In the law, as in other domains, the predominance of English is both a gift and a curse. Ours is an age of global rapprochement, at least in the literal sense, brought about by technology. As national borders become increasingly porous, the possibility of conversations across legal cultures has never been more interesting or relevant. In no area of the law could this be more apparent than in relation to intellectual property, which is intimately connected with technological developments. English, as a shared language, makes these conversations possible – however halting or incomplete they might be – promising to enrich the understanding of law on all sides.

For a large part of the past century, the cold war between the Soviet Union and the United States and Russia’s continued refusal to join the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Berne Convention), the predominant international copyright agreement, have raised complicated questions concerning the protection of Russian authors in the United States.1 The case that has received considerable attention in intellectual property literature is Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc (Itar-Tass).2 Filed in the mid-1990s, shortly after Russia’s accession to the Berne Convention but before its admission to the World Trade Organization (WTO), this case covered not only choice-of-law questions in the intellectual property field but also the interrelationship between domestic law and international treaties. Less frequently explored, however, are the rich comparative lessons that the case has provided on the development of intellectual property law and policy in Central and Eastern Europe.