Archive for: Art. 104 ARNR

Copyright law, case V CSK 22/08

November 16th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Society of Authors and Publishers Polish Book from Kraków (in Polish: Stowarzyszenie Autorów i Wydawców Polska Książka w Krakowie) is one of the Polish collecting societies. The Society sued Euroimpex company which is a distributor of reprographic equipment, mainly photocopiers and scanners. The suit was based on 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 subsequent 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 District Court in Kraków ordered Euroimpex to pay the reprographic fee in the amount of 124,678 PLN. Euroimpex filed an appeal in which it argued that the provisions of ARNR are unconstitutional. However, the Appellate Court in Kraków shared the opinion issued by the District Court and ruled that there is a lack of grounds to question the compliance of article 20(1)(ii) and article 105(2) of the ARNR with the constitutional norms.

Article 105
1. The collective administration organization shall be presumed qualified to carry out the administration and protection of rights in the areas of exploitation in which its administration is conducted, and to engage in judicial proceedings associated therewith. This presumption may not be invoked where two or more collective administration organizations claim competence in respect of one and the same work or performance.
2. In the course of its activity the collective administration organization may demand that information be communicated to it and that documents that are essential for the calculation of the amount of remuneration and fees that it claims be delivered to it.

A similar view was also expressed in relation to provisions of the Regulation of the Minister of Culture of 2 June 2003 on designation of categories of devices and media used for recording of productions and payments levied on sales of these devices and carriers carried out by producers and importers, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 105, item 991. Euroimpex filed a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Court in a judgment of 19 June 2008, case file V CSK 22/08, ruled that according to the settled case law, any court, in principle, has the same power to assess whether the provisions of regulation that may be applicable in a given case are not inconsistent with the Constitution. Additionally, the SC ruled that the provisions related to the remuneration fees are justified and their introduction was an expression of global trends in intellectual property law that was also made in order to compensate authors and publishers for what they lose by copying or reproduction of works made by third persons for the personal use. These are the civil law claims, which the collecting societies have the right to collect and which they are allowed to claim before the court. As these fees are divided, is no longer a matter to be decided by the Court, but it is the inner matter of organization and artists who are members of this organization.

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

Categories: Art. 104 ARNR | Art. 105 ARNR | Art. 20(1) ARNR | case law | collecting society | Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights | Polish Appeallate Court | Polish Constitutional Tribunal | Polish District Court | Polish Supreme Court | remuneration fee.

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 subsequent 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.

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

Categories: Art. 104 ARNR | Art. 20(1) ARNR | case law | collecting society | copyright law | digital economy | Polish Constitutional Tribunal | Polish courts | Polish law | remuneration fee.

Copyright law, case VI ACa 1259/06

March 17th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Appellate Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 17 October 2007 case file VI ACa 1259/06 held that the regulations provided in the Polish Act on Protection of Competition and Consumers – APCC – (in Polish: Ustawa o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów) published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 50, item 331, with later amendments, define the entrepreneur very broadly. This definition will even cover such entities whose activity is not associated with a typical business. This argument was confirmed by the Supreme Court in its judgment of 7 April 2004case file III SK 22/04, published in OSNP 2005/3/46.

The Court had no doubt that ZAiKS is active in providing professional services, in a structured and continuous manner, on its behalf, in the field of collective management of assigned copyrights, and thus it participates in business transactions. In applying the provisions of the APCC, “commercial purpose” as the last of the important parameters of economic activity means to obtain certain benefits for the operator of such activities. The use of such obtained benefits is, however, indifferent.

It was undisputed that ZAiKS grants licenses for fee, and it also collects appropriate fees for the management of assigned rights. Therefore it has a measurable financial benefits from its activities. The fact that these benefits are fully allocated to the statutory objectives does not mean, in light of the abovementioned comments that ZAiKS work has nothing to do with the commercial objectives.

The Court ruled that the Society of Authors ZAiKS being a non-profit organizations, is also a legal person providing services to the public, because it is organizing public access to creative activity, and licenses the use of this creativity. Therefore, ZAiKS is an entrepreneur as defined in the APCC.

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

Categories: Art. 104 ARNR | Art. 105 ARNR | Art. 108 ARNR | case law | collecting society | Copyright Commission | copyright law | Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights | Polish Act on Protection of Competition and Consumers | Polish Appeallate Court | President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection.

Copyright law, case I CK 312/02

March 17th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Court in a judgment of 3 December 2003, case file I CK 312/02, has denided the right of action to a collecting society that wanted to initiate a copyright suit in the name of a living person. The Court held that the collective management does not include protection and management of moral and personal rights of living persons, creators or authors. In this case, the Polish Society of Authors and Composers (ZAIKS) wanted to bring an action for the protection of personal rights of a living author who composed music/soundtrack for the movie.

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

Categories: Art. 104 ARNR | Art. 23 CC | Art. 24 CC | Art. 78 ARNR | case law | collecting society | personal rights or interests | Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights | Polish Civil Code | Polish Supreme Court.

Copyright law, case SK 40/04

February 21st, 2006, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Constitutional Tribunal in its jugment of 24 January 2006 case file SK 40/04 held the collective management organization cannot act and function in the absence of remuneration scales/tables. It would not be able to properly exercise the collective management of copyright and the principle of equal treatment, without the enactment of the tables. In this sense, the adoption of the remuneration tables is a necessity for the collective management organization. The tables/scores have bonding effect on such a collecting society, which approved them, by virtue of the act under which they were issued. In the external contractual relations, and under pending approval by the Copyright Commission, that tables are deemed as an offer. The tables bond collecting societies and licensees only if they have been approved by the Copyright Commission. For this reason, the establishement of the remuneration tables must take into account all the economic and operational issues in order to avoid arbitrariness in constructing their levels, and scope.

Categories: Art. 104 ARNR | Art. 105 ARNR | Art. 108 ARNR | Art. 109 ARNR | case law | collecting society | Copyright Commission | copyright law | Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights | Polish Constitutional Tribunal | remuneration fee.

Copyright law, case I ACr 1191/95

February 26th, 2005, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Appellate Court in Warsaw in the order of 12 December 1995 r. case file I ACr 1191/95 held that the criterion of profitability (activities aimed at profit) is not inherent feature of business/economic activity. Such activity is distinguished because of its professional nature, the associated repetition of actions, subject to the principles of rational management and participation in trade.

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

Categories: Art. 104 ARNR | Art. 105 ARNR | case law | collecting society | copyright law | Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights | Polish Appeallate Court | Polish law | remuneration fee.