<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Polish IP &#38; IT law - copyright trademark computer internet telecomm &#187; broadcasting law</title>
	<atom:link href="http://rychlicki.net/en/issue/broadcasting-law/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://rychlicki.net/en</link>
	<description>Tomasz Rychlicki Intellectual Property Law Internet Law IT Law Computer Law</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 10:24:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Copyright law, case V CSK 373/10</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/08/05/6901/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/08/05/6901/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Aug 2011 23:27:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Art. 21¹ ARNR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 79 ARNR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[broadcasting law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[collecting society]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright Commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[permissible use of copyrighted materials]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[remuneration fee]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=6901</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Polish Filmmakers Association (SFP) sued a local cable television. The dispute concerned unpaid royalties, because this local TV rebroadcasted movies without a proper agreement with the Collecting Society. SFP is the only of such collection societies in Poland responsible for the management for movies and TV series. The court ordered the TV station to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2011/08/05/6901/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Broadcasting law, case II GSK 741/09</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/07/13/4987/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/07/13/4987/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 10:42:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[broadcasting law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Broadcasting Council]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Broadcasting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish institutions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Supreme Administrative Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=4987</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment case file II GSK 741/09 held that the Polish Act on Broadcasting – LOB – (in Polish: Ustawa o radiofonii i telewizji) of 29 December 1992, Journal of Law (Dziennik Ustaw) of 1993, No 7 item 34, consolidated text of 19 Novemver 2004, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/07/13/4987/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Advertising of pharmaceuticals, case GIF-P-R-450/147-3/ZW/09/10</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/04/28/3666/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/04/28/3666/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Apr 2010 12:02:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[advertising law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 17(1) LOB]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art. 52 PHL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[broadcasting law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Main Pharmaceutical Inspector]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pharmaceutical law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pharmaceutical products advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Broadcasting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Pharmaceutical Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=3666</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Main Pharmaceutical Inspector (MPI) questioned the legality of a few ads that were aired on different TV channels. See for instance the decision of the the Main Pharmaceutical Inspector of 4 March 2010, no. GIF-P-R-450/147-3/ZW/09/10, with regard to indication of a sponsor in &#8220;The producer of Guajazyl – cough syrup, invites to a forecast&#8221; [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/04/28/3666/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Advertising of pharmaceuticals, case VI SA/Wa 1758/09</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/01/06/1482/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/01/06/1482/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2010 14:34:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[advertising law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[broadcasting law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Main Pharmaceutical Inspector]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pharmaceutical products advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Broadcasting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Act on Pharmaceutical Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voivodeship Administrative Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=1482</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Polish court issued a first judgment regarding TV/radio sponsored programmes and advertising of pharmaceutical products. US Pharmacia Company prepared a TV spot that was aired with a TV show. The following statement appeared in the spot. The programme is sponsored by the manufacturer of Apap Noc medicine. Apap Noc – now also available in [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2010/01/06/1482/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Copyright law, case IV CSK 303/06</title>
		<link>http://rychlicki.net/en/2007/03/24/4718/</link>
		<comments>http://rychlicki.net/en/2007/03/24/4718/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Mar 2007 16:27:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tomasz Rychlicki</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Art. 108 ARNR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[broadcasting law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[collecting society]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright Commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polish Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[remuneration fee]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rychlicki.net/en/?p=4718</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court in its judgment of 3 January 2007 case file IV CSK 303/06 ruled that the Copyright Commision should also resolve disputes relating to the conditions of agreement between a cable operator and the collecting society on the use of copyrighted works or performances. This conditions are inter alia the method of calculation [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://rychlicki.net/en/2007/03/24/4718/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

