. Sorokin, in Sovetskoe administrativnoe pravo; osobennaia chast' (Leningrad, 1966), p. 270; N. Shchelokov, Sovetskaia militsiia (Moscow, 1971), p. 44.

142. Sources as in note 138 above.

143. RSFSR Decree on private publishing houses, December 12, 1921, SU RSFSR (1921), no. 80, item 685. Cf. a circular letter of the RSFSR People's Commissar of Justice on the procedure for publishing collections of statutes by private publishers, March 13, 1923, in Sbornik tsirkuliarov Narkomiusta RSFSR za 1922-1925 g.g. (Moscow, 1926), p. 480. It orders publication of such collections to cease and requires a permit for similar publications in the future.

144. The decree cited in note 143 above has not “formally been repealed,” but has not been included “since 1929 in collections of laws on the press.” Antimonov and Fleishits, note 124 above, p. 29. By “1931-1932 private publishing had ceased altogether.” B. Martynov, in SGiP, no. 4 (1941), p. 31.

145. RSFSR Decree of August 3, 1961, SP RSFSR (1961), no. 21, item 98; Decree of the Latvian SSR of January 29, 1962, summarized in Kommentarii Ugolovnogo kodeksa Latviiskoi SSR (Riga, 1967), p. 346; Latvian edition: (1965), p. 314.

146. RSFSR Decree of April 7, 1960, reprinted in Sbornik, note 32 above, pp. 128-129; English transl.: Hazard, Shapiro, and Maggs, note 132 above, pp. 87-88. Decree of the Estonian SSR of February 23, 1973, Vedomosti ESSR (1973), no. 9, item 69. On the criminal law aspects of using broadcasting facilities, see the Decree of the Plenum of the USSR Supreme Court, July 3, 1963. Biull. SSSR, no. 4 (1963), p. 26; reprinted in Sbornik postanovlenii Plenuma verkhovnogo suda SSSR 1924-1970 (Moscow, 1970), pp. 515-516. Also see L. Popov and V. Afanas'ev, Sov. iust., no. 13 (1970), pp. 13-14; P. Taylor, “Underground Soviet Broadcasting,” The Russian Review, XXXI (1972), 173-174; Vedomosti SSSR (1972), no. 33, item 297.

147. F. Baranyi, Magyar Ifjusag, February 12, 1971.

148. Article 5, Polozhenie, note 52 above; on party control of the committee, see note 73 above.

149. Articles 22, 23, Instruction of August 13, 1971, on planning and preparing manuscripts for textbooks, reprinted in Biulleten' ministerstva vysshego i srednego spetsial'nogo obrazovaniia SSSR, no. 12 (1971), pp. 13-18. Also see Loeber, note 2 above, pp. 38-39.

150. Article 18, 1929 Statute on the Marx-Engels Institute, excerpted in Fogelevich, note 20 above (6th ed.), p. 115.

151. Decree of the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party, April 4, 1925, ibid., pp. 136-137.

152. Pertinent materials are collected in ibid., pp. 116-117. See note 143 above.

153. Photographic works may be protected by copyright. Article 475, RSFSR Civil Code. See note 98 above.

154. RSFSR Decree of February 23, 1929. SU RSFSR (1929), no. 21, item 226; reprinted in Fogelevich, note 20 above (4th ed.), p. 97; Administrativnoe zakonodatel'stvo (Moscow, 1936), pp. 232-233. Rules for producing films and for filming and photographing on the territory of the USSR have been referred to in legal literature, but remain unpublished. A. Bednenko, Administrativnopravovye voprosy organizatsii inostrannogo turizma v sotsialisticheskikh stranakh (avtoreferat diss.; Irkutsk, 1972), p. 24.

155. Article 3, Statute on TASS; reprinted in Fogelevich, note 20 above (6th ed.), pp. 153-155. A new Statute on TASS was confirmed in January 1972, but the text is not available, Izvestia, January 11, 1972, p. 6.

156. USSR Decree of November 10, 1939, SP SSSR (1939), no. 57, item 589, repealing a decree of September 13, 1933, reprinted in Fogelevich, note 20 above (6th ed.), pp. 158-159. The 1939 decree probably has been replaced by a recent statute whose text is not available. Cf. Al'favitno-predmetnyi ukazatel' k postanovleniiam … Latviiskoi SSR (Riga, 1960), p. 23. The legal deposit copy is discussed by Gorokhoff, note 20 above, p. 56.

157. Article 9, Decree of September 13, 1933, note 156 above.

158. Article 6, ibid.

159. RSFSR Decree of January 15, 1940, SP RSFSR (1940), no. 6, item 16; reprinted in KhS RSFSR (Moscow, 1941), VIII, pp. 518-519. The obligation pertains to publications of more than two pages. Fogelevich, note 20 above (6th ed.), p. 142. It probably has been replaced by a more recent enactment.

160. See text at notes 67-69 above.

161. Circular of November 1, 1928, reprinted in Fogelevich, note 20 above (4th ed.), p. 93.

162. Cf. Glavlit rules of July 31, 1936, in ibid. (6th ed.), pp. 137-144.

163. RSFSR Decree of June 6, 1931, SU RSFSR (1931), no. 31, item 273; reprinted in Fogelevich, note 20 above (6th ed.), pp. 124-125. English transl.: Hazard, Shapiro, and Maggs, note 137 above, p. 88. The decree was repealed in 1963. SP RSFSR (1963), no. 1, item 3, list no. 20.

164. Article 3, RSFSR Decree of June 6, 1931, note 163 above.

165. Article 126, USSR Constitution.

166. Articles 1, 2, Decree of the Central Committee of the CPSU, February 28, 1966, reprinted in O partiinoi, note 12 above, pp. 484-485.

167. Decrees of the Central Committee of the CPSU of February 11, 1959, and of February 28, 1966 (Article 4), reprinted in ibid., pp. 456-458, 484-485; Article 4, Polozhenie, note 52 above. Article 18 of a USSR decree of September 3, 1966, empowers the USSR Ministry of Higher and Specialized Secondary Education to grant publishing rights to universities. Biulleten' ministerstva vysshego i srednego spetsial'nogo obrazovaniia SSSR, no. 12 (1966), pp. 1-7; also, no. 6 (1967), pp. 7-14; no. 1 (1970), pp. 10-12; no. 5 (1971), pp. 13-15. Among other organizations being granted publishing rights is the Russian Orthodox Church. See Patriarkh Sergii i ego dukhovnoe nasledstvo (Moscow, 1947), p. 376; quoted by A. Bogolepov, Tserkov' pod vlast'iu kommunizma (Munich, 1968), p. 48; id., in Russkaia pravoslavnaia tserkov' v SSSR; sbornik (Munich, 1962), p. 140. The right to make proposals for the granting of publishing rights is vested in the State Committee of the USSR for Publishing if the rights are to be conferred on institutions subordinate to all-union agencies. The union republic state committees are entitled to make proposals when publishing rights are to be conferred on institutions subordinate to union republic agencies. This follows from the materials cited in note 52 above.

168. Decrees of the Central Committee of the CPSU of February 11, 1959, note 167 above; of February 28, 1966, note 166 above; and of December 25, 1970, reprinted in Voprosy, note 71 above, pp. 554-559. The latter decree instructs the USSR State Committee for Publishing to draft and confirm a Statute on the procedure for publishing printed works by ministries, committees, agencies, and organizations. The draft must be coordinated with two departments of the Central Committee of the CPSU; the Statute has not been published.

169. Decrees of the Central Committee of the CPSU of February 28, 1966, note 166 above; and of December 25, 1970, reprinted in Voprosy, note 71 above, p. 555. Also see V. Markus, Organizatsiia izdatel'skogo dela (Moscow, 1971), p. 59. In 1970 seventy-seven million copies of printed items were distributed free of charge, whereas 1200 million copies were produced for sale. Ibid., p. 22.

170. Decree of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of August 27, 1926, reprinted in O partiinoi, note 12 above, pp. 145-147.

171. Decrees of the CPSU of May 1924, December 1, 1924, February 16, 1925, June 1, 1925, August 14, 1925, August 27, 1926, January 18, 1931, April 16, 1931, August 19, 1932, August 30, 1958, and July 31, 1959; reprinted respectively in O partiinoi, note 12 above, pp. 111-112, 123-125, 130, 133, 137, 146, 173, 178, 183, 313, 333. Article 59, Rules of the CPSU. Cf. Voprosy partiinoi raboty, note 76 above, p. 333; G. Lunenko, Partiinaia organizatsiia i pechat' (Moscow, 1962), pp. 46-59; A. Kravchenko, Besedy o pervichnykh organizatsiiakh KPSS (Moscow, 1965), pp. 143-144; Spravochnik sekretaria pervichnoi partiinoi organizatsii (2d ed.; Moscow, 1967), pp. 95-98.

172. Article 11, “Polozhenie o profsoiuznom krasnom ugolke,” November 20, 1964, reprinted in Spravochnik profsoiuznogo rabotnika (Moscow, 1971), pp. 475-477. Cf. Spravochnik sekretaria, note 171 above, p. 92.

173. Decree of the Central Committee of the CPSU of March 6, 1966, reprinted in O partiinoi, note 12 above, p. 363.

174. Iu. Kozlov, Upravlenie v oblasti sotsial'no-kul'turnogo stroitel'stva (Moscow, 1963), p. 58.

175. Part 2, Chapter V, Section 4, 1961 Program of the CPSU. On state guidance see, for example, Article 4(5) of the Statute on the culture department of executive committees of a city or district Soviet in the Estonian SSR, Teataja (1972), no. 28, item 291; Articles 9 and 14, Decree of the Ukrainian SSR of February 14, 1958, on the development of national art, reprinted in KhS URSR, IV, pp. 374-377. See V. Khokhlov, Kul'turno-prosvetitel'naia deiatel'nost' mestnykh sovetov … RSFSR (avtoreferat diss.; Leningrad, 1969).

176. Decrees of the Central Council of Trade Unions of January 21, 1947, reprinted in Spravochnik profsoiuznogo rabotnika (2d ed.; Moscow, 1964), pp. 519-521; of July 15, 1966, in Spravochnik partiinogo rabotnika, VII, pp. 370-375; of May 21, 1968, in ibid., IX, pp. 453-459; of January 24, 1969, in ibid., XI, pp. 399-404; of August 19, 1970, in ibid., XI, pp. 429-431; also the Statute for houses of amateur art activities of trade unions of August 9, 1968, in Spravochnik profsoiuznogo rabotnika (Moscow, 1971), p. 473.

177. Article 2(a), Rules of the CPSU; Article 131, USSR Constitution; Articles 2, 51, Fundamental Principles of Labor Legislation; Article 127, 1971 RSFSR Labor Code; Article 22, 1965 Statute on the Socialist State Production Enterprise; Article 23, 1968 statute, note 54 above; Article 11, Model rules for internal labor order, July 29, 1972, reprinted in Biulleten' normativnykh aktov ministerstv i vedomstv SSSR, no. 1 (1973), pp. 3-10.

178. Article 5(1)(b), “Polozhenie o tovarishcheskikh sudakh RSFSR,” as amended. English transl.: Hazard, Shapiro and Maggs, note 137 above, pp. 18-23. This particular provision was added to the Statute on October 23, 1963. Vedomosti RSFSR (1963), no. 43, item 750. Similar statutes have been enacted in other union republics. Cf. Article 26, model rules, note 177 above.

179. Articles 128, 135, RSFSR Labor Code; Articles 21, 22, 24, model rules, note 177 above. Unauthorized use of bed linen belonging to a special school for personal needs may be sufficient grounds for dismissal, according to an RSFSR Supreme Court judgment of March 14, 1972. Biull. RSFSR, no. 10 (1972), p. 1.

180. Article 94, 1960 RSFSR Criminal Code; also see note 178 above and text at note 186 below.

181. Article 88, Fundamental Principles of Civil Legislation; Article 444, RSFSR Civil Code.

182. Similar questions can arise if the driver of a state-owned automobile uses it for personal purposes without authorization. See the cases reported in Biull. SSSR, no. 5 (1960), p. 8; Biull. RSFSR, no. 12 (1972), p. 11. Cf. also examples mentioned in Kommentarii k Ugolovnomu kodeksu RSFSR (Moscow, 1971), p. 241; Ugolovnyi kodeks Estonskoi SSR, note 111 above, p. 254; and an unpublished decision of the Latvian Supreme Court summarized by O. Zonne, Disciplinara un materiala atbildiba (Riga, 1969), p. 77. Cf. Article 117, RSFSR Labor Code.

183. The corresponding provisions in the criminal codes of the other union republics for the pre-1960 period are collected in Sistematizirovannyi tekst obshchesoiuznykh ugolovnykh zakonov i ugolovnykh kodeksov soiuznykh respublik (Moscow, 1948), pp. 470-471, 473-474.

184. On the application of these provisions by courts, see the following commentaries to Articles 224 and 225 of the 1922 RSFSR Criminal Code: D. I. Kurskii (preface), Ugolovnyi kodeks (Moscow, 1924), pp. 757-770; S. Askarkhanov et al. (comps.), Ugolovnyi kodeks RSFSR (Moscow, 1925), pp. 370-374. On Articles 185 and 190 of the 1926 RSFSR Criminal Code, see: M. N. Gernet and A. N. Trainin (eds.), Ugolovnyi kodeks; nauchno-populiarnyi prakticheskii kommentarii (Moscow, 1927), pp. 277-278, 281; A. B. Vroblevskii and B. S. Utevskii, Ugolovnyi kodeks; kommentarii (2d ed.; Moscow, 1928), pp. 380-381, 383; A. N. Trainin et al., Ugolovnyi kodeks RSFSR; kommentarii (2d ed.; Moscow, 1946), pp. 227-228.

185. For an English text of the 1960 RSFSR Criminal Code, see Soviet Criminal Law and Procedure: The RSFSR Codes, Introduction and analysis by H. J. Berman (2d ed.; Cambridge, 1972), pp. 125-202.

186. Cf. notes 137, 180 above. On the application of these provisions, see the commentaries cited in notes 145 and 182 above, and also in B. S. Nikiforov (ed.). Nauchnoprakticheskii kommentarii Ugolovnogo kodeksa RSFSR (2d ed.; Moscow, 1964).

187. Articles 65, 75, 76, RSFSR Criminal Code, together with a USSR decree of April 28, 1956, on news representing a state secret, in Gorokhoff, note 20 above, pp. 258-260.

188. The “preparation with the purpose of mass circulation or the mass circulation of addresses, letters, leaflets, and other documents calling for a non-execution of the legislation on religious cults” constitutes a violation of the laws on separation of church and state according to a Decree of the Presidium of the RSFSR Supreme Soviet of March 18, 1966, regarding the application of Article 142 of the RSFSR Criminal Code. See Vedomosti RSFSR (1966), no. 12, item 221. Also see Berman, note 185 above, p. 73.

189. Keeping such material is not itself a crime, but it may be considered “preparation” of circulation if the material was kept with the intent to circulate it. Kommentarii k Ugolovnomu kodeksu RSFSR (Moscow, 1971), p. 404.

190. This article and corresponding provisions in the criminal codes of other union republics are based on an all-union law of December 25, 1958, reproducing its provisions.

191. For Soviet commentary on these crimes published since December 1958, see L. Smirnov, SGIP, no. 2 (1959), pp. 84-85; V. D. Men'shagin and B. A. Kurinov, Nauchno-prakticheskii kommentarii k zakonu ob ugolovnoi otvetstvennosti za gosudarstvennye prestupleniia (2d ed.; Moscow, 1961), pp. 42-49; M. P. Mikhailov, in D. I. Bogatikov et al., Osobo opasnye gosudarstvennye prestupleniia (Moscow, 1963), pp. 117-133; M. V. Turetskii, Osobo opasnye gosudarstvennye prestupleniia (Moscow, 1965), pp. 72-79; Kommentarii Ugolovnogo kodeksa Latviiskoi SSR, note 145 above, pp. 177-179, 407-408 (Latvian edition: pp. 156-158); Ugolovnyi kodeks Estonskoi SSR, note 111 above, pp. 185-188, 451; Ugolovnyi kodeks Ukrainskoi SSR. Nauchnoprakticheskii kommentarii (Kiev, 1969), pp. 165-166, 403; M. P. Mikhailov and V. V. Nazarov, Ideologicheskaia diversiia—oruzhie imperializma (Moscow, 1969), pp. 41-47, 54-58; Kommentarii k Ugolovnomu kodeksu RSFSR (Moscow, 1971), pp. 167-169, 403-404. Non-Soviet works on the subject include: F.-C. Schroeder, in Der strafrechtliche Staatsschutz in der Sowjetunion, der Tschechoslowakei, Ungarn und Polen (Herrenalb, 1963), pp. 19-112 (71); P. B. Taylor, “Treason, Espionage, and Other Soviet State Crimes,” The Russian Review, XXIII (1964), 247-258; Berman, “The Writer and Soviet Law,” The New Leader, XLIX, no. 4 (1966), pp. 13-16; id., note 185 above, pp. 81-83.

192. Berman, note 185 above, p. 83. Also see note 191.

193. Ibid., pp. 81-82; and M. Hayward (ed.), On Trial: The Soviet State Versus “Abram Tertz” and “Nikolai Arzhak” (New York, 1966). P. Fitzpatrick, Virginia Journal of International Law, (1972), 390-412.

194. See Neue Zeit [Moscow], no. 21 (1971), pp. 10-12. Cf. also the case of Belgorodskaia, who was charged with distributing samizdat literature, Gerstenmaier, note 84 above, p. 161, and the case of Bukovskii, Brumberg, note 84 above, p. 117, 119. Of historical interest is a case decided by the Ukrainian Supreme Court in 1925. The court held that the preparation and posting of a notice about a forthcoming strike constitute the “fabrication and circulation of false rumors which may … discredit” the regime, but denied a counter-revolutionary purpose. Vestnik sovetskoi iustitsii, no. 15-16 (1925), pp. 617-618.

195. Uchitel'skaia gazeta, August 23, 1955; summarized in Bourdeaux, note 97 above, pp. 166-167. Cf. also the ensuing correspondence in The Times, September-December 1966, as well as a 1966 Ukrainian case reported in Pravda Ukrainy, October 4, 1966, mentioned by Bourdeaux, pp. 168-169.

196. B. Kalnins, “Die Aburteilung von Dr. Fr. Menders in Riga”, Baltisches Recht, no. 11 (1970), pp. 2-6; Briviba [Stockholm], nos. 7, 8, 10 (1969).

197. Pertinent information can be found in the Khronika tekushchikh sobytii, a Soviet samizdat journal appearing 1968-1972 (no. 1-27). Issues 1-11 are translated in Reddaway, note 84 above. The tradition of the Khronika is continued by A Chronicle of Human Rights in the USSR [New York], no. 1 (1973), cf. pp. 7-14. The text of a judgment of the Supreme Court of the Uzbek SSR of 1970 in a case of preparing and circulating politically harmful materials is published in the samizdat journal Obshchestvennye problemy [Moscow], no. 14 (1971), reprinted in Vestnik russkogo studencheskogo khristianskogo dvizheniia [Paris], no. 106 (1972), pp. 334-338 (judgment of the Tashkent City Court acting as a court of first instance, ibid., pp. 320-327).

198. Berman, note 185 above, p. 83.

Postscript on Developments from June 1973 to May 1974

p. 85 (note 3) and passim. The copyright provisions of the RSFSR Civil Code have been amended by an Edict of March 1, 1974, Vedomosti RSFSR (1974), no. 10, item 286. English transl. of Edict of February 21, 1973 also in JPRS 58. 708, pp. 20-22.

p. 86 (note 9). Statement on the accession of the USSR to the Universal Copyright Convention: SP SSSR, (1973), no. 24, item 139 (with Russian text of the Convention).

p. 88 (note 20). An All-Union Copyright Agency was set up in Moscow on September 20, 1973. It acts as an intermediary in the conclusion of contracts with foreign firms for the use abroad of works by Soviet authors; it also contracts with foreign authors for the use of their works in the USSR: Pravda, September 21, 1973, p. 3 and Literaturnaya gazeta, September 26, 1973, p. 3; English transl.: CDSP, XXV (1973), no. 38, pp. 11, 20.

p. 89 (note 24). An USSR Edict on Taxes on Royalties for … Works Published … Abroad was adopted on September 4, 1973, Vedomosti SSSR, (1973), no. 37, item 497; English transl.: JPRS 60.474, pp. 6-10; abstract: CDSP, XXV (1973), no. 38, p. 20.

p. 89 (note 26). A Czechoslovak author has to “transfer the right to use his work to another country through a socialist organization assigned to do so” (Article 20, Copyright Act of 1965, English transl.: Bulletin of Czechoslovak Law, 24 [1966], no. 3, pp. 201-216). Similar procedures are envisaged in Hungary (Ministerial Decree of 1969, quoted by Kolossváry I., Die Rechtsstellung des Ausländers in Ungarn [Baden-Baden, 1973] p. 63) and in the GDR (Article 2, Regulation of 1966, Gesetzblatt der DDR, 1966 Part II p. 107). On the publication abroad of works by Polish authors see Nawrocki B., Copyright 9 (1973) pp. 38-45.

p. 89 (note 27). The Soviet government regulated the rights and duties of the All-Union Copyright Agency (note 20, above), in a Decree, a summary of which appeared in Izvestiia of December 27, 1973. The Decree itself has not been published (cf. SP SSSR [1974], no. 1 and 2 covering the respective period and see note 25 above). The Decree describes the procedure for the transfer by a Soviet author of his right to use a work abroad. It is noteworthy in this context that an invention made in the Soviet Union may be patented abroad only after it has been filed for registration in the USSR (Statute on Inventions of 1973, Article 104, SP SSSR, [1973], no. 19, item 109).

p. 89 (note 28). An agreement providing for the publication of a Soviet work abroad is “invalid under Soviet law” if the author bypasses the All-Union Copyright Agency, believes Boris Pankin, the Head of this Agency (New York Times, May 8, 1974, p. 6). Article 49, RSFSR Civil Code regulates the “invalidity of a legal act concluded for a purpose contrary to the interests of the state and society.”

p. 93 (note 52). A new Statute of the USSR Committee for Publications was adopted on October 19, 1973, SP SSSR (1973), no. 23, item 130.

p. 94 (note 54). See also the Model Statute on the Rights and Functions of Employees of Publishing Houses of 1971, in: Trud i zarabotnaia plata rabotnikov izdatel'stv i redaktsii zhurnalov (Moscow, 1973), pp. 67-97 at p. 78.

p. 95 (note 66). See also the collection of official materials Trud i zarabotnaia plata …, note 53 above.

p. 97 (note 77). As of May 1974, one ruble equaled about ＄ 1.40.

p. 99 (note 84). Samizdat materials are reproduced in the West in Sobranie dokumentov samizdata, distributed by Ohio State University, Center for Slavic and East European Studies, 1972—and in Materialy samizdata (Munich), 1972—a weekly mimeographed bulletin. For a list of Samizdat materials see A Chronicle of Human Rights in the USSR (New York), no. 5-6 (1973), pp. 70-82 and Radio Liberty, Register of Samizdat (2nd ed.; Munich, 1974).

p. 104 (note 110). For a further statement of Sakharov and others of January 5, 1974 see Khronika zashchity prav v SSSR (New York), no. 7 (1974), pp. 23-24.

p. 118 (note 182). See also an article on the unauthorized use of motor-vehicles in Za rulem, 1973, no. 2, pp. 24-25; English transl.: JPRS 59.223, pp. 31-33.

p. 119 (note 186). See also the case of Kostenkov charged with illegal publishing activity, reported in Pravda, May 8, 1973, p. 3; English transl.: CDSP, XXV (1973), no. 19, p. 22.

p. 120 (note 190). According to an unconfirmed report the Soviet government adopted an unpublished Decree on December 25, 1972 which makes it a crime to meet foreigners for the purpose of giving them information about the USSR which is false or slanderous (Soviet Analyst, II, no. 13 [June 21, 1973], p. 4 col. 2). Cf. note 109 above.

p. 120 (note 191). Add: Kliagin V., Otvetstsvennost' za osobo opasnye gosudarstvennye prestupleniia (Minsk, 1973), pp. 171-198.

Recent Publications (1973-1974)

Baumgarten J., US-USSR Copyright Relations Under the Universal Copyright Convention (New York, 1973), IX, 173 pp. Boguslavskii M., Voprosy avtorskogo prava v mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniiakh (Moscow, 1973), 336 pp.

Cohen J., Hoe werkt de Russische auteursrechtelijke censuur in het Westen, Nederlands Juristenblad, 48 (1973), pp. 671-674, cf. also pp. 320-321, 483.

Feldbrugge F., De auteursrechtelijke positie van Russische samizdat literatuur, Nederlands Juristenblad, 48 (1973), pp. 667-670.

International Committee for the Defence of Human Rights in the USSR. White Paper on Accession of the USSR to the Universal Copyright Convention (Brussels, 1973).

McClellan, [Statement on Bill Introduced to Amend the U.S. Copyright Act], Congressional Record, Senate (Washington, D.C.), March 26, 1973, pp. S 5613-S 5614.

P. E. N. American Center. The U.S.S.R. Accession to the Universal Copyright Convention. A Chronicle of Events and Documents … Compiled and Ed. by St. Congrat-Butlar (New York, 1973), 38 pp.

Taylor P., Recent Developments in Soviet Copyright Policy, Russian Review, 32 (1973), pp. 421-425.