Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm

Archive for: Art. 1 ARNR

Copyright law, III CSK 40/05

March 22nd, 2006, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Court in its judgment of 13 January 2006, case file III CSK 40/05, published in electronic database LEX, under the no 176385, held that “creative” and “individual” character of a work entitled for copyright protection can of course be based on the arguments relating to the subjective relationship between the creator and his work (“personal imprint”, “characteristics of personality”), or the objective aspects, i.e. relating to the product of the human mind. In the case of the application of the second test, which must be considered in light of the views of doctrine as better justified, it is assumed that the result of intellectual effort cannot be routine, standard and typical.

See also “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“.

Copyright law, case FSK 2253/04

October 18th, 2005, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Administrative Court in a judgment of 13 October 2005 case file FSK 2253/04, published in electronic database LEX, under the no. 173097, ruled that whether a given subject is deemed as a copyrightable work, is not determined by the will of the contracting parties, but by the findings of facts. Created computer programs cannot be considered as copyrighted works, if the activities of their creator do not have the characteristics of originality and individuality.

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

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

Copyright law, case I ACr 453/95

April 26th, 2005, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Appellate Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 5 July 1995, case file I ACr 453/95, unpublished, held that on the grounds of the copyright law one has to oppose the actions of a creative nature against the technical operation and actions. The result of the latter is verifiable and repeatable, and its accomplishment only requires specific knowledge and efficiency. It is possible to predict a specific result of such actions. The feature of creativity, and thus the work itself, is the individual recognition and uniqueness of the accomplished result, in other words, the objective novelty, originality, autonomous creation, the creator’s personality projection as reflected in the work, whose effect is unpredictable, as the final result of the creative work (at least some elements).

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

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

Copyright law, I SA/Lu 408/98

February 26th, 2005, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 30 June 1999, case file I SA/Lu 408/98 held that the result of creative activity, original one, characterized by individuality is the protected work. The result of a work which is determined by a described object or phenomenon, complex functions or goals, which is one of the results originating from the possible options that could be reached/solved by people (specialists) making the same task, is not the protected work. The copyright protection does not extend also to creative process, creative method or technique used in creating the work.

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

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

Copyright law, case I ACa 2/96

February 22nd, 2005, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Appellate Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 2 October 1996, case file I ACa 2/96, held that the protection of author’s rights is attributed to the creator of a creative work and can be directed against anyone who infringes on these rights. This is an absolute protection, that is totally independent of whether there existed any contractual relationship between the creator and the infringer. The use of works without permission constitutes an infringement of author’s rights/copyrights.

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