Polish IP & IT law » copyright law

Archive for: copyright law

It is out now!

July 14th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

My dear readers. All P.T. readers. I would like to draw your attention to the International Free and Open Source Software Law Review. It is an absolutely free publication on legal aspects of free and open source software. The first issue is available for download (both HTML or PDF versions) directly from its website. There, you’ll find couple of interesting articles. In particular, I recommend Shane Coughlan’s and Andrew Martin Katz’s article titled “Introducing the Risk Grid“. I will also immodestly mention that from the very beginning I was involved in the creation of the IFOSS L. Rev. and I am currently a member of the editorial board. Of course, I invite everyone to write for his periodical. Please do not hesitate to submit your papers.

There is another “Polish theme” in the IFOSS L. Rev. Great logotype and covers for the journal were created pro bono by my good friend Tomasz Politański.

Copyrights in fonts typefaces

July 3rd, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

Legendary slanting font, in which the famous logo of Solidarity was written, is still eagerly used, but usually in a different context than its creator Jerzy Janiszewski would want to.

This characteristic typography was used, inter alia, in a new action of Gazeta Wyborcza newspaper called “We, narkopoles”. In turn, the word “equality” but with the rainbow flag, instead of white and red, was put on the cover of the last issue of a well-know homosexual magazine “Replika”. Solidaryca also appeared in advertisements, on boxes of cigarettes and bottles of vodka.

- These are cases of abuse and feeding on the values which the logotype commemorates. It leads to the devaluation of that symbol – says Janiszewski, who now lives in Spain. – I did not transfer my economic authors’ rights to anyone.

SOLIDARNOŚĆ

If you looking for more details, please read Rzeczpospolita’s article entitled “Solidaryca w służbie narkopolaków“.

Fonts’ typefaces can be protected as industrial designs in the Republic of Poland based on the provisions of the Polish Act of 30 June 2000 on Industrial Property Law – IPL – (in Polish: ustawa Prawo własności przemysłowej) of 30 June 2000, published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 2001 No 49, item 508, consolidated text on 13 June 2003, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 119, item 1117, with later amendments.

Article 102
1. Any new and having individual character appearance of the whole or a part of a product resulting from the features of, in particular, the lines, colours, shape, texture or materials of the product and its ornamentation, shall constitute an industrial design.
2. Any industrial or handicraft item, including, in particular, packaging, get-up, graphic symbols and typographic typefaces, but excluding computer programs, shall be considered to be a product.

However, the US law provides quite different approach. I wrote about that issue in my old post entitled “Music Videos And Typography“.

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“.

What does the Court cite?

June 3rd, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Court of the Republic of Poland in a judgment of 27 February 2009, case file V CSK 337/08, said that as a subject of copyright law have been considered (…) train timetables, cookbooks, patterns and forms. The Court quoted the judgement of the Supreme Court of 8 November 1932, Zb OSN 1933, poz.7.

The problem is that the judgment that was issued on 8 November 1932 does not exist. As Krzysztof Siewicz noted in his comment available at Piotr Waglowski’s website the same signature is given by Professors Barta and Markiewicz, in Commentary published by ABC (argument 26 on article 1, p. 75, Ed III).

Copyright law, case II CR 244/71

April 29th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish Supreme Court has repeatedly indicated that the copyrighted can be any work, if – at least in its form – it shows some elements of creativity, even the minimum. See for instance a judgement of the Supreme Court of 31 March 1953, case file II C 834/52. As a subject of copyright law have been considered health and safety instructions – judgement of the Supreme Court of 23 July 1971, case file II CR 244/71, unpublished, instructions for operating a machine – judgement of the Supreme Court of 25 April 1969, case file I CR 76/69, published at OSNCP 1970, No. 1, item 15, train timetables, cookbooks, patterns and forms – judgement of the Supreme Court of 8 November 1932, Zb OSN 1933, poz.7.

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

Punchline and erratum

April 13th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

In a previous post, I posted a short music theme for the article titled “Sampling and scratching in US copyright and Polish law: a comparative analysis“.

I feel obliged to mention that the “copyright infringement” sample was provided by our reliable friend Artur Zawiasiński. I wish the publisher followed our sggestions and embedded all samples in the PDF version of the article. You may download them separately for now. We will work on the 2.0 version of this article.

The aforementioned article ends like this.

Since the Polish courts have not produced any decisions concerning the use of scratches and samples, a legal analysis of such activities can be, as in this article, performed only on the basis of abstract regulation. In the light of on one hand the heritage of American case law and on the other of the analysis of the Polish law, there seems to be one controversial conclusion: the Polish quotation right provides for the ability to use samples without the consent of copyright owners of original works if some conditions are met. Nowadays music (or broadly speaking all kinds of creativity) increasingly often turns to the past and remakes, sometimes truly creatively, the existing works. Paradoxically, the Polish author’s rights law with its general provision in Article 29, section 1 and some imperfections in it notwithstanding, is more realistic and addresses creators’ needs better than the American copyright law.

Categories: Polish law | US law | copyright law.

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.

Do not argue about copyrights and trade marks or you land in jail

March 14th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

Indeks 73 is a new initiative created and developed on the national level in Poland at the beginning of 2008 by the people of cultural professions. Our aim is to protect freedom of artistic expression and scientific researches guaranteed by the constitution
(…)
Freedom of artistic creation and scientific research, as well as free access to cultural goods, is guaranteed in Article 73 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, and on the international level – in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (article 27).

This was for the begining. You may find more interesting news at indeks73.pl website.

On 10 March, Waldemar Tatarczuk (artist, performer) has sent an alert to the net about the arrest of Zygmunt Piotrowski. Piotrowski is a recognized theoretician on individual concepts of avant-garde art, he combines the art with social and political reality. The artist works at the crossroads of philosophy, visual arts and science (he developed many technical patents).

Indeks 73 learned that Piotrowski’s detention was caused by his refusal to pay the court’s ordered fine to Lew Rywin. Piotrowski argued that his property will not be disclosed to such criminals as Rywin. Of course, the court did not agree with his statement and at the request of Heritage Films (owned by Lech Rywin) ordered Zygmunt Piotrowski to serve 8 days of detention. He should be released on 13 March 2009.

The dispute between Piotrowski and Lech Rywin (Heritage Films) is pending for more than ten years. It has started as a copyright dispute regarding Zygmunt Piotrowski’s creation of word-figurative logotype “Heritage”. Piotrowski created this logo for the Polish company Heritage Promotion of Music and Art. It presented the state court porch of Elizabeth and Christopher Penderecki with “heritage” word included. In 1991, Lew Rywin used this logotype to build the image of the new company, Heritage Films. Zygmunt Piotrowski has brought a copyright infringement case and won. The court’s judgment has forced the Heritage Films company to remove the sign.

Update on March 14, 2009.
It was late when I did the post so I forgot to add something important. Indeks 73 did not learn what was the exact reason that Piotrowski was obliged to pay a fine for Heritage Films.

And as regards courts’ judgments about trade marks including “heritage” word, the Supreme Administrative Court of the Republic of Poland (SAC) has issued two opinions. I have no specific information about civil courts’ rulings. The SAC in a judgment of 14 December 2001, case file II SA 3446/01, clearly ruled.

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.

Just to remind you. Judgments of the Court of Justice of the EC in case C-3/03 P, Matratzen Concord GmbH vs. Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), [2004] E.C.R. I-3657 and C-421/04, Matratzen Concord AG vs. Hukla Germany SA, [2006] E.C.R. I-2303, have been issued couple of years later. ;)

One may say, that the SAC in a judgment of 12 March 2003, case file II SA 1867/02, provided very obvious holding.

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.

Copyright law, copyright levies

March 10th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita published a recent article entitled “Authors rights contra the presumption of innocence“. It concerns a case between Polish company Euroimpex (one of the largest importers of photocopying equipment) and KOPIPOL (a collecting society) that was argued before the Court of Appeal in Wrocław. The Court asked the Polish Constitutional Tribunal to issue an opinion regarding legal questions and the interpretation of constitutionality of article 20(1)(ii) of of 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.

1. The producers and importers of tape recorders, video recorders and other similar apparatus, or blank material for the recording of works with the aid of such apparatus for personal and private use, and also of reprographic apparatus shall be obliged to pay, for the benefit of the creators and performers of the said works and of the producers of phonograms and videograms, fees in an amount not exceeding 3% of the selling price of the said apparatus and material.

ii. The amount of the fees referred to in paragraph 1 shall accrue:
(1) to the creators for 50%,
(2) to the performers for 25%,

The money goes to two Polish collective societies which should transfer them to creators and publishers.

This reminds me about really funny story that happened to my friend. Piotr Waglowski has sent a letter to one of such organizations asking about the money he should receive for being an author and for publishing a book and a website. You may ask what was so hilarious about the answer he has received from KOPIPOL?

The fees and salaries collected by us (with a large resistance of those obliged to bear them) on behalf of the creators are relatively low. Given the very large number of entities qualified there is a risk of atomization of remuneration payable to entitled individuals.

All creators are equal, but some creators are more equal than others.

Copyright law, case V CSK 337/08

February 28th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Court in its judgment of 27 February 2009, case file V CSK 337/08 ruled that the specification of essential terms of the contract as defined by the public procurement system can be deemed as copyrighted work.

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

Categories: Art. 1 ARNR | Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights | Polish Supreme Court | copyright law | copyrightable subject matter.

“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.

Just register or do not sue

December 23rd, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

Well… one could came to such conclusions reading article available at informationweek.com website regarding the case Apple, Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 3:08-CV-03251 (N.D.Cal., July 3, 2008). But according to Apple’s statements and pleadings the company is the legitimate owner of, among others, United States copyright registrations TX4-669-971 (Mac OS); TX5-401-457 (Mac OS X); TX6-849-489 (Mac OS X Leopard Version 10.5); TX4-991-736 (Mac OS X Server); and TX6-849-684 (Mac OS X Server Version 10.5 Leopard). Anyway, I’d like to recommend you to read my post entitled “Copyright registration” as a quick reminder for all my readers about differences in copyright registration requirements or lack thereof.

Categories: 17 U.S.C. | US law | copyright law.

“Piracy” in Poland

December 22nd, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

By the term “piracy” I do not mean “an offense against humanity” as defined in U.S. v. Furlong, 18 U.S. 184, 5 L. Ed. 64 (1820) or that “the crime of piracy comprehends an act upon the high seas” (61 Am Jur 2d Piracy § 8). Although, I am being aware of the Oxford English Dictionary definitions such as “1603 T. Dekker Wonderfull Yeare sig. A4, Banish these Word-pirates (you sacred mistresses of learning) into the gulfe of Barbarisme” or “1668 J. Hancock Brooks’ String of Pearls (Notice at end), Some dishonest Booksellers, called Land-Pirats, who make it their practise to steal Impressions of other mens Copies” or “1703 D. Defoe True-born Englishman in True Collect. I. Expan. Pref. sig. B3v, Its being Printed again and again by Pyrates” or even “1706 D. Defoe Jure Divino Pref. p. xxvii, Gentlemen-Booksellers that threatned to Pyrate it, as they call it, viz. reprint it, and sell it for half a Crown”.

Anyway, according to the article which is available at onet.pl website, in Polish, the District Court in Koszalin has sentenced Łukasz D. – a former student of the Koszalin University of Technology (Politechnika Koszalińska) for a half year of imprisonment for computer “piracy”. The judgment was suspended for two years. The court found Łukasz D. guilty of the theft of 49 programs (of a total value of 180 709,66 PLN). Łukasz D. could even face 10 years in prison, but the court took into account his attitude during the investigation, and mitigated the sentence. The mitigation was also requested by the prosecutor in his final speech.

The case of 19 students from Koszalin who were involved in copyright infringement in P2P networks was widely publicized in Poland because the Police, Customs officers and private investigators from the Polish Society of the Phonographic Industry did not inform the vice chancellor of the Koszalin University of Technology (for my US English readers – the president) about their action which took place in university’s dorms. Academia authorities have deemed such operation as violation of the autonomy of universities and challenged the search action (which was performed without a proper search warrant, just on the basis of an official legitimacy of the Police) before the Public Prosecutor’s office. The Police search action was also officially condemned by the Conference of Rectors of Academic Schools in Poland and students organized pickets at the center of Koszalin. However, the Public Prosecutor’s office considered the complaint as unfounded and approved the dorms’ search.

Some stats

November 25th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

In Poland, all infringement cases in the field of industrial property, copyright and unfair competition are decided by civil courts. The number of cases in the first half of 2008, was as follows:
1. Circuit Courts (first instance):

Industrial Property, the courts’ statistic symbol 034 – total: 25 cases.
Copyright, the courts’ statistic symbol 033 – total: 117 cases.
Unfair competition, the courts’ statistic symbol 652 – total: 93 cases.
Cases under the scope of protection of trademarks and designs, the courts’ statistic symbol 653 – total: 89 cases.

2. Courts of Appeal (second instance):

Industrial Property, the courts’ statistic symbol 034 – total: 5 cases.
Copyright, the courts’ statistic symbol 033 – total: 34 cases.
Unfair competition, the courts’ statistic symbol 652 – total: 24 cases.
Cases under the scope of protection of trademarks and designs, the courts’ statistic symbol 653 – tota:l 24 cases.

Categories: Polish law | copyright law | industrial property law | unfair competition law.

I dubt their intelligence

October 26th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

According to the article available at onet.pl website, the Government of Donald Tusk has plagiarised a draft of the law which was prepared by the cabinet of Jarosław Kaczyński. Such claim was raised by members of Polish Parliament belonging to the opposition party called Prawo i Sprawiedliwość. The Polish portal site tvp.info has informed that PiS politicians do not exclude the possibility to claim damages in the court because of copyright infringement.

- We think about filing a complaint against Tusk’s government because it’s obvious plagiarism – says Joachim Brudziński, member of Parliament, representing PiS – It was very frequently that PO politicians appropriated our ideas, but this time, we are dealing with converting the project to the letter – he adds.

I added links and I will repeat it again for my English readers. 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, explicitly says.

Art. 4. The following shall not be protected by copyright:
1) normative texts and the drafts thereof,

Categories: Art. 1 ARNR | Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights | Polish law | copyright law | copyright misuse.