Polish IP & IT law » Art. 1 ARNR

Archive for: Art. 1 ARNR

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.

Tax law, case III SA/Wa 1823/09

May 17th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Director of Tax Control Office in Warsaw ruled that the amounts of cash referred to as a “license to exercise the media rights” that were received by Legia football club from the Polish Football Association (PZPN), should be subject to tax on goods and services. Legia argued that such an agreement is not a contract of sale of rights, but the license agreement. However, the Director has found that the PZPN was the sole owner of intangible (economic and non econimic) property rights to the Polish national championships. To be the sole owner of the rights to football matches, PZPN had to acquire these rights. Therefore, Legia had to transfer these rights in some way, and that included proper fee.

The Director referred to a series of court decisions and pointed out that the sports’ event, namely football match does not constitute a work under 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. Legia as a football club does not take action on the creative nature. In the opinion of the Director it is not precluded that on the legal market may exists licensing agreements relating to intangible property, other than works defined in the ARNR.

Only article 43(1) pt 13 of the Act on Goods and Services Tax – GSTA – (in Polish: ustawa o podatku od towarów i usług) of 11 March 2004, Journal od Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 54, item 535, includes a reference to the ARNR.

Art. 43. 1. The following shall be exempted from the tax:
13) licensing or authorization to use a license, as well as assignment of the proprietary right within the meaning of the copyright law – in relation to computer programmes – free of charge, for educational facilities, referred to in paragraph 9.

That provision indicates the grant of the license or authorization to use copyright licenses and the transfer of property rights under copyright law (the ARNR). The absence of such references in other regulations means that the transfer of copyright may affect the rights of the author, or a sole owner of any intangible property, which does not have the characteristics of the copyrightable work. A similar situation will occur in the case of a license. Wherever there is no reference to copyright law (ARNR) it will also mean the license agreement for the use of intangible property other than the copyrightable work.

The Tax Office ruled that Legia transfered “media rights” to the PZPN, so the Association could fully manage of them, and so enter into an agreement concerning the disposition of such rights. The rate of the tax shall be 22% for such service.

The tax shall become chargeable upon the receipt of all or part of payment, though not later than upon the expiry of the due date specified in the contract or invoice – for the performance in the territory of the country of services referred to in article 27(4) pt 1 of the GSTA.

4. The provision of paragraph 3 shall apply to the following services:
1) sale of rights or granting of licenses or sublicenses, transfers and assignments of copyrights, patents, trademarks, letting joint trademarks or joint guarantee marks for use, or other related rights.

Legia did not agree with the decision of the Director of the Tax Control Office and filed a complaint to the administrative court. It was rejected by the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in a judgment of 26 March 2010, case file III SA/Wa 1823/09.

Tax law, case II FSK 1182/08 – computer software is not literary work

February 4th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

A Polish company was purchasing rights to use of computer software from companies established in Ireland. The company has paid royalties to non-resident as defined in article 3 of the Polish Act of 15 February 1992 on legal persons’ income tax – LPIT (in Polish: Ustawa o podatku dochodowym od osób prawnych), consolidated text published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 2000, No. 54, item 654, with subsequent amendments.

Art. 3. 1. Taxpayers, if their seat or head office is in the territory of the Republic of Poland, shall be liable to pay tax on the entirety of their income regardless of where they have been generated.
2. Taxapyers who do not have a seat or head office in the territory of the Republic of Poland, shall be liable to pay tax only on income generated in the territory of the Republic of Poland.

According to the Polish company, the payment of remuneration to a foreign contracting party for the use of computer software is not royalty and it is not subject to income tax in Poland. Accordingly, the Polish company is not obliged to pay the tax under article 21(1) of the LPIT.

Art. 21. 1. Income tax on revenues derived in the territory of the Republic of Poland by taxpayers, referred to in Article 3.2:
1) from interest, from copyright or related rights, from rights to inventions, trademarks and ornamental designs, including also from selling those rights, from fees for disclosing the secrets of a technique or a production process, for the use or the right to use industrial, commercial or scientific equipment, including vehicles, and for information related to the experience acquired in industry, commerce or science (know-how);

2) from charges for services in the area of performances, entertainment or sports, performed by natural persons domiciled abroad, and organized through natural persons or legal persons conducting commercial activities related to artistic, entertainment or sport events in the territory of the Republic of Poland;
(…)

2. The provisions of paragraph 1 shall apply with account being taken of double taxation avoidance agreements, to which the Republic of Poland is a party.

The Polish company is also not obliged to collect lump income tax as defined in article 26(1) of the LPIT.

Legal persons and unincorporated organizational entities and natural persons operating as entrepreneurs, who pay out the amounts due under titles specified in Article 21.1 and in Article 22, shall be obliged, as withholding agents, to collect, subject to paragraph 2, lump income tax on those payments as at the date thereof. However, application of the tax rate arising from a relevant agreement on avoidance of double taxation or waiving tax collection in accordance with such agreement is possible providing the place of residence of the taxpayer has been documented for tax purposes by a certificate (certificate of residence) issued by a competent tax administration authority.

The company asked the Polish Minister of Finance to issue the interpretation on the question whether if it pays to foreign contracting parties the fee for the right to use the software, is it obliged to collect a lump income tax, in accordance with article 12 of the Agreement of 13 November 1995 between the Government of the Polish Republic and the Government of Ireland on avoidance of double taxation and prevent tax evasion on income tax, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 2000, No. 53 item. 650.

In the order issues of 2 October 2007, the Minister of Finance did not agree with the aforementioned statement of the Polish company. By its decision of 21 October 2007, the Minister refused to annul the order of 2 October 2007. According to the Minister of Finance, international copyright agreements and treaties such as the Berne Convention and the TRIPS include the concept of computer programs being literary works which, in conqequence, allows to extend this rule to all norms/regulations of international law, including the provisions of article. 12, paragraph. 3a of the Agreement.

In the complaint brought before Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw, the company, requested the Court to annul the decision of the Minister of Finance because it was taken based on the misinterpretation of article 12 of the Agreement. In support of the complaint the Company claimed that the royalties associated with the purchase of software should be taxed in accordance with article 7, paragraph. 1 of the Agreement – only in the State where the entity obtaining such income as “business profits” is seated.

The VAC in a judgment of 4 April 2008, case file III SA/Wa 2153/07, agreed with the interpretation provided by the Polish company and annuled both the order and the decision. The Minister of Finance brought a cassation complaint to the Polish Supreme Administrative Court (SAC).

The SAC in a judgment of 13 January 2010, case file II FSK 1182/08 held that a computer program is not a literary work. Such interpretation based on 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, is the unacceptable extensive interpretation of the tax law.

Chapter 1
Subject Matter of Copyright
Art. 1.-1. The subject matter of copyright is any expression of creative activity having individual character and manifested in any material form, regardless of the value, intended purpose and manner of expression thereof (work).
2. The subject matter of copyright includes the following in particular:
(1) works expressed in words, mathematical symbols or graphic signs (literary, advertising, scientific and cartographic works and computer programs),

For this reason, the SAC ruled that the payment for the use of computer software is not subject to taxation of royalties that shall be paid at the source of income. This interpretation was made in accordance with the Polish-Irish Agreement.

Plagiarist pays

December 11th, 2009, Magdalena Gad

According to the recent article published by Polish newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza, entitled “Kurpisz ma wyrok za plagiat. I to z błędem!“, Kurpisz – Polish Publishing House from Poznan has been found guilty of plagiarism and has to pay PLN 148,000 as well as apologize to the journalist whose copyrights it infringed.

Kurpisz was accused of plagiarising by Andrzej Gowarzewski, a sports journalist from Katowice, the author of the Encyclopedia of World’s Soccer Championships (in Polish: “Encyklopedii piłkarskich mistrzostw świata”). Gowarzewski spent over a decade travelling around, in particular, South America collecting detailed data (such as the original spelling of the players names, exact time of the goals scored during the games, team composition) for his encyclopedia. His efforst were rewarded when british „World Soccer“ magazine – an undoubted authority in the field – has pronounced the book one of the 7 best books on soccer in the world.

Gowarzewski has been working and successively expanding his encyclopedia since 1991. In 2001 he came across a similar book, published by Kurpisz Publishing House. To his great astonishment the book contained information about 500 games, literally “carbon copied” from his work. The publisher repelled the accusations, claiming that it had used information commonly available and thus not protected by copyright, very much like the data in the yellow pages. Kurpisz arguments would have most likely prevailed, had it not been for the flair of the journalist, who set a smart trap for the publisher: Gowarzewski deliberatley made several material mistakes in his encyclopedia, just to subsequently find that they were repeated in the Kurpisz version of the book.

The District Court from Poznań had no reluctances finding the publisher guilty of plagiarism. It held that in copying such substantial data, thouroughly and personally collected over the years by the journalist, the Kurpisz has free ridden on the creative efforts of Gowarzewski and should pay him PLN 148,000 in damages (that is 15% of the proceeds from the sale of Kurpisz’s books, multiplied by 3, the so-called treble damages) based on article 79 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 79
1. The entitled person whose author’s economic rights have been infringed, may request from a person who infringed these rights:
1) to put an end to the infringement,
2) to remove the results of the infringement;
3) to undo the damages:
a) based on general principles or
b) by payment of a sum of money equal to twice, and if the infringement is culpable – three times of the equitable remuneration, which at the time of the enforcement would be payable to the entitled person for granting the permission for the use of the work,
4) to return benefits received.

2. Regardless of the claims referred to in paragraph 1, the entitled person may request:
1) single or multiple announcement made in the press with the statement of appropriate content and form or to announce to the public a part or all of the court’s judgment in the considered case, in the manner and within the scope specified by the court,
2) to pay by the person who infringed author’s economic rights, the appropriate sum of money, not less than twice of the amount of firm benefit achived by the perpetrator of the infringement, to the Fund referred to in article 111, if the infringement is culpable and was made during the economic activities carried out in someone else or in his own name, even on someone else’s account.

The plagiarist must also publicly apologize to the author on the pages of a nation wide newspaper – Rzeczpospolita.

It has not been the first time that the Kurpisz Publishing House infringes copyrights of another and has to bear the consequences. In 2004 the court in a similar case imposed on the publisher a fine of over PLN 500,000, which constituted 60% of the proceeds from the sale of copied “Dictionary of contemporary Polish”. The high amount of penalty was justified by the fact that the publisher had copied as much as 60% of the dictionary of Polskie Wydawnictwo Naukowe (PWN).

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“.

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“.

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.

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.

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.

Copyright registration

July 2nd, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

My last post has triggered some reponses so I’d like to clarify it, in a really short explanation. There is no requirement for copyright protection and enforcement in Poland. 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, tem 631 with later amendments, explicitly provides that:.

Art. 1, sec. 4
The creator is eligible for protection independently of compliance with formalities of any kind.

How does it work in the US? 17 U.S.C. § 411. Registration and infringement actions (emphasis mine):

(a) Except for an action brought for a violation of the rights of the author under section 106A(a), and except for actions for infringement of copyright in Berne Convention works whose country of origin is not the United States, and subject to the provisions of subsection (b), no action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title (…)

What does it mean? It means that an effective enforcement of copyright rights is not so easy for the owner. One more time – it applies to any United States work.

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

May 21st, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

I do not want to brag about myself but I wrote once in the post entitled “The Law” that I want to write some article. You may wonder what has happened after almost two years since I’ve issued such statement?

Legal context: This article deals with most important legal questions regarding graffiti. It seeks to identify issues that may arise in copyright and trade mark law. The analysis is based on selected international, Polish, UK, US and European Union regulations.

Key points and practical significance: The social phenomenon known as graffiti is not legally indifferent. However, there are few articles dealing with those issues relevant in IP law. The author presents a short overview of the contemporary graffiti movement. He then presents important IP legal problems that may arise as regards to graffiti activity and briefly analyzes those issues relevant to domestic and international legal regimes.

Key Words: Most graffiti is illegal, but that does not mean that interesting IP questions do not arise in relation to this cultural phenomenon. Following a short overview of the contemporary graffiti movement, the author article seeks to analyse some of the basic questions that arise concerning copyright protection and industrial property law. The author calls for a more focused analysis in the future of this controversial problem.

T. Rychlicki, “Legal questions about illegal art“, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 2008 3(6):393-401; doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpn058.

Police lies or manipulates?

October 29th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

In a short press release published on 26 October 2007 in “Czas Świecia” (regional supplement to Gazeta Wyborcza newspaper) Marek Rydzewski, the spokesperson for Regional Police Headquater in Świecie, issued a statement while answering to a student’s question about legality and responsibility for photocopying books:

- Copying whole textbooks without a permission from persons who have rights to such work (usually those are authors or publishes) is prohibited.

False. I do not want to educate Polish Police but I think I owe my English readers short explanation about Polish copyright (I think the proper term should be Author’s right since Civil law system differs a lot from English and US approach).

Some voices appears that there are legal grounds to introduce restrictions of maximum amount of pages to be allowed to photocopy from one book (…). It seems that such statements are not justifiable. Rules established in art. 23 of the Act of Authors rights. (…) did not introduce any limits for the amount of photocopied text.

J. Barta, R. Markiewicz, Prawo autorskie i prawa pokrewne, Zakamycze 2004, p. 67.
Additionally, Mr Marek Rydzewski said that:

Also, the law does not allow for downloading books in electronic form from the Internet, except for those which are made available for such actions.

False. There is no rule in Polish law that “prohibits” downloading books from the Internet! For all of you who are interested in the original text of this short article here is a scanned file, JPG, 675 KB. I’ll see if they publish corrections. In passing I would like to write my short statement. Myabe it will sound strange for You but I think that photocopying a full book “kills” it somehow.

Copyright law, case VI ACa 210/07

September 26th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Appellate Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 29 June 2007, case file VI ACa 210/07, published in the electronic database Legalis, held that photographs that were taken when a movie was shoot do not need to be treated as derivative works of an audiovisual work (the movie).

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

Access to public information, case V Ca 454/07

July 30th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

Sergiusz Pawłowicz who was also the leading programmer of Janosik project, went the same administrative proceedings as ISOC Poland. See “Access to public information, case OSK 600/04“. At the final stage the Supreme Administrative Court rejected Sergiusz’s complaint on the decision of the Voivodeship Administrative Court case file II SAB/Wr 72/02, recognizing that the proper course shall be a civil action.

Sergiusz filed a complaint requesting the civil court to order ZUS to disclose specification of KSI MAIL protocol being public information. The Regional Court in Warszawa in its judgment of 8 December 2006 case file XVI C942/04 ruled that publication of the protocol that is used by Płatnik software will not affect in any way the integrity of safety of data sent by this software. Therefore all arguments raised by ZUS with regard to data security were unfounded. The Court also held that ZUS did not prove that the protocol of KSI MAIL is protected by copyrights that belongs to Prokom Software S.A. or whether Prokom received any patent covering this protocol.

As for the argument that ZUS’s obligations regarding confidentiality of information about technologies used in Płatnik and its source code, which resulted from the agreement between ZUS and Prokom, the court held that according to the obligation to disclose public information included in article 13 of the Act on the Informatization of Activities Undertaken by Entities Fulfilling Public Tasks (in Polish: ustawa o informatyzacji działalności podmiotów realizujących zadania publiczne), the provision of the agreement as a ius dispositivum, may not impose negative consequences on Sergiusz.

The court also held that the use of the requested public information and legal interest that Sergiusz and its legal representative derrived from the social interest was beyond the scope of the whole dispute. Simply, there is no need to prove legal interest when requesting the access to public information.

ZUS filed an appeal complaint. The Appellate Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 23 April 2007 case file V Ca 454/07 rejected it. The Court held that the court of first instance provided deep and proper analysis of binding legal norms and its judgment was correctly applied.