Source: https://www.profinfo.pl/sklep/zeszyty-naukowe-uniwersytetu-jagiellonskiego-prace-z-prawa-wlasnosci-intelektualnej,7436,r,2016,nr,3.html
Timestamp: 2020-07-05 23:35:28+00:00

Document:
Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Prace z Prawa Własności Intelektualnej - Zeszyt 3 (133) (Druk, PDF) - Profinfo.pl
Kod towaru: KAM-6003 2016133
Dozwolony użytek informacyjny w prawie autorskim (uwagi dotyczące art. 25 ustawy) str. 5
Dorota Sokołowska Kwota ogólnego obciążenia jako przesłanka zatwierdzania tabel
Kwota ogólnego obciążenia jako przesłanka zatwierdzania tabel wynagrodzeń organizacji zbiorowego zarządzania
Kolizja praw autorskich majątkowych współtwórców w ocenie ekonomicznej analizy prawa
Plagiat muzyczny
Rola wymogu formalności w międzynarodowym prawie autorskim
Czy prawo patentowe wymaga zmian? Tendencje, postulaty, kontrowersje
Reklama produktów leczniczych w prawie unijnym
Efektywna i szybka wymiana informacji należy aktualnie do podstawowych potrzeb społecznych. Powstałe na wcześniejszych etapach rozwoju cywilizacyjnego instytucje prawne, w tym prawa własności intelektualnej, bywają postrzegane jako przeszkody w zaspokojeniu tej potrzeby. Usuwanie tych przeszkód niekoniecznie wiąże się z koniecznością nowych rozwiązań prawnych. Wystarczające może okazać się nowe spojrzenie na istniejące uregulowania. W niniejszym artykule rozważam możliwości, jakie daje prawo ponownego rozpowszechniania w prasie, radiu, telewizji i Internecie, przewidziane w art. 25 ustawy z 4.02.1994 r. o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych.
Pojęcie "kwoty ogólnego obciążenia" zostało wprowadzone do ustawy o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych w art. 110(13) ust. 5 pkt 2 z dniem 21.10.2010 r., w związku ze zmianą modelu zatwierdzania tabel wynagrodzeń organizacji zbiorowego zarządzania prawami autorskimi za korzystanie z utworów lub przedmiotów praw pokrewnych. Przez 6 lat obowiązywania znowelizowanych przepisów ustawy o prawie autorskim problematyka kwoty ogólnego obciążenia budzi wątpliwości doktryny, czemu najpełniej dał wyraz J. Błeszyński już w 2011 r. W praktyce orzekania Komisji Prawa Autorskiego (dalej jako KPA) na podstawie art. 110(13) ust. 5 u.p.a.p.p. wymóg "brania pod uwagę" kwoty ogólnego obciążenia podmiotów korzystających z utworów lub przedmiotów praw pokrewnych na rzecz wszystkich organizacji zbiorowego zarządzania z tytułu korzystania z praw autorskich i praw pokrewnych na danym polu eksploatacji ( pkt 2) okazał się wysoce problematyczny. Wyjaśnieniu istoty tego pojęcia nie sprzyja też uzasadnienie nowelizacji, sprowadzające się w tym zakresie jedynie do stwierdzenia, że "we wszystkich przypadkach zatwierdzane stawki będą musiały uwzględniać ogólne obciążenie podmiotów korzystających z utworów i przedmiotów praw pokrewnych z tytułu tego korzystania". Tymczasem obecnie przesłankę tę zobowiązany jest stosować także Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu, z uwagi na postępowania toczące się na podstawie art. 110(23) u.p.a.p.p. o zatwierdzenie lub odmowę zatwierdzenia tabel wynagrodzeń.
Ochrona współtwórcy w relacjach zewnętrznych nie budzi zasadniczych wątpliwości na gruncie prawa autorskiego, zwłaszcza z uwagi na treść art. 9 ustawy o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych. Problematyczne wydaje się jednak przyznanie odpowiednich roszczeń w stosunkach wewnętrznych między współautorami. Tylko pozornie rozstrzygnięcie tego problemu pozostaje bez skutków dla całości konstrukcji prawnoautorskiej. Moim zdaniem, na tej podstawie można argumentować, sięgając do rozwiązań ekonomicznej analizy prawa, o kwalifikacji całokształtu przyznanych uprawnień, w szczególności o powracającej niedawno dyskusji o charakterze praw wyłącznych w prawie autorskim.
Plagiat powinien spotkać się zawsze ze stanowczą reakcją - zarówno na gruncie odpowiedzialności prawnej, dyscyplinarnej, jak i ocen etycznych. Wydanie jakiegokolwiek osądu należy jednak poprzedzić pytaniem, czy w ogóle doszło do plagiatu. Cechą działalności kreacyjnej jest jej repetytywność. Zbyt pochopnie łączy się w przypadku muzyki, a już szczególnie muzyki popularnej, podobieństwo z zarzutem plagiatu. Zjawisko plagiatu muzycznego zmusza każdorazowo do zadania dwóch kluczowych pytań: po pierwsze, czy porównywany materiał, rzekomo tożsamy w dwóch wytworach intelektualnych, w ogóle podlega ochronie? Po drugie, czy twórcy mogli dojść do zbliżonych rezultatów niezależnie, w wyniku twórczości paralelnej? Badanie, czy doszło do popełnienia plagiatu w dziedzinie muzyki, przeprowadza specjalista. Powinno ono być zawsze zniuansowane, uwzględniać ograniczenia tonalnego języka muzycznego, znacznie wyższe niż w innych dziedzinach prawdopodobieństwo wystąpienia twórczości paralelnej, a także nurt twórczości, w jakim porównywane utwory powstały. Dokonując badania, specjalista powinien rozważyć szerokie konteksty dzieła, a także poddać porównywany materiał szczegółowej analizie, uwzględniającej znacznie więcej elementów niż tylko tradycyjnie przyjmowane podstawowe składniki utworu muzycznego. Powinien także uwzględnić rolę zaczerpniętego materiału, stopień jego modyfikacji i, w rezultacie, stopień jego rozpoznawalności w dziele rzekomo plagiatującym.
W czasach, gdy świat był świadkiem rewolucji cyfrowej, w międzynarodowym prawie autorskim zdecydowano o zniesieniu wymogu dopełnienia formalności w celu uzyskania ochrony ze względu na niedopasowanie tego prawa do ówczesnych realiów. Tymczasem nowe technologie oraz rozpowszechnianie się sieci Internet całkowicie odwróciły sposób, w jaki przedmiot ochrony prawa autorskiego jest kreowany, rozpowszechniany oraz komercjalizowany. W efekcie stoi ono w obliczu niekontrolowanego napływu chronionych utworów, co w połączeniu z niskim progiem udzielania ochrony przez prawo autorskie generuje nieznane dotąd problemy i wyzwania. Niniejsze opracowanie stanowi analizę potencjalnej roli, jaką wymogi formalne mogłyby odgrywać w czasach po rewolucji cyfrowej.
Począwszy od lat 80. XX w. system ochrony patentowej jest przedmiotem wciąż narastających i zaostrzających się kontrowersji. Adwersarzy łączy niemal powszechna zgoda co do tego, że dominujący obecnie model wymaga zmiany, gdyż nie jest dostosowany do uwarunkowań powstałych w wyniku rozwoju nauki i postępu technicznego, a w rezultacie nie spełnia wiązanych z nim oczekiwań. Różnice stanowisk ujawniają się natomiast, gdy dochodzi do uzasadnienia takiej krytycznej oceny, a w konsekwencji i do formułowania propozycji zmian. Mnogość, różnorodność i waga zagadnień kontrowersyjnych, a przy tym ich powszechność - bez przesady można mówić o ich globalnej skali - przywoływane jako uzasadnienie tezy o kryzysie prawa patentowego, uzasadniają też postawienie pytania o potrzebę modyfikacji istniejącego obecnie modelu ochrony patentowej i jej ewentualne kierunki.
Rozwój rynku farmaceutycznego, jaki dokonał się w ostatnim czasie, spowodował konieczność ujęcia zasad, form i sposobów prezentacji reklamy produktów leczniczych w odpowiednie ramy prawne. Z uwagi na ochronę konsumenta niezbędne jest wdrażanie i odpowiednia wykładnia przepisów unijnych, aby przyczynić się do wypracowania europejskich standardów oraz lepszej harmonizacji prawa w przedmiocie reklamy produktów leczniczych i obrotu nimi. Celem niniejszego opracowania jest przedstawienie genezy i rozwoju prawodawstwa wspólnotowego (obecnie unijnego) w omawianym zakresie oraz analiza aktualnych rozwiązań normatywnych dotyczących reklamy produktów leczniczych w prawie Unii Europejskiej.
Permitted use of copyrighted works for information purposes (remarks on Art. 25 of the 1994 Copyright Act)p. 5
Dorota Sokołowska The amount
Permitted use of copyrighted works for information purposes (remarks on Art. 25 of the 1994 Copyright Act)
The amount of overall burden as a factor in approving remuneration tables of collective administration organisations
Co-authors' copyright conflicts from the perspective of an economic analysis of law
The role of formalities in international copyright law
Does patent law need amendments? Trends, demands, controversies
Advertising of medicinal products in EU law
In the information society it is one of the major challenges to provide a friendly environment for speedy dissemination of information while safeguarding the interests of intellectual property owners. The balance of interests is shaky, therefore the regulation on copyright limitation related to news reporting is the most complicated of all limitations provided for by the Polish Copyright Act. The aim of this article is to conduct an in-depth analysis of this limitation: Art. 25 of the Polish Copyright Act. Art. 25 provides for the possibility of exploiting copyrighted works without the need for a license from the copyright owner. Since it is one of the exceptions to the copyright holder's monopoly, the requirements of permitted use established by the law have to be strictly adhered to. Such requirements may be described as applicable to certain entities and in a certain scope. The requirements pertaining to entities are the characteristics of the person exploiting the work. Art. 25 provides that the work may only be exploited by the press, radio and television. This requirement seems straightforward, since the notions of the press and the media service, which covers radio and television activities, are defined in the Press Law of 1984 and the Radio and Television Act of 1992, respectively. Although it is disputable whether certain online media which are updated when necessary, but have no separate issues (such as blogs and internet information services), can be classified as press. In this respect I concur with the view of the First President of the Supreme Court, who defined press as only such media which are updated at regular intervals of time.
The scope-related requirements concern the particular types of works which may be exploited under Art. 25 statutory license and the nature of exploitation permitted. Thus, it is permissible to disseminate reports on current events, articles on current political, economic and religious topics, current opinions and photographs reporting events. It is also permissible to publish excepts from such reports and articles and reviews of works and publications. In respect of that last category, the law is ambiguous. It may be argued that such a review may include full articles on any topic since they are parts of a publication (and a complete issue of a press title is a publication, according to the definition of press in the Press Law). The crucial requirement is that works covered by the permitted use exception have to be current, which means that their topics are still in the public interest at the time of exploitation under Art. 25.
The permitted use provided for in Art. 25 refers also to online dissemination of works. There is another ambiguity in that regulation. It may be argued that the permitted use under art. 25 and its requirements apply to any instance of making a work available so that anyone may access it at the time and place chosen by him. In my view, however, this regulation should simply be understood to apply to online press, radio and television.
Pursuant to Art. 110(13)(5)(2) of the Act on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights, the adjudicating panel of the Copyright Law Commission when issuing a decision in proceedings for approval of the table of remuneration for the use of works or objects of neighbouring rights takes into account the amount of the overall burden to the entities that use the works or objects of neighbouring rights to all collective administration organisations for the use of copyright and neighbouring rights in a given field of use. So far the notion of 'overall burden' has not been clarified in copyright law, whether in literature or case law.
Adjudicating in the matter of approving the table of a single organisation, while taking into account the overall burden, should be seen as outside the powers of the given adjudicating panel of the Copyright Law Commission. The Copyright Act does not provide for the consequence in the form of 'binding' the remaining panels with the overall burden amount determined by one panel of the Copyright Law Commission. What makes determining such an overall burden particularly difficult is the diversity of rates applied in the tables of collective administration organisations (percentage, fixed and mixed rates).
What can be proposed is that the overall burden amount should be taken into account in such a way that the adjudicating panel allows all participants in the proceedings to express their standpoints, takes note of the structure of the approved remuneration tables for a certain field of use and then issues a decision which does not mention any specific amount of the 'overall burden' in the statement of reasons.
We should reject the interpretation of Art. 110(13)(5)(2) of the Copyright Act which, through a narrow understanding of the expression 'to take into account' the amount of overall burden, would lead to a stalemate in approving remuneration tables, also when this is done by the court operating in accordance with Art. 110(10)110(23) of the Copyright Act. As the law stands, it should be concluded that it is objectively impossible for the authority adjudicating in a given case to assess the overall burden, e.g. as a mathematical ratio. What is feasible in this situation is the legislator's intervention with certain ratios being imposed in the Act or implementing regulations.
The above conclusions concerning the Copyright Law Commission's powers in question should also be applied to the powers of the court adjudicating on the basis of Art. 110(23)(5) first sentence of the Copyright Act.
The overall objective of the article is to describe and analyse a problem that was raised in reflections about collisions between co-authors' rights. The analysis aims to answer the question whether it is permissible to file a protection claim in internal relations between rightholders.
The starting point is a case based on a co-authorship issue: one rightholder, despite a previous and clear objection from the other one, enters into an agreement with a third party (competitor). The question that the research paper attempts to answer is whether a licensor is liable for copyright infringement to the rightholder who did raise an objection against granting a license or whether the latter can only file a claim against the licensee. The legal status of the license alone is left aside.
Before answering the above research question, the analysis concerns the key arguments provided by the economic analysis of law, in particular the free-rider problem and tragedy of anticommons. Both of the arguments leads to a conclusion that the legal system based on the principle of exclusive rights needs also to provide a hierarchy of the monopolistic rights in case of a collision (such as in the example case described earlier in the study). It also enables us to verify a common standpoint that the current copyright framework does not necessarily include exclusive rights that should be interpreted as proprietary rights. The economic analysis also provides an argument that understanding the current copyright regime solely through the lens of ownership ends with a conclusion about a 'total ownership' as an unwanted, hypothetical result of the absolute nature of the right. Therefore there must be a hierarchy of interests, also in cases such as the one described at the beginning, that the legislator provides in the legal framework.
Transposing these considerations again to the case described at the beginning of the paper leads to an analysis of the legal basis of the rightholder's liability. The research presents the available solutions: one is to apply the common principles of the property law, the second one - the relation to the indirect infringement. As a result of dogmatic analysis of standpoints of case law and scholars the application of the later solution is approved. This solution provides a possibility to balance interests between rightholders and to avoid the danger resulting from the free-rider problem and the tragedy of anticommons. It also enables us to contribute to a recent debate about the proprietary model of interpretation of copyright law.
Generally speaking, an analysis of the relationships between music and copyright law leads to questioning many legal institutions and assumptions. Traditional notions of a work, its existence and features, as well as a borrowing, are challenged by the musical practice. Plagiarism is one of such examples. While analysing plagiarism cases, one needs to revise the strict separation of a work and its performance, leaving the constraints of classical musicology behind. Moreover, while comparing two works, one needs to ask questions not only about the qualities of the two works, but also the reasons for similarities, since those may be caused by various factors, such as a common musical language, the same style, the same purpose of use, the same inspirations, etc. Hence, music requires examination that takes into account not only the properties of a work itself, but also external factors. Plagiarism should always meet with a strong response, on legal, disciplinary and ethical grounds. However, a judgement in this matter should be preceded by the question whether the plagiarism actually occured. Repetitiveness is a feature of any creative activity. The connection between similarity and plagiarism is established too hastily, especially in the field of popular music. The phenomenon of music plagiarism raises two key questions that a specialist needs to consider while comparing two works: 1) whether the allegedly copied material is protected at all (is original)? and 2) whether the creators could have achieved similar creative results through a process of indepentent (parallel) creativity?
An expert's examination should always be nuanced and take into account several factors. Firstly, it must acknowledge the obvious restraints of the tonal system. Because of the rules that govern creativity in this traditional field (the vast majority of popular pieces are - from the point of view of music - very conservative), as well as the schematism and routine, the requirements for copyright protection in music must be raised in case law. Furthermore, on the one hand, the process of composition became much more technical (analytical), but on the other, it is now an ubiquitous activity. Creating music is not longer a domain reserved for specialists. Technical development enables even complete amateurs to 'write' their own music. Hence, originality may be sought not only in the traditional music elements, especially melody, but in many other factors, as well as the juxtaposition of elements of a work and the parameters of its performance. That is why the expert must be aware of the constraints of classical musicology and conduct the analyses without perpetuating stereotypes.
Secondly, the aforementioned constraints of the tonal system, as well as schematism and routine character result in a much higher probablity of parallel creativity. The legal doctrine considers it a rare phenomenon. However, independent creation is likely to happen within the area of traditionally composed music - not only is this observation obvious for a professional musician, but it is also supported by research. The rules of the musical language, as well as musical conventions (widely accepted not because anyone is obliged to apply them, but simply because they 'sound well', which is basically the purpose of any music composed for pleasure and wide success) result in natural reduction of the creative freedom. This freedom may be further narrowed by other factors, such as a purpose of the piece, the lyrics, the target group of listeners and their preferences or the musical genre and its features (especially within the genres that are routed in improvisation, where the notion of originality is connected with the features of a variant, not the source material).
Thirdly, excessively detailed examination may lead to a conclusion that everything is a copy. Since similarity in music is a matter of perception, even actual copying should not be automatically qualified as a plagiarism. The role that the allegedly plagiarised material plays in a new work must be taken into account in an expert's opinion. The copied material may be modified so intensively that it is not longer possible to recognize it. In such case the borrowed material becomes a creative substance, which means that claims of plagiarism can not longer be succesfully raised. In this writer's opinion, if plagiarism claims cannot be succesfully raised, no one else (e.g. producers of phonograms) should be entitled to raise any copyright claims, since protection resulting from copyright should be seen as superior to the neighbouring rights.
The prevailing customs in music force is to reexamine also the legal assumptions in the field of attribution of authorship, especially when it comes to quotations. While considering a plagiarism, a judge must remember that it is not possible to clearly separate the borrowed material or identify it immediately. Music is a temporal process, in which the separation can be achieved by musical means and the attribution may happen post factum. The rules applicable to literature can not be simply applied to music and copyright law must acknowledge the differences between the various areas of creativity.
Just around the time of the transition to the digital era, copyright formalities were abolished in international copyright law by the Berne Convention in the belief they were useless and obsolete. Meanwhile, new technologies give unpredictable possibilities of creation and dissemination of works at international level. In conjunction with low threshold for copyright protection, we are currently facingan uncontrollable overflow of protected works in the Internet environment. The aim of the present article is to verify whether reintroduction of some kind of formalities in international copyright system would be fit for the purpose of addressing digital era challenges.
The first part of the paper is devoted to a historical analysis of formalities in copyright law, including the circumstances of their introduction, the further development and, first and foremost, the reasons why abolishing them started at the beginning of the 20th century, in order to verify whether the reasons behind their abolition are still applicable. The second part summarizes the changes which we face in both copyright law and technology, culture, society, which changes directly affect copyright law, with conclusions whether the flaws of copyright formalities at the beginning of the 20th century still apply nowadays. Subsequently, the author presents the problems of the copyright system in the digital era, which are caused by lack of any formalities in the system, and discusses the potential evidentiary, informatory and economic functions of formalities.
Moreover, this article presents the modern copyright formalities adopted on four continents, which do not breach the prohibition contained in the Berne Convention, but still could serve some positive purposes. It ends with an analysis of proposals to reintroduce new-style formalities in the copyright system with the authors opinion regarding the solutions which would fit the digital era reality best.
This article aims to present the main currents of controversies caused nowadays by the system of patent protection and an attempt to answer the question whether their existence justifies the thesis, formulated by some commentators, about the crisis of patent law and consequently demands for far-reaching amendments.
The subject of the analysis and the basis for the reflections covers those aspects of patent protection whose normative regulations showed, until recently, such considerable convergence on the global scale that they could legitimately be considered elements of a generally respected standard of patent protection, while now they are losing or have already lost this character. For this reason, the reflections take into account legal regulations and case law from various countries, as well as views expressed by legal scholars about various systems as long as they concern broader issues and not ones determined by specific national norms. The special place that trends observed in US patent law occupy in the reflections results from the unquestionably great influence of this law (at least in the past) on the shape of patent protection rules in other countries, especially in EU Member States.
The controversies concerning the individual mechanisms and norms of patent law are presented against the background of two competitive models of patent protection, outlined in the first part of the article, which models result from different assumptions about the functions of patent protection and its influence on technical progress and economic development.
The most marked discrepancies today include those concerning the list of patentable achievements, i.e. both the conditions that determine whether something belongs to the category of inventions and the list of inventions that cannot be patented. These issues are discussed in the second part of the article, which focuses on the controversies around the patent-law status of discoveries and abstract solutions, as well as solutions concerning medical procedures. The third part presents controversies concerning some aspects of the scope of exclusivity granted by the patent, i.e. the so-called absolute protection of a product being the object of a patented invention (in the context of biotechnological inventions), the research privilege and mandatory licence. The final part contains answers to the question posed in the title and the resulting proposals.
The aim of this article is presenting the origins, the development and the current state of normative solutions concerning advertising of medicinal products in the law of the European Union.
The first part of the article describes the process of codification and harmonization of the Community (EU) provisions concerning medicinal products. Then attention is drawn to the current trends in this area, and the basic legal instruments regulating the above problems are analysed.
In particular, references are made to the norms contained in Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, characterising the basic notions used in the instruments (including that of a medicinal product and advertising of medicinal products).
Then an analysis is conducted of the issue of normative restrictions of advertising of medicinal products, both to the general public and to professionals (physicians and pharmacists). In this context, references are made both to the provisions of Directive 2001/83/EC and other instruments of EU lawconnected with advertising activity: Directive 2010/13/EU on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services, Directive 2006/114/EC concerning misleading and comparative advertising or Directive 2005/29/EC concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market. The analysis aims to show the mutual relationship of detailed regulations concerning medicinal products advertising and the general law on advertising.
In addition, the article contains referends to views expressed by legal scholars and in the case law of the Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

References: art. 25
 art. 25
 art. 110
 art. 110
 art. 110
 art. 9
 Art. 25
 Art. 25
 Art. 25
 Art. 25
 Art. 25
 Art. 25
 Art. 25
 Art. 25
 art. 25
 Art. 110
 Art. 110
 Art. 110
 Art. 110