Polish IP & IT law » copyright infringement

Archive for: copyright infringement

Trade mark law, case II GSK 746/09

August 10th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

This is the continuation of a story decribed in “Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 2284/08“. The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 10 August 2010 case file II GSK 746/09 dismissed the cassation complaint brought by Zygmunt Piotrowski. The SAC held inter alia that the provisions of the TMA or the IPL do not provide in the course of the litigation proceedings lead by the Polish Patent Office, for the possibility to control the legality of the administrative proceedings that concerned the registration of a given trade mark. The legality of a decision granting the right of protection should be challenged in different proceedings.

Copyright law, case I ACa 206/10

June 26th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

Passa Company sued its competitor – Informator Handlowy Publishing House for the copyright infringement of personal and economic rights to a few ads that were published by Passa. Passa argued that Informator Handlowy copied, altered and distributed these advertising in its magazine, including photographs that were used by Passa.

Informator Handlowy argued that it has received all the published materials from its advertisers and they should be the defendants in this case. IH also argued that the advertisements at issue are not protected by copyright law, since they do not have the characteristics of the copyrightable work. They rely solely on the computer alteration, without the creative factor, and photographs (walls, roofs and chimneys) do not have the nature of the copyrightable work because they do not contain any creative element.

The District Court in Lublin ruled that photographs that were used in ads cannot be protected by provisions of the Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights – ARNR – (in Polish: ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych) of 4 February 1994, published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 24, item 83, consolidated text of 16 May 2006, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 90, item 631. However, the Court also held that these advertisements are subject to copyright protections as provided in article 1 of the ARNR because they meet the criterion of individuality (creativity of the plaintiff) and originality (they presented a visible margin of creative freedom, own personal choice of treatment of the subject). The Court held that the publication of advertisements without consent of Passa infringed its copyright. The Court also ruled that there were no conditions for the adoption of the liability of the defendant under the provisions of article 17 and 79 of the ARNR.

The Appellate Court in Lublin in its judgment case file I ACa 206/10 confirmed the findings of the court of first instance as to the copyright infringement of advertisings, but also pointed out that the District Court misinterpreted the law. The Court held that in a situation where the use of the work is illegal (there is no agreement to use copyrighted work or the provisions of fair use/allowed use cannot be applied), i.e. such use is made without the consent of the creator, his claims are set out in article 79 of the ARNR, including the right to equitable remuneration. A defendant in such case can be anyone who infringes on creator’s right. The Court emphasized that copyright protection vest in the owner against anyone who violates those rights. It did not matter that the advertisements were published on behalf of Informator Handlowy’s clients and that the infringer was in good faith or it has exercised due care. See also “Copyright law, case I ACa 2/96“

The Appellate Court found that the Court of First instance was wrong to rely on article. 42(2) of the Polish Act of 26 January 1984 on Press law – APL – (in Polish: ustawa Prawo prasowe), Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 5, item 24, with later amendmets.

The publisher and the editor is not responsible for the content of announcements and advertisings published in accordance with article 36.

That provision concerns the responsibility for the content and form of advertising, or infringement of the rights associated with breaking the rules of social coexistence, or any legal prohibition of advertising, such as alcohol, cigarettes, or the Act on Combating Unfair Competition. This provision does not cover the issue of infringement of copyright. See also “Press law, case V CK 675/03“.

The Appellate Court refered the case back for retrial because of the scope of procedural and material errors, including rejection of a motion for admission of an expert as to the estimate of the amount of compensation, the lack of assessment of all material.

See also “Polish regulations on copyright” and “Polish case law on copyright“.

Copyright law, case P 31/07

October 28th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

A person acting without the authorization of the rightholder, sold in order to gain material benefits, a copy of a design of single-family house XENIA. The design was owned by the Project Studio Archipelag. The District Prosecutor’s Office qualified his actions as a criminal offense under article 117(1) and article 115(3) of the Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights – ARNR – (in Polish: ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych) of 4 February 1994, published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 24, item 83, consolidated text of 16 May 2006, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 90, item 631, with later amendments.

Art. 115. 1. Any person who usurps the authorship or misleads as to the authorship of all or part of the work or performance of another shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of up to 3 years, restriction of freedom or a fine.
2. Any person who, without mentioning the creator’s name or pseudonym, discloses the work of another either in its original or in a derived form, or a performance, or who publicly distorts a work, a performance, a phonogram or videogram or a broadcast, shall be liable to the same penalty.
3. Any person who, with a view to making a material profit in a manner other than that specified in paragraph 1 or 2, infringes the rights of the author or neighboring rights within the meaning of Articles 16, 17, 18, 19 paragraph 1, art. 191, 86, 94 paragraph 4 or article 97 or without performing his duties as mentioned in article 193 paragraph 2, 20 paragraphs 1-4, 40 paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of up to one year, restriction of freedom or a fine.
(…)
Art. 117. 1. Any person who, without authorization or without respecting the conditions imposed, fixes or reproduces another’s work in its original version or in a derived form, or a performance, a phonogram or videogram or a broadcast, at the same time authorizing the disclosure thereof, shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of up to two years, restriction of freedom or a fine.
2. If the perpetrator of the infringement defined in paragraph 1 has made the infringement into a permanent source of income, or if he organizes or directs the offending activity referred to in paragraph 1, he shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of up to three years.

The Regional Court in Warsaw filed a question of law to the Constitutional Tribunal. The Court asked whether article 115(3) of the ARNR satisfy the requirement of preciseness, because it does not precisely define what behaviors are penalized by this provision. The court noted that the construction of the aforementioned provision is deemed by the Polish doctrine of law as defective, because the phrase “in a manner other than (…), infringes the rights” is devoid of characteristic of criminal offenses, which in turn makes it impossible to identify what behaviors shall be punished. This is contrary to a fundamental principle of criminal law – nullum crimen sine lege, which is also included in the article 42(1) of the Constitution. The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy.

Article 42
1. Only a person who has committed an act prohibited by a statute in force at the moment of commission thereof, and which is subject to a penalty, shall be held criminally responsible. This principle shall not prevent punishment of any act which, at the moment of its commission, constituted an offence within the meaning of international law
2. Anyone against whom criminal proceedings have been brought shall have the right to defence at all stages of such proceedings. He may, in particular, choose counsel or avail himself – in accordance with principles specified by statute – of counsel appointed by the court.
3. Everyone shall be presumed innocent of a charge until his guilt is determined by the final judgment of a court.

The Court also pointed out that the scope of criminal penalties set by provision of article 115(3) of the ARNR are in fact too broad and unduly limits the rights and freedoms. Furthermore, this provision is particularly generous to authors, performers, producers of phonograms and videograms and broadcasting organizations. Namely, any breach of their rights, creates criminal liability.

The Constitutional Tribunal in a decision of 21 October 2009, case file P 31/07, discontinued the proceedings because of the inadmissibility to issue a judgment. The decisions was based on the fact that the request contained defects in the form.

See also “Polish regulations on copyright” and “Polish case law on copyright“.

Copyright law, case I C 238/06

June 15th, 2009, Magdalena Gad

Such a conclusion stems from the sentence of the District Court in Tarnow of 20 December 2007 in re: Bochnia Independence Half-Marathon, case file I C 238/06.

Once upon a time… in the town of Bochnia, the so-called annual “Bochnia Independence Half-Marathon” used to take place. The event had been organized by the town and county authorities, in collaboration with the originator, one Zenon G., ever since year 2001. As the name indicates – the event’s primarily purpose was to celebrate the regained independence of the town of Bochnia and attracted a substantial amount of participants each and every year. The cooperation between the county and the “founding father” lasted for 4 happy years until it was broken off abruptly in 2005, due to a dispute that sparked over money. The authorities of Bochnia decided to organize the marathon on their own, without either the help or the permission of the originator. This understandably got the latter’s hackles up. The case ended up in court.

The route of the half-marathon IS an artistic work… The originator accused the county and the mayor of infringing his copyrights, claiming that both the initiative as well as the sole idea to organize the run, along with the manner in which the whole event was planned and arranged, met the prerequisites of an artistic work within the meaning of the polish copyright law, including the requirements of “creativity” and “individual character”.

The Court before which the case appeared, agreed with the Claimant’s theory and held that whenever talking about an artistic work within the meaning of Article 1 of the Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights – ARNR – (in Polish: ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych) of 4 February 1994, published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 24, item 83, consolidated text of 16 May 2006, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 90, item 631 with later amendments, “the entirety of features, in their original juxtaposition” should be taken into consideration. The Court emphasized that the fact that the commonly available elements had been used to create the work, does not necessarily mean that such work does not fall within the definition of an artistic work under the Article 1 of the AARNR. Although, as a matter of rule, such individual elements, in and of themselves, are never protected under the polish law, any and all compilations thereof do get protection so long the manner in which they’re segregated, arranged and presented demonstrates certain degree of originality and creativity. In the Court’s opinion the process of creating a work is a subjective one and is a “projection of the author’s imagination”. If the result of such process is original and unique enough (meaning it can be easily distinguished from any other results of human activity), then it shall be protected by law as an artistic work. This happens every time we deal with a specific configuration of elements, particularly relevant and accurate when juxtaposed with the intended result, where the author uses his unbound discretion to select and arrange such elements. To apply this to the case at hand, the Claimant’s idea to organize the half-marathon to celebrate the town’s Independence Day along with a scrutine preparation of the marathon race plan so as to obtain a special certificate of the Polish Athletics Association, meet the requirements of an artistic work, as understood by the Act. The fact that similar race events had been organized by the town of Bochnia long before 2001 remained without any effect on the Court’s conclusion.

In particular the Claimant prepared the race plan independently, selected the respective streets of the city in such a way that the whole race plan would constitute an entirety, had a proper paving, that is a hardened one, and so that there were no substantial differences in route gradient. The race plan should take account of the conditioning of the terrain, routes of public transportation and additionally the length of the route should equal half the length of the actual marathon. Moreover, the Claimant saw to it that the race plan be certified and the result, which the participants of the race would likely achieve, could be comparable to those achieved in other like races in the country. The race plan has been recorded in the form of a map with the marathon route marked on it and the race description attached. To plan the route in such, and not other, way determines its originality and creativity, since no one has ever before drew the route of the Bochnia race in such topographic layout.

Additionally, the Court pointed to the new categories of the participants (teachers and persons with disabilities), in comparison to those of the Bochnia races that were organized before 2001, highlighting at the same time that “the requirement of novelty is not an inevitable feature of an artistic work”. The Court rejected the argument that any other person could prepare the race plan of the said half-marathon and reiterated, after the Supreme Court, that “the possibility of achieving analogical results by two different authors does not suffice to deprive a particular act of creativity, of the individual character.”

To conclude, the District Court in Tarnow held that by organizing the “Bochnia Independence Half-Marathon” against the will of the originator and using the race plan prepared by him, the Respondents infringed upon the latter’s copyrights. Hence, the Claimant was entitled to the protection of the polish copyright law. In the Court’s opinion the Respondents should have never free ridden on someone else’s creative efforts and should have come up with their own idea and race plan.

See also “Polish regulations on copyright” and “Polish case law on copyright“.

Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 2284/08

April 20th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

In 1990 Zygmunt Piotrowski, well-know Polish graphic artist, created the logotype that depicted the porch with columns and attic finial of the Penderecki’s house in Luslawice with “heritage” inscription underneath. It was created for the Heritage Promotion of Music and Art company, whose founders were Elżbieta Penderecka and Janusz Pietkiewicz, later the director of the Polish National Opera. The logotype was adopted by the Heritage Films company that was founded in 1991 by Janusz Pietkiewicz and Lech Rywin after the withdrawal of Elżbieta Penderecka from Heritage Promotion of Music and Art company.

Heritage

At the request of Heritage Films, the Polish Patent Office in its decision of 27 June 2001, act signature Sp. 3/97 invalidated Heritage trade mark R-87806 belonging to the Piotrowski’s company. The Supreme Administrative Court in its decision of 14 December 2001, case file II SA 3446/01, confirmed the decision of the PPO, and dismissed the cassation complaint. The SAC clearly stated that the English word “heritage” is not a generic term for the services it was registered for, nor does it inform about its properties, quality or usefulness. Therefore “heritage” word can be used as a trade mark. It is not widely known or used in the market in order to identify such services as impresario and management consultancy services, the recruitment and placement of people for work for orchestra, soloists and artists of various disciplines of art. However the court held the the company name could be an obstacle to grant the rights of protection for a trade mark. It was unclear for the SAC why the PPO’s decision lacks the explanation as to why the picture of the porch with the HERITAGE inscription makes the right to the company name (which was existing from 1991) impossible to be applicable as grounds for the invalidation. If the reason would be the recognition of HERITAGE word to be protected by copyright law as the title, it should be better clarified. It was more necessary for the Court because the title could benefit from the copyright protection “only in very exceptional circumstances”.

The case went back to the PPO. On 17 April 2002 the Polish Patent Office invalidated of the right of protection of HERITAGE trade mark R-87806. One more time Mr Piotrowski filed a complaint before the Supreme Administrative Court. The SAC in its judgment of 12 March 2003, act signature II SA 1867/02, ruled that in accordance with the general rules, in the event of a collision between company name (the firm) and trade mark that has been registered with the “later precedence”, the priority shall be given to the right that existed earlier.

A year later, the Polish Patent Office registered Heritage Films trade mark R-151966. Zygmunt Piotrowski has requested the invalidation proceedings argued that the Heritage Films trade mark infringes on his personal and economic rights afforded by the copyright law regulations. The PPO rejected the request claiming the word “heritage” is a common expression and regardless of its importance for the artist it is not eligible for the copyright protection. Piotrowski filed a complaint against this decision. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 15 April 2009 case file VI SA/Wa 2284/08 ruled that the word “heritage” has no distinctive character and may be registered only in composition with some other description. And because it is not a subject of copyright protection the request had to be dismissed. Zygmunt Piotrowski has already announced he is going to file a cassation complaint.

Samples, scratches and the law

April 6th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

I wrote or should I say I’ve created an article together with Adam Zieliński and Grzegorz Czerkasow (DJ TWISTER) titled “Sampling and scratching in US copyright and Polish law: a comparative analysis“. It was published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2009 4: 353-359. You may listen to the main theme of our article or you may download it – it is MP3 file and it is an integral part of the article. :)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

This music work is released under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

“Pirate” politician

December 23rd, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

According to a recent article which is available at wp.pl website, in Polish language, the court trial of Tomasz Sz., former member of the Civic Platform and deputy mayor (or vicepresident if you prefer) of Kraków city will start in mid-January next year. Tomasz Sz. along with other former Kraków city’s managers is facing charges for mismanagement and corruption. The prosecutor also alleges that Tomasz Sz. in order to achieve financial gain, downloaded from the Internet illegally copied software for GPS devices without the consent of its producer and programs that were created for removing security measures implemented to prohibit the operation of software in full. The price of the aforementioned software (with maps included) was estimated at 850 PLN. The said software was found on the Parliamentary’s laptop assigned to the politician.

Now, what about Polish criminal law regulations on computer (and not only as you can see from the above example) software copyright infringement? There are proper provisions included in the Criminal Code (in Polish: Kodeks Karny) of 6 June 1997, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 88, item 553, with later amendments.

Chapter XXXV
Offences against Property
Article 278. § 1. Whoever, with the purpose of appropriating, wilfully takes someone else’s movable property shall be subject to the penalty of deprivation of liberty for a term of between 3 months and 5 years.

§ 2. The same punishment shall be imposed on anyone, who without the permission of the authorised person, acquires someone else’s computer software, with the purpose of gaining material benefit.

§ 3. In the event that the act is of a lesser significance, the perpetrator shall be subject to a fine, the penalty of restriction of liberty or the penalty of deprivation of liberty for up to one year.

§ 4. If the theft has been committed to the detriment of a next of kin, the prosecution shall occur upon a motion from the injured person.

§ 5. The provisions of § 1, 3 and 4 shall be applied accordingly to stealing energy or a card enabling the collection of money from a bank automatic cash dispenser [automatic teller machine].

There is also the Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights – ARNR – (in Polish: ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych) of 4 February 1994, published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 24, item 83, consolidated text of 16 May 2006, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 90, item 631, with later amendments.

Chapter 14
Criminal Liability
Art. 115. 1. Any person who usurps the authorship or misleads as to the authorship of all or part of the work or performance of another shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of up to 3 years, restriction of freedom or a fine.

2. Any person who, without mentioning the creator’s name or pseudonym, discloses the work of another either in its original or in a derived form, or a performance, or who publicly distorts a work, a performance, a phonogram or videogram or a broadcast, shall be liable to the same penalty.

3. Any person who, with a view to making a material profit in a manner other than that specified in paragraph 1 or 2, infringes the rights of the author or neighboring rights within the meaning of Articles 16, 17, 18, 19 paragraph 1, art. 19¹, 86, 94 paragraph 4 or article 97 or without performing his duties as mentioned in article 19³ paragraph 2, 20 paragraphs 1-4, 40 paragraph 1 or paragraph 2,
shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of up to one year, restriction of freedom or a fine.

Art. 116. 1. Any person who, without authorization or without respecting the conditions imposed, discloses another’s work in its original or in a derived form, or a performance, a phonogram or videogram or a broadcast shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of up to two years, restriction of freedom or a fine.

2. If the perpetrator of the infringement commits the acts specified in paragraph 1 with a view to deriving a material profit therefrom, he shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of up to three years.

3. If the perpetrator of the infringement defined in paragraph 1 has made the infringement into a permanent source of income, or if he organizes or directs the offending activity referred to in paragraph 1, he shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of six months to five years.

4. If the perpetrator of the infringement defined in paragraph 1 acts unintentionally, he shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of up to one year, restriction of freedom or a fine.

Art. 117. 1. Any person who, without authorization or without respecting the conditions imposed, fixes or reproduces another’s work in its original version or in a derived form, or a performance, a phonogram or videogram or a broadcast, at the same time authorizing the disclosure thereof, shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of up to two years, restriction of freedom or a fine.

2. If the perpetrator of the infringement defined in paragraph 1 has made the infringement into a permanent source of income, or if he organizes or directs the offending activity referred to in paragraph 1, he shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of up to three years.

Art. 118. 1. Any person who, with a view to making a material profit thereby, acquires the object constituting the material embodiment of a work, a performance, a program or a disclosed videogram, or reproduces it without authorization or without respecting the conditions imposed, assists in the sale of the said object, conceals it or assists in its concealment, shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of up to two years, restriction of freedom or a fine.

2. If the perpetrator of the infringement defined in paragraph 1 has made the infringement into a permanent source of income, or if he organizes or directs the offending activity referred to in paragraph 1, he shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of up to three years.

3. If the perpetrator of the infringement defined in paragraph 1 or 2 on the basis of surrounding circumstances should and can assume that the item was obtained through criminal act,
he shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of up to two years, restriction of freedom or a fine.

Art. 118¹. 1. Any person who manufactures the devices or their components intended for the unauthorized removal or circumvention of effective technical measures against playing, copying or reproduction of works or objects of related rights or any person who is making a turnover of such devices or their components, or advertise them for sale or lease,
he shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of up to three years, restriction of freedom or a fine.

2. Any person who owns, maintains or uses the device or their components, referred to in paragraph. 1,
he shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of up to one year, restriction of freedom or a fine.

Art. 119. Any person who obstructs or hinders the exercise of the right to monitor the use of a work or artistic performance, or who refuses to give the information provided for in Article 47, shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of up to one year, restriction of freedom or a fine.

Art. 120. (repealed)

Art. 121. 1. In the case of condemnation for an act referred to in Article 115, 116, 117 or 118 or article 118¹, the court shall decide to confiscate the objects resulting from the infringement, even if they do not belong to the perpetrator thereof.

2. In the case of condemnation for an act referred to in Article 115, 116, 117 or 118, the court may decide to confiscate the objects that served for the commission of the infringement, even if they do not belong to the perpetrator thereof.

Art. 122. The acts referred to in Articles 116, paragraphs 1, 2 and 4, 117, paragraph 1, 118, paragraph 1, 118¹ and 119 shall be proceeded against on a complaint from the injured party.

Art. 122¹ In cases of crimes referred to in Articles 115-119 a competent organization for collective management of copyright and related rights is also deemed as sufferer.

Art. 123. The Minister of Justice may specify by ordinance the regional courts within the jurisdiction of a particular voivoide court that are competent to hear cases relating to the infringements referred to in Articles 115-119.

Copyright law, case I ACr 590/95

September 12th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The No Electronic Theft Act (Pub. L. No. 105-147, 111 Stat. 2678 (Dec. 16, 1997)) introduced changes into 17 U.S.C § 101. Definitions.

The term “financial gain” includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.

In Poland, we have judgment of the Appellate Court in Warsaw of 12 December 1995, case file I ACr 590/95, published in OSA 1997, No 3, item 16, at page 32, where the Court held that benefits are generally a part of the net profit achieved as a result of copyright infringement. The benefits are also the savings on expenses for copyright fees, if the copyright infringement was based on the use of work without a proper remuneration. Interesting approaches in two different jurisdictions. I just need to remind you that the Republic of Poland is not a common law country.

See also “Polish regulations on copyright” and “Polish case law on copyright“.

Making available – is it infringement or not?

February 26th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The US case law. Atlantic Recording Corp. v. Brennan, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96276 (D. Conn. 2007).

At least one aspect of Plaintiffs’ distribution claim is problematic, however, namely the allegation of infringement based on “mak[ing] the Copyrighted Recordings available for distribution to others.” (Compl. 13.) This amounts to a valid ground on which to mount a defense, for “without actual distribution of copies… there is no violation [of] the distribution right.” 4 William F. Patry, Patry on Copyright § 13:9 (2007)

Judge Janet Bond Arterton presents further very interesting conclusions. I guess, it is even more important, if you look at the whole P2P end-users suits’ issue.

In other similar cases brought by these Plaintiffs and other record labels, individual defendants have raised a host of colorable defenses; but due to the varying procedural postures, the viability of these defenses has largely yet to be conclusively determined. The defenses which have possible merit include: (1) whether the amount of statutory damages available under the Copyright Act, measured against the actual money damages suffered, is unconstitutionally excessive, see UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Lindor, No. 05-1095, 2006 WL 3335048, at 3 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (finding the defense non-frivolous); Zomba Enters., Inc. v. Panorama Records, Inc., 491 F.3d 574, 588 (6th Cir. 2007) (rejecting the defense as to a 44:1 damages ratio); see generally Blaine Evanson, Due Process in Statutory Damages, 3 Geo. J. L. & Pub. Pol’y 601, 637 (2005);2 and (2) whether the Plaintiffs and their recording industry peers, by bringing infringement suits like this one, have engaged in anticompetitive behavior constituting copyright misuse, see Lava Records LLC v. Amurao, No. 07-321 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2007) (motion to dismiss copyright misuse counterclaim pending); Assessment Techs. of WI, LLC, v. WIREdata, Inc., 350 F.3d 640, 647 (7th Cir. 2003) (“The doctrine of misuse prevents copyright holders from leveraging their limited monopoly to allow them control of areas outside the monopoly.”).

What do we have in the Polish law with regard to the aforementioned problem? The Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights – ARNR – (in Polish: ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych) of 4 February 1994, published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 24, item 83, consolidated text of 16 May 2006, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 90, item 631 with later amendments.

Article 116.
1. Any person who, without authorization or without respecting the conditions imposed, discloses another’s work in its original or in a derived form, or a performance, a phonogram or videogram or a broadcast shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of up to two years, restriction of freedom or a fine.
2. If the perpetrator of the infringement commits the acts specified in paragraph 1 with a view to deriving a material profit therefrom, he shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of up to three years.
3. If the perpetrator of the infringement defined in paragraph 1 has made the infringement into a permanent source of income, or if he organizes or directs the offending activity referred to in paragraph 1, he shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of six months to five years.
4. If the perpetrator of the infringement defined in paragraph 1 acts unintentionally, he shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of up to one year, restriction of freedom or a fine.

Article 117.
1. Any person who, without authorization or without respecting the conditions imposed, fixes or reproduces another’s work in its original version or in a derived form, or a performance, a phonogram or videogram or a broadcast, at the same time authorizing the disclosure thereof, shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of up to two years, restriction of freedom or a fine.
2. If the perpetrator of the infringement defined in paragraph 1 has made the infringement into a permanent source of income, or if he organizes or directs the offending activity referred to in paragraph 1, he shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of up to three years.

Copyright law, case I ACa 668/06

July 18th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Appellate Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 14 May 2007, case file I ACa 668/06, published in the Jurisprudence of Appellate Courts (in Polish: Orzecznictwo Sądów Apelacyjnych) of 2008, No 12, item 39, p. 48, held that a trivial and simple language phrase being a short fragment of popular “Baśka” song and not being a citation or borrowed quote, that was included in the disputed advertisement, and at most being an inspiration and a reference to the distant associations, does not justify the assumption of copyright infringement.

The particular freedom concerns the advertising market. Indeed, such activity because of its short forms and the need for articulated skills must operate by abbreviations, references to familiar themes, characters and situations. An advertising is also a trade statement of informational nature, so it enjoys the right to freedom of expression and freedom of information. Restrictions of these rights may occur only to the extent necessary, by third party interests.

While preserving the principle of non-transferability of author’s personal (moral) rights, it is permitted to waive of the exercise of these rights by the creator, to third parties, including entrepreneurs.

Copyright law, case VI ACa 1012/05

April 22nd, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Appellate Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 14 March 2006, case file VI ACa 1012/05, published in the Jurisprudence of Appellate Courts (in Polish: Orzecznictwo Sądów Apelacyjnych) of 2007, No 12, item 36, p. 56, held that when it comes the legal protection of the author’s work it does not matter how the infringer came into the possession of the work, or how the work arrived to him, in particular, it does not matter that the work, which is the subject of the infringement came to the infringer as unsolicited correspondence sent electronically, the so-called spam. The protection is not only afforded to the well known creator, whose works are published in big numbers, but to anyone whose rights to a protected work have been infringed in any possible way, copyright law makes no distinctions in the field of protection depending on the value of the work and the recognition enjoyed by the author.

See also my posts entitled “Polish regulations on copyright” and “Polish case law on copyright“.

Copyright law, case II CKN 1289/00

December 26th, 2005, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Court – Civil Chamber in its judgment of 15 November 2002 case file II CKN 1289/00, published in the Supreme Court’s Bulletin of 2003, No 6, p. 7, the Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, the Civil Chamber (in Polish: Orzecznictwo Sądu Najwyższego Izba Cywilna) of 2004, No 3, item 44, p. 66, held that the development of a grid of entries, and a method how to define the composition of difficult entries (lexemes/lemmas) are the manifestation of creative activity of the authors of the Polish language dictionary within the meaning of article 1 of the Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights.

See also “Polish regulations on copyright” and “Polish case law on copyright“.