Abstract:
This study aimed to emphasize that a judicial ruling convicting a person for imitating intellectual works must be based on sufficient evidence to prove criminal intent. It should not be presumed for anyone who merely engages in the material act of imitating intellectual works, as such a presumption conflicts with the principle that a person is presumed innocent and acting in good faith. Moreover, the defendant accused of the crime of imitation, who claims good faith to counter this presumption without being based on justified reasons, usually fails to prove it. This is due to the inflexible stance of the French judiciary on the qualifying facts necessary to prove good faith. This issue mirrors the problem addressed in this study, which needed to be tackled by understanding the substance of this presumption and its consequences through an analytical study. This study critically examines the French judiciary's position on presuming criminal intent in those who imitate intellectual works.
Hence, this study concluded that the French judiciary's presumption has faced significant criticism from legal scholars. The main issue is that this presumption overturns the general rule of evidence, which holds that a person is presumed innocent and acts in good faith in their behavior. Moreover, it opens the door to inferring criminal intent merely based on the material element of the crime of imitation. Consequently, imitation could be treated as a crime of negligence rather than an intentional crime. So, this situation entails the danger of issuing unjustified convictions. Researchers believe that the knowledge required by law—as one of the two elements of criminal intent—to convict the defendant of imitation is certain knowledge, which cannot be presumed. A fundamental consequence of the presumption of the defendant's innocence is that anyone who claims otherwise must provide evidence to support their claim. When a defendant asserts good faith, the trial court must seek to establish criminal intent through its two elements (knowledge and will), rather than resorting to presumption. Resorting to presumption constitutes an infringement on personal liberties guaranteed by the constitution.
ملخص:
تقليد المصنفات الذهنية جريمة قصدية، وقد وضع القضاء الفرنسي-خروجا عن الأصل العام- قرينة على توافر هذا القصد بسلوك مادي معين، فيكون هذا القصد مفترضا في حق كل من يأتي هذا السلوك دون حاجة جهة الاتهام الى إقامة الدليل على وجوده، من هنا كانت الآثار المترتبة على التمسك بهذه القرينة تثير إشكالات من طبيعة نظرية وعملية في آن واحد، والمتهم بجريمة التقليد الذي يدفع بحسن نيته للتخلص من هذه القرينة- دون أن يكون مستندا إلى أسباب مبررة - يعجز عادة عن هذا الإثبات؛ وذلك للموقف المتشدد الذي اتخذه القضاء الفرنسي من الوقائع المؤهلة لإثبات حسن النية.