The story of the final appointment to be tried against Asghar Farhadi

According to Fars News Agency, On the eve of the release of the movie “Hero” in 1400, whispers of the theft of this work were heard in art circles. A student of Asghar Farhadi’s workshop at the Karnameh Institute claimed that the director had stolen the idea of ​​his documentary and the movie “Champion“It is nothing but a copy of the documentary”Won two heads, lost two heads». Simultaneously with the screening of this film in Tehran, Farhadi’s former student claimed that his teacher had made him a hero by seriously influencing his documentary, and that not only had his material and spiritual rights never been secured, but that he had witnessed other kinds of clashes. .

In the same days, the claims of this documentary filmmaker provoked the reaction of the Association of Documentary Writers on the one hand, and the reaction of Asghar Farhadi’s lawyer on the other. The Association of Documentary Writers wrote in a statement: Watch the documentary “Two Heads Win, Two Heads Lost”, which the director claims these days, the latest film by Asghar Farhadi, with a serious impact on his documentary made on YouTube, so that there will be a free space for discussion in this field soon.

Following the statement, Asghar Farhadi’s lawyer wrote a letter explaining the matter. He wrote in the letter: The subject was not discovered by this documentary maker, but it was widely published in the media long before him. Before making the film “Hero”, Ms. Masihzadeh, in the presence of two witnesses at the Bamdad Educational Institute on 05/15/2009, prepared a text in her own handwriting and signature, in which they explicitly stated that the idea and design of the documentary film ” “Two wins, two losses” belongs to Mr. Farhadi. The original of this document has been submitted to Bamdad Institute and a copy of the original has been submitted to the Cinema House and the Culture and Media Court (Fourth Branch).

Now, a few months after these conflicts, Azadeh Masihzadeh has told the media: After several months of careful consideration of Mr. Asghar Farhadi’s complaint about artistic theft (violation of material and intellectual rights) in the Tehran Culture and Media Court, the honorable investigator of the case document and the reasons provided for the crime and its commission by Mr. Farhadi were sufficient. “He has recognized and issued a final decision to bring a lawsuit against Mr. Farhadi.”

It should be noted that the summons is a decision that the judicial authority of the prosecutor’s office (prosecutor or investigator) issues a conviction after the perpetrator has been found guilty. After issuance Arrested for trial Or the same Put the culprit Case to make a decision and determine the amount of punishment to Criminal Court Two Will be sent. The legislator of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the new law uses the word summons instead of conviction, and this is different from the summons or detention order that leads to arrest or detention, and in fact The summons indicates a positive view of the crime by the prosecutor’s office and the investigating authority, and the result is that the case will continue and a trial will be held in the second criminal court.

In the final analysis, the result of the summons is that the accused must appear in the criminal court to investigate the charge and substantive defense and determine the amount of punishment.

Masihzadeh, in response to a question about what documents and reasons were the basis for issuing this agreement, said: Dozens of hours of video, recorded audio, testimonies of witnesses and informants, tens of pages of argument based on the contradictions between the statements of Mr. Farhadi, his lawyer and his witnesses and with the videos and audio, as well as changing the statements of each of them with their previous statements during the trial. , And finally the review of both films by the investigator and his knowledge and diagnosis were among the documents and reasons that were the basis for the issuance of the prosecutor’s office. The text of the issued order, which was prepared by the investigator on 12/23/1400 and was notified to the parties on 14/01/1401 after the approval of the head of the prosecutor’s office, was 18 pages.

A day after Masihzadeh and his legal advisor were reported in the media, Kaveh Rad, Asghar Farhadi’s lawyer, made remarks about the proceedings in the media court in an Instagram post.

He wrote: “Following the filing of three complaints against the film” Hero “with the allegation of copyright infringement and the claim of sharing in all domestic and foreign revenues of the film by Ms. Masihzadeh, as well as the complaint of a Shirazi prisoner claiming that the story of” Hero ” His reputation has been damaged. The honorable investigator of the case, in the order issued on March 14, 2014, did not accept Ms. Masihzadeh’s complaint regarding the sharing of the film’s revenues, as well as the complaint of Shirazi prisoner, and in this regard issued a restraining order and rejected both complaints. . »

Rad continues: “Regarding the accusation of ‘copyright infringement’, as in the defense bills and by mentioning the documents and opinions of prominent university professors in the field of copyright and the expert opinion of the Directors’ Association on this case and numerous similar domestic and foreign examples.” It was mentioned that the extent of the life of the Shirazi prisoner used in the film “Hero” with a free interpretation has the description of “disclosure” and was in the public domain due to the publication of its news in the mass media. No one can claim ownership of it. However, despite the emphasis of Article 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Judicial Procedure of the Culture and Media Court in similar cases, which are referred to experts in the field of culture and cinema for technical investigations, specialized cases, the honorable investigator considers cinema as a customary subject. “They did not refer the case to an expert, and not to a specialist, and without directing the opinion of experts in the field of cinema and copyright, they proceeded to issue it.”

At the end of his article, Asghar Farhadi’s lawyer emphasized: “Considering that the decision is not the final verdict of the court and is considered part of the trial process and in the continuation of the trial process, the case will be re-examined first in the second criminal court and then in the appellate court. “The higher stages, by referring the subject to expertise and attracting the expert opinion of professors and experts in the field of copyright, should not be violated.”

End of message //