Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm

Archive for: database protection law

E-access to public information, case I OSK 175/13

May 25th, 2013, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 24 October 2012 case file II SAB/Wa 245/12 ruled that official topographic maps that were created and are kept in the databases by the Head Office of Geodesy and Cartography (GUGiK) are public information and must be made available on the request of the creator of dobraulica.pl website. GUGiK filed a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 5 April 2013 case file I OSK 175/13 anulled the contested judgment and ruled that the VAC incorrectly applied provisions of law, because in this case, the law on Geodetic and Cartography should be used as a legal basis for deciding the issue of public information and re-use.

E-access to public information, case II SAB/KR 152/12

November 28th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

In another case of Tomasz Zieliński, the author of transportoid.com service and software available for Android and Windows Phone that provides timetables of public municipal transport systems, the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Kraków in its judgment of 26 November 2012 case file II SAB/KR 152/12 ruled that source code that was used to create a website with public communication timetables is not deemed as public information.

E-access to public information, case II SAB/Kr 105/12

October 19th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

Tomasz Zieliński, the author of transportoid.com service and software available for Android and Windows Phone that provides timetables of public municipal transport systems, requested Miejskiego Przedsiębiorstwo Komunikacyjne (Municipal Transport Company) in Kraków to disclose public information in the form of electronic database of timetables. MTP refused and argued that the request goes beyond the the Act on Access to Public Information, apart from, the requested information is available on the website. Mr Zieliński filed a complaint on failure to act.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Kraków in its judgment of 18 September 2012 case file II SAB/Kr 105/12 agreed with Mr Zieliński and ordered MTP to take appropriate actions that were indicated in the request.

Database protection, case C‑138/11

August 3rd, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Court of Justice of the EU in its judgment of 12 July 2012 in Case C‑138/11 ruled that the activity of a public authority consisting in the storing, in a database, of data which undertakings are obliged to report on the basis of statutory obligations, in permitting interested persons to search for that data and/or in providing them with print-outs thereof does not constitute an economic activity, and that public authority is not, therefore, to be regarded, in the course of that activity, as an undertaking, within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU. The fact that those searches and/or that provision of print-outs are carried out in consideration for remuneration provided for by law and not determined, directly or indirectly, by the entity concerned, is not such as to alter the legal classification of that activity. In addition, when such a public authority prohibits any other use of the data thus collected and made available to the public, by relying upon the sui generis protection granted to it as maker of the database pursuant to Article 7 of Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, or upon any other intellectual property right, it also does not exercise an economic activity and is not therefore to be regarded, in the course of that activity, as an undertaking, within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU.

Database protection, case C‑604/10

March 13th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Court of Justice of the EU in its judgment of 1 March 2012 Case C-604/10 Football Dataco Ltd and Others v Yahoo! UK Ltd and Others held that Article 3(1) of Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases must be interpreted as meaning that a ‘database’ within the meaning of Article 1(2) of that directive is protected by the copyright laid down by that directive provided that the selection or arrangement of the data which it contains amounts to an original expression of the creative freedom of its author, which is a matter for the national court to determine. As a consequence:
– the intellectual effort and skill of creating that data are not relevant in order to assess the eligibility of that database for protection by that right;
– it is irrelevant, for that purpose, whether or not the selection or arrangement of that data includes the addition of important significance to that data, and
– the significant labour and skill required for setting up that database cannot as such justify such a protection if they do not express any originality in the selection or arrangement of the data which that database contains.
The Court also ruled that the Directive 96/9 must be interpreted as meaning that, subject to the transitional provision contained in Article 14(2) of that directive, it precludes national legislation which grants databases, as defined in Article 1(2) of the directive, copyright protection under conditions which are different to those set out in Article 3(1) of the directive.

Database protection, case C-46/02

February 7th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Court of Justice of the EU in its judgment of 9 November 2004 Case C-46/02 Fixtures Marketing Ltd v Oy Veikkaus Ab, held that the expression “investment in … the obtaining … of the contents” of a database in Article 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases must be understood to refer to the resources used to seek out existing independent materials and collect them in the database. It does not cover the resources used for the creation of materials which make up the contents of a database. In the context of drawing up a fixture list for the purpose of organizing football league fixtures, therefore, it does not cover the resources used to establish the dates, times and the team pairings for the various matches in the league.

E-access to public information, case I OSK 1727/09

September 4th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

A Polish law firm requested the Office of the Attorney General of the State Treasury to disclose public information in the form of all unfavorable for the State Treasury decisions of common courts and the Supreme Court along with their written justifications, issued in 2008, in cases of reprivatization, in which the State Treasury was represented by the Attorney General of the State Treasury. The President of the Office of the Attorney General of the State Treasury refused and argued that the requested information has the nature of information processed, therefore, the applicant must also show particularly important public interest. The law firm filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 23 September 2009 case file II SA/Wa 978/09 reversed the contested decision and held that legal commentators and the case-law formed the view that information deemed as simple is information that its substance does not change prior to its disclosure. However, the processed information is qualitatively new information that did not exist in the final content and form, although its source is in the materials held by the entity obliged to disclose such information. Thus, a fundamental feature that distinguishes processed public information from simple public information is that the authority does not posses processed public information, and for its production, it is necessary to carry out certain operations and activities on simple public information held by the entity, which results in the creation of the new quality of information. This new quality information is not only technically another compilation of existing information – another way of ranking previously held information, but different, qualitatively new information, usually leading to a specific assessment of the phenomenon, whether a particular interpretation, finding differences or similarities. In order to produce the processed information it is necessary to submit information under analysis, synthesis and produce in this way a new quality of information that does not result from the wording of any unit of information that was subject to processing, in general, it results from the sum of (a set of) individual pieces of information that has been processed. Therefore, the processed information does not results from a different order of possessed information, but from the new immanent quality that was obtained from the processing of new information. Only ranking and listing of judgments according to a specific criterion does not bear characteristic of processed information, but it has the nature of labor-intensive information, and creations of such information can only decide on the cost of production. Time-consuming, costly and organizational difficulties – technical or office that are associated with the creation and development of a public information cannot be treated as the exempt from the obligation to disclose of such information. Actions devoted to the necessary anonymization of the selected judgments do not constitute the production of processed information, because the anonymization process is a technical operation, as a result of which new information is not created.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 3 August 2010 case file I OSK 1727/09 dismissed the cassation complaint filed by the President of the Office of the Attorney General of the State Treasury.

Database protection, case V CSK 150/07

October 2nd, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Court in its judgment of 24 august 2007 case V CSK 150/07 held that an agreement on the use of the database is acceptable under the rule of contractual freedom, and it is similar to a typical license agreements. The contract for the work belongs to a group of contracts assigning ownership of the material components supplied by the contractor. If the work is deemed as the computer system then the contract transfers to the conctractor any copies of copyright works and databases that are not works and gives him the right to use them as intended, although copyright as a property right is not transferred to the contractor.

E-access to public information, case I OSK 190/06

September 4th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 6 June 2004, the editor in chief of one of the Polish magazines requested the Minister of Internal Affairs and Administration for access and disclosure of the list of entrepreneurs who have been authorized to carry out business activity in the detectives and investigation services. The spokesman of the Minister replied that the registry of companies to whom such permits and licenses have been granted, as a whole, constitutes a database within the meaning of Article 2(1) point 1 of the Polish of 27 July 2001 on Protection of Databases – APD – (in Polish: Ustawa o ochronie baz danych), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 128, item 1402 with subsequent amendments. The whole structure of the registry is subject to legal protection and the its individual availability must be understood as the possibility to receive information about a specific item of the database. There are no procedural obstacles that the interested parties may receive information or data about a particular entrepreneur to whom the permit has been issued. So, as a general rule, the access to information contained in the registry is open, it does not mean, however, that the entire database should be disclosed – as a legal structure. The magazine filed a complaint on failure to act. The case went through all instances.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 14 March 2006 case file I OSK 190/06 dismissed it the cassation complaint filed by the editorial team of the magazine.

Database protection, case C-203/02

November 7th, 2006, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Court of Justice of the EU in its judgment of 9 November 2004 Case C-203/02 The British Horseracing Board Ltd and Others v William Hill Organization Ltd, ruled that the expression “investment in … the obtaining … of the contents” of a database in Article 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases must be understood to refer to the resources used to seek out existing independent materials and collect them in the database. It does not cover the resources used for the creation of materials which make up the contents of a database.

The expression “investment in … the … verification … of the contents” of a database in Article 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC must be understood to refer to the resources used, with a view to ensuring the reliability of the information contained in that database, to monitor the accuracy of the materials collected when the database was created and during its operation. The resources used for verification during the stage of creation of materials which are subsequently collected in a database do not fall within that definition. The resources used to draw up a list of horses in a race and to carry out checks in that connection do not constitute investment in the obtaining and verification of the contents of the database in which that list appears.

The terms “extraction” and “re-utilisation” as defined in Article 7 of Directive 96/9/EC must be interpreted as referring to any unauthorised act of appropriation and distribution to the public of the whole or a part of the contents of a database. Those terms do not imply direct access to the database concerned. The fact that the contents of a database were made accessible to the public by its maker or with his consent does not affect the right of the maker to prevent acts of extraction and/or re-utilisation of the whole or a substantial part of the contents of a database.

The expression “substantial part, evaluated … quantitatively, of the contents of [a] database” in Article 7 of Directive 96/9/EC refers to the volume of data extracted from the database and/or re-utilised and must be assessed in relation to the total volume of the contents of the database. The expression “substantial part, evaluated qualitatively … of the contents of [a] database” refers to the scale of the investment in the obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents of the subject of the act of extraction and/or re-utilisation, regardless of whether that subject represents a quantitatively substantial part of the general contents of the protected database. Any part which does not fulfil the definition of a substantial part, evaluated both quantitatively and qualitatively, falls within the definition of an insubstantial part of the contents of a database.

The prohibition laid down by Article 7(5) of Directive 96/9/EC refers to unauthorised acts of extraction or re-utilisation the cumulative effect of which is to reconstitute and/or make available to the public, without the authorisation of the maker of the database, the whole or a substantial part of the contents of that database and thereby seriously prejudice the investment by the maker.

Database protection, case II CK 174/02

August 17th, 2005, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Court in its judgment of 7 January 2004 case file II CK 174/02 held that the acquisition of an electronic database and selling it to customers under a different name is deemed as an act of unfair competition, as defined in Articles 3 and 13 of the Polish Act of 16 April 1993 on Combating Unfair Competition – CUC – (in Polish: ustawa o zwalczaniu nieuczciwej konkurencji), Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 47, item 211, with subsequent amendments.

Article 3
1. The act of unfair competition shall be the activity contrary to the law or good practices which threatens or infringes the interest of another entrepreneur or customer.
2. The acts of unfair competition shall be in particular: misleading designation of the company, false or deceitful indication of the geographical origin of products or services, misleading indication of products or services, infringement of the business secrecy, inducing to dissolve or to not execute the agreement, imitating products, slandering or dishonest praise, impeding access to the market and unfair or prohibited advertising and organising a system of pyramid selling.

Article 13
1. Imitating a finished product by way of technical means of reproduction, to copy an external image of such product where it may mislead customers as to the identity of the producer or product, shall be the act of unfair competition.
2. Imitating functional features of a product, in particular its make, structure and form ensuring its usefulness shall not be deemed the act of unfair competition. Where the imitation of functional features of a finished product requires including its characteristic form, which may mislead customers as to the producer or product identity, the imitator is under obligation to adequately mark the product.

In 2001, the Republic of Poland has introduced to its legal system the Act of 27 July 2001 on Protection of Databases – APD – (in Polish: Ustawa o ochronie baz danych), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 128, item 1402 with subsequent amendments.

Database protection, case C-338/02

November 11th, 0207, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Court of Justice of the EU in its judgment of 9 November 2004 Case C-338/02 Fixtures Marketing Ltd v Svenska Spel AB, ruled that the expression “investment in … the obtaining … of the contents” of a database in Article 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases must be understood to refer to the resources used to seek out existing independent materials and collect them in the database. It does not cover the resources used for the creation of materials which make up the contents of a database. In the context of drawing up a fixture list for the purpose of organising football league fixtures, therefore, it does not cover the resources used to establish the dates, times and the team pairings for the various matches in the league.

Database protection, case C-444/02

June 7th, 0207, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Court of Justice of the EU in its judgment of 9 November 2004 Case C-444/02 Fixtures Marketing Ltd v Organismos prognostikon agonon podosfairou AE (OPAP), ruled that the term “database” as defined in Article 1(2) of Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases refers to any collection of works, data or other materials, separable from one another without the value of their contents being affected, including a method or system of some sort for the retrieval of each of its constituent materials. A fixture list for a football league such as that at issue in the case in the main proceedings constitutes a database within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Directive 96/9. The expression “investment in … the obtaining … of the contents” of a database in Article 7(1) of Directive 96/9 must be understood to refer to the resources used to seek out existing independent materials and collect them in the database. It does not cover the resources used for the creation of materials which make up the contents of a database. In the context of drawing up a fixture list for the purpose of organising football league fixtures, therefore, it does not cover the resources used to establish the dates, times and the team pairings for the various matches in the league.