The paper discusses plagiarism as a dual phenomenon: firstly, as deliberate appropriation of another person’s work, destroying the author’s right to recognition, and secondly, as unjustified public accusations of plagiarism, potentially causing equally severe damage to honour and business reputation. It is argued that plagiarism strikes at the “heart” of intangible personal rights, while unjustified accusations turn the concept of intellectual property protection into a weapon of defamation. It has been established that plagiarism and mere allegations of plagiarism are two different but equally harmful infringements of the author’s fundamental right to recognition and reputation. Therefore, they require a uniform and comprehensive approach to protection. This study criticises the traditional focus of courts on claims for the refutation of false information and proves the advantage of the declaratory action for recognition of copyright, accompanied by a request to prohibit further dissemination of harmful statements, as the most effective and procedurally economical way to restore the violated right. With reference to high-profile case No. 643/8610/23 and the comparative analysis of Ukrainian, German and European law, it is shown the way the proposed model addresses gaps in the distribution of the burden of proof and errors in determining the remedy. Clear criteria for forensic examination (identification of creative solutions, limits of fair use, cryptomnesia, parody, pastiche) and an algorithm of the author’s actions from the initial recording of the work to the lawsuit are suggested to minimise the risk of abuse by “plagiarism hunters”. The research aims not only to resolve a specific procedural dilemma, but also to enhance legal certainty and prevent legal proceedings from becoming a tool of reputational attacks.

Bibliography

Authored books

1. Bappet W, Wege zum Urheberrecht: Die geschichtliche Entwicklung des Urheberrechtsgedankens (Vittorio Klostermann Verlag 1962).

 2. Jung C G, Zur Psychologie und Pathologie sogenannter occulter Phänomene (Leipzig, Druck and Verlag von Oswald Mutze 1902).

3. Loewenheim U, Handbuch des Urheberrechts (3 Auflage, C.H.Beck Verlag 2021).

4. Luigi Guarnieri, La doppia vita di Vermeer (Mondadori 2012).

5. Schickert K, Der Schutz literarischer Urheberschaft im Rom der klassischen Antike (Mohr Siebeck Verlag 2005).

6. Benedisiuk I ta in, Posibnyk dlia suddiv z intelektualnoi vlasnosti (K.I.S. 2018) (in Ukrainian).

7. Biletskyi Ye, Biletska H, Sudova medytsyna ta sudova psykhiatriia: navch. posibnyk (Odisei 2008) (in Ukrainian).

8. Kolesnyk V, Sudova psykhiatriia: kurs lektsii (Iurinkom Inter 2000) (in Ukrainian).

Edited books

9. Peukert A, ‘§ 13 Anerkennung der Urheberschaft’, in: G Schricker, U Loewenheim (hrsg), Urheberrecht. Kommentar (6 neu bearbeitete Auflage. C.H.BECK Verlag 2020).

10. Schack H, ‘Wissenschaftsplagiat und Urheberecht’, in Dreier Th, Ohly A (hrsg), Plagiate. Wissenschaftsethik und Recht (Mohr Siebeck Verlag 2013) 81–89.

11. Schricker G (hrsg), Urheberrecht. Kommentar (3 neubearbeitete Auflage, C.H.Beck Verlag 2006). 12. Schricker G, Loewenheim U (hrsg), Urheberrecht. Kommentar (6 neu bearbeitete Auflage, C.H.BECK Verlag 2020).

13. Specht-Riemenschneider L, ‘§ 13 Anerkennung der Urheberschaft’, in: T Dreier, G Schulze (hrsg), Urheberrechtsgesetz. Kommentar (8 Auflage, C.H.BECK Verlag 2025) 295.

14. Waiblinger J, “Plagiat” in der Wissenschaft: Zum Schutz wissenschaftlicher Schriftwerke im Urheberund Wissenschaftsrecht (NOMOS Verlag 2011) 23–25.

15. Komarov V, ‘Vchennia pro predmet tsyvilnoho protsesualnoho prava’, Liber Amicorum Viacheslav Komarov (T Komarova red, Pravo 2020) (in Ukrainian).

16. Komarov V, ‘Tsyvilnyi protses u hlobalnomu konteksti’, Liber Amicorum Viacheslav Komarov (T Komarova red, Pravo 2020) (in Ukrainian).

17. Ohliad praktyky Kasatsiinoho tsyvilnoho sudu u skladi Verkhovnoho Sudu u spravakh pro zakhyst hidnosti, chesti ta dilovoi reputatsii (D Luspenyk uporiad, 2019) (in Ukrainian).

18. Kharkovskaia tsyvylystycheskaia shkola: osushchestvlenye y zashchyta prava yntellektualnoi sobstvennosty (Y Spasybo-Fateeva (red) Pravo 2018) (in Ukrainian).

19. Tsyvilnyi kodeks Ukrainy: naukovo-praktychnyi komentar. T. 2: Ob’iekty. Pravochyny. Predstavnytstvo. Stroky ta terminy. Pozovna davnist. Osobysti nemainovi prava fizychnoi osoby (I Spasybo-Fatieieva red, EKUS 2021) (in Ukrainian).

20. Tsyvilnyi kodeks Ukrainy: naukovo-praktychnyi komentar. T. 4: Pravo intelektualnoi vlasnosti (I Spasybo-Fatieieva red, EKUS 2023) (in Ukrainian).

Journal articles

21. Parkhomenko T, ‘Plagiarism as anthropological and social phenomenon’ [2018] 14 Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research 96.

22. Schricker G, ‘Anmerkung zu BGH, Urteil vom 3. Februar 1988, I ZR 142/86 – Ein bißchen Frieden’ [1988] 90(11) GRUR 815.

23. Taylor F K, ‘Cryptomnesia and Plagiarism’ [1965] 111(480) British Journal of Psychiatry 1111–1118.

24. Shtefan A, ‘Naukovyi plahiat: spivvidnoshennia vykorystannia idei ta formy vyrazhennia tvoru’ [2016] 4 Teoriia i praktyka intelektualnoi vlasnosti 70 (in Ukrainian).

25. Shyshka R, ‘Plahiat ta yoho proiavy i nebezpeky’ [2014] 4 Chasopys Kyivskoho universytetu prava 170–175 (in Ukrainian).

26. Yakubivskyi I, ‘Akademichnyi plahiat yak vyd porushennia akademichnoi dobrochesnosti’ [2023] 4 Nove ukrainske pravo 127–134 (in Ukrainian).

 Conference papers

 27. Semeniuk K, ‘Pravovi aspekty rozmezhuvannia plahiatu vid nekorektnoi tsytaty v sferakh vyshchoi osvity ta nauky’, Teoretychni pytannia yurysprudentsii i problemy pravozastosuvannia: vyklyky XXI stolittia. Kharkiv: tezy dop. uchasnykiv II Vseukr. nauk.-prakt. konf. (Kharkiv, 10 hrud. 2019 r.) (NDI PPSN 2019) 58–61 (in Ukrainian).

Theses

28. Ulianova H, ‘Metodolohichni problemy tsyvilno-pravovoho zakhystu prav intelektualnoi vlasnosti vid plahiatu’ (dys dokt yuryd nauk, 2015) (in Ukrainian).

Websites

29. Bischoff S, ‘The dawn of pastiche: First decision on new German copyright exception’ (June 7, 2023) <https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2023/06/07/the-dawn-of-pastiche-firstdecisionon-new-german-copyright-exception> (accessed 26.04.2025).

30. CSU: Guttenberg. Doktorvater weist Verantwortung von sich <https://www.sueddeutsche. de/bayern/csu-ermittlungen-gegen-guttenberg-1.1069061> (accessed 26.04.2025).

31. Lass mal die Hausaufgaben guttenbergen (05.12.2011) <https://www.spiegel.de/ lebenundlernen/schule/jugendsprache-lass-mal-die-hausaufgaben-guttenbergen-a-801863. html> (accessed 21.04.2025).