The court refused the artist Chizhikov in authorship of the talisman of the Olympiad-80

The Presnensky District Court of Moscow yesterday completely rejected the claim of the artist Viktor Chizhikov, the author of the symbol of the Moscow Olympics-80, who challenged the illegal use of his Olympic bear by the NTV television company. Mr. Chizhikov was outraged by the appearance of a sports mascot without his knowledge in the series of programs “Russians do not give up!”, and he demanded 20 million rubles from NTV. compensation. The television company proved that an object that the artist did not create in the program flew in the program.

The subject of the proceedings was the program of the programs "Russians do not give up!" about unusual people from the Russian hinterland, which has been shown on NTV since October 2008. Two seasons of the program aired on television. The symbol of the cycle was the Olympic bear, which in each episode flew around the country accompanied by a voiceover by artist Yuri Yakovlev, and was also used as the program’s logo. The author of the mascot, artist Viktor Chizhikov, was outraged that the Olympic bear was used without his knowledge and “flew to strippers who have nothing to do with sports, village fools and criminals.” After the first releases of the program, the artist contacted NTV, however, according to his representative Larisa Neskorozhenkova, “he received a response in the spirit of ‘Prove that you are the author’.” Mr. Chizhikov appealed to the Presnensky court, demanding 15 million rubles from the television company. for violation of their copyrights and another 5 million rubles. compensation for moral damage (Kommersant reported this on October 22, 2009).

During the proceedings, NTV representatives referred to the Olympic Charter, which provides for the transfer of property rights to mascots to the International Olympic Committee (IOC). In support of NTV's position, a representative of the Russian Olympic Committee spoke in court, saying that the rights to Olympic symbols belong to the IOC. However, Mr. Chizhikov’s representatives did not actually challenge the rights of the IOC. According to Mrs. Neskorozhenkova, the artist did indeed allow the organizing committee of the 1980 Olympics to use his mascot, but only for a period of four years, after which he did not issue similar permits to anyone. Larisa Neskorozhenkova also presented to the court an explanation from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, from which it followed that the charter does not have the status of an international treaty, it “is only declarative in nature, does not have the force of law and Chizhikov is not obliged to comply with it.” Judge Tatyana Pechenina added the Foreign Ministry's explanation to the proceedings, as well as 24 discs with recordings of the programs.

However, representatives of NTV told the court that they did not use Viktor Chizhikov’s drawings at all, but took a three-dimensional image of a toy bear, which, in turn, was commissioned by a little-known artist. Therefore, NTV considered that Mr. Chizhikov’s rights were not violated. As a result, Judge Pechenina completely rejected the claim. Ms. Neskorozhenkova is especially outraged by the fact that the court did not recognize the violation by the television company of even Viktor Chizhikov’s moral rights, according to which the artist should have at least been mentioned in the credits of the program. The reasoning part of the court decision must be ready within ten days.

NTV declined to comment. Viktor Chizhikov said Kommersant that he was not outraged by the decision, because he was already used to it: “For thirty years of the sale of T -shirts with a bear on the new Arbat, they did not expel the ruble, so I am not surprised.”

Managing partner of the law firm Tulubyeva, Osipov and Partners, Irina Tulubyeva, attributes the court’s decision to the fact that the artist “could not prove his rights to the product made by NTV.” “The court did not see a connection between Viktor Chizhikov’s bears and NTV, and it was the author who had to prove such a connection. It was necessary to apply for an examination that would compare the two images for identity. The court does not have special knowledge in the field of fine art,” explains expert. Representatives of Mr. Chizhikov said that they were preparing to appeal the court’s decision.

Alexander Voronov

Affectionate Misha flew past the money