Source: http://rychlicki.net/en/issue/copyright-law/copyright-ownership/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 03:59:01+00:00

Document:
The Court of Justice of the EU in its judgment of 3 July 2012 in Case C-128/11 ruled that Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs must be interpreted as meaning that the right of distribution of a copy of a computer program is exhausted if the copyright holder who has authorised, even free of charge, the downloading of that copy from the internet onto a data carrier has also conferred, in return for payment of a fee intended to enable him to obtain a remuneration corresponding to the economic value of the copy of the work of which he is the proprietor, a right to use that copy for an unlimited period.
Articles 4(2) and 5(1) of Directive 2009/24 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of the resale of a user licence entailing the resale of a copy of a computer program downloaded from the copyright holder’s website, that licence having originally been granted by that rightholder to the first acquirer for an unlimited period in return for payment of a fee intended to enable the rightholder to obtain a remuneration corresponding to the economic value of that copy of his work, the second acquirer of the licence, as well as any subsequent acquirer of it, will be able to rely on the exhaustion of the distribution right under Article 4(2) of that directive, and hence be regarded as lawful acquirers of a copy of a computer program within the meaning of Article 5(1) of that directive and benefit from the right of reproduction provided for in that provision.
Categories: computer law | copyright law | copyright ownership | Directive 2001/29/EC | Directive 2009/24/EC | e-law issues | EU law | exhaustion of rights | Judgments of Court of Justice of the EC.
The Court of Justice of the EU in its judgment of 2 May 2012 Case C-406/10 ruled that Article 1(2) of Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs must be interpreted as meaning that neither the functionality of a computer program nor the programming language and the format of data files used in a computer program in order to exploit certain of its functions constitute a form of expression of that program and, as such, are not protected by copyright in computer programs for the purposes of that directive.
The CoJ noted that Article 5(3) of Directive 91/250/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that a person who has obtained a copy of a computer program under a licence is entitled, without the authorisation of the owner of the copyright, to observe, study or test the functioning of that program so as to determine the ideas and principles which underlie any element of the program, in the case where that person carries out acts covered by that licence and acts of loading and running necessary for the use of the computer program, and on condition that that person does not infringe the exclusive rights of the owner of the copyright in that program.
The Court also ruled that Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that the reproduction, in a computer program or a user manual for that program, of certain elements described in the user manual for another computer program protected by copyright is capable of constituting an infringement of the copyright in the latter manual if – this being a matter for the national court to ascertain – that reproduction constitutes the expression of the intellectual creation of the author of the user manual for the computer program protected by copyright.
Categories: computer law | copyright law | copyright misuse | copyright ownership | Directive 2001/29/EC | Directive 91/250/EEC | e-law issues | EU law | exhaustion of rights | Judgments of Court of Justice of the EC | permissible use of copyrighted materials.
The Minister of Infrastructure did not respond to the request of a Polish company for disclosure of public information in the form of directory of multiple choice questions for the initial qualification tests for categories C1, C1 + E, C, C + E of driving license. The company filed a complaint of failure to act. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its order of 25 August 2010 case file II SAB/Wa 150/10 dismissed the complaint. The Company decided to file a cassation complaint.
The Supreme Administrative Court in its order of 21 December 2010 case file I OSK 1975/10 dismissed it. The Court supported the view, in which an official document was correctly distinguished from an official documentary material. While the official document will be public information, the documentary material will not has such status, because it lacks formality/officiality features (it was not used by the official body in a given case and it was not directed outside that body). The court held that a set of questions would be used to carry out undefined tests, therefore, such questions are undoubtedly abstract in nature and do not constitute an official document. In this case, the company had not requested the disclosure of a particular form of the test – a set of questions used in a particular exam, and the subject of the request was entire collection of materials (a series of questions). In the opinion of the court such materials do not constitute public information under the Article 1(1) of the Polish Act of 6 September 2001 on access to public information – API – (in Polish: Ustawa o dostępie do informacji publicznej), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 112, item 1198, with subsequent amendments.
Article 1.1	Each information on public matters constitutes public information in the understanding of the Act and is subject to being made available on the basis of principles and under the provisions defined in this Act.
2. The provisions of the Act shall not breach the provisions of other acts defining different principles and the mode of access to the information being public information.
The Court noted that only when these questions are used in a particular case, i.e. they are arranged, and used in a specific set of questions designed to check the level of knowledge of applicants for categories C1, C1 + E, C, C + E, they lose their abstract characteristic and become public information, however, such situation did not occur in this case.
Categories: Art. 1 ARNR | Art. 1(1) API | Art. 2 ARNR | Art. 4 ARNR | Art. 6 API | copyright law | copyright ownership | copyrightable subject matter | Polish Act on Access to Public Information | Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights | Polish Supreme Administrative Court.
Categories: Art. 1 ARNR | Art. 2 ARNR | Art. 9 ARNR | co-autorship | copyright law | copyright ownership | copyrightable subject matter | joint work | Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights | Polish Supreme Court | threshold of creativity.
The Supreme Court in its judgment of 26 January 2011 case file IV CSK 274/10 held that creation of legal rules that are included in 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 subsequent amendments, and that concern copyright agreements, does not exclude the applicability of the provisions of the Civil Code, especially particular chapters of the CC. The conclusion of contracts other than these provided for in the ARNR, mainly the contract of transfer of copyrights (i.e. all economic rights that are primarily attributed to the creator) or the contract for the use of the work (licences), is not excluded if the specificity of copyright is also taken into account. There was also no reason to exclude – in principle – the possibility to establish the lease on copyright, of course, after the conditions set in Article 709 of the CC have been satisfied.
§ 2. The rent may be stipulated in money or in performances of another kind. It may also be specified in terms of a fraction of the fruits.
Article 694. The provisions on lease shall apply respectively to tenancy with the observance of the provisions stated below.
Article 695. § 1. The tenancy concluded for a period longer than thirty years shall be deemed, after the lapse of that period, to be concluded for indefinite time.
Article 696. The tenant shall exercise his right in accordance with the requirements of proper management and cannot change the designation of the object of tenancy without the consent of the landlord.
Article 697. The tenant shall be obliged to make repairs indispensable for maintaining the object of tenancy in a non-deteriorated condition.
Article 698. § 1. The tenant cannot, without the consent of the landlord, give the object of tenancy to a third party for gratuitous use nor for holding under a subtenancy.
§ 2. In the case of non-observance of the above obligation, the landlord may terminate the contract of tenancy without observing the time limit of the notice.
Article 699. If the time limit of the payment of the rent is not specified in the contract, the rent shall be payable after a time limit customarily accepted, and in the absence of such custom semiannually at the end of every period.
Article 700. If, as a result of circumstances for which the tenant is not liable and which do not pertain to him personally, the usual revenue from the object of tenancy is considerably reduced, the tenant may claim a reduction of the rent for the given economic period.
Article 701. The movable things covered by the statutory right of pledge vested in the landlord shall include the things used in the running of a farm or an enterprise if they are on the area of the object of tenancy.
Article 702. If it is stipulated in the contract that in addition to the rent the tenant shall have the obligation to pay taxes and bear other burdens connected with the ownership or the possession of the object of tenancy as well as to bear the costs of its insurance, the statutory right of pledge vested in the landlord shall also cover his claims to the tenant for the reimbursement of the sum paid by the landlord for the reasons specified above.
Article 703. If the tenant is in delay with the payment of the rent for at least two full periods of payment, and if the rent is payable annually, if he is in delay for more than three months, the landlord may terminate the contract of tenancy without observing the time limit for the notice. However, the landlord shall warn the tenant by setting him an additional time limit of three months for the payment of the rent in arrear.
Article 704. In the absence of a contract to the contrary, the contract of tenancy of agricultural land may be terminated one year in advance at the end of the year of tenancy, and another contract of tenancy, six months in advance before the lapse of the year of tenancy.
Article 705. After the termination of the tenancy, the tenant shall be obliged, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, to return the object of the tenancy in the condition in which it should be in accordance with the provisions on the exercise of tenancy.
Article 706. If, at the termination of the tenancy, the tenant of agricultural land leaves it sown according to his duty, he may claim the reimbursement of the outlays on those crops, where, contrary to the requirements of proper management, he did not receive the appropriate crops at the beginning of the tenancy.
Article 707. If the tenancy ends before the end of the tenancy year, the tenant shall be obliged to pay the rent in such proportion in which the fruits which he collected or could have collected bear to the fruits from the entire year of tenancy.
Article 708. The provisions of the present Section shall apply respectively where the person taking an agricultural immovable property for use and collection of fruits is not obliged to pay the rent but only to pay the taxes and to bear other burdens connected with the ownership or the possession of land.
Article 709. The provisions on the tenancy of things shall apply respectively to the lease of rights.
The lease would have to include at least one field of exploitation (the concept included in the Polish copyright law, where the owner has the right to dispose the use of a copyrighted work on different fields of use) and the associated possibility of obtaining benefits, for example, by allowing the lessee to display the copyrighted work for profits.
The Court ruled also that the exhibition of photographs can be a derivative work as defined in the Article 2(1) of the ARNR.
Art. 2.-1. Derived works made from the work of another, in particular translations, transformations and adaptations, shall be protected by copyright without prejudice to the rights in the original work.
2. The manner of disposal of the derived work and the use thereof shall be subject to the consent of the creator of the original work (dependent copyright), except where the economic rights in the original work have expired.
3. The creator of the original work may withdraw his consent if, in the course of the five years following its grant, the derived work has not been disclosed. Remuneration paid to the creator shall not be susceptible of repayment.
4. A work inspired by another’s work shall not be considered a derived work.
5. The name of the creator of the original work and the title thereof shall be mentioned on the copies of the derived work.
However, as in the case of other works, the final assessment depends on the outcome of the examination that was made in terms of statutory criteria for the work to be protected by copyright, taking into account that, while defining the derivatives, the basic prerequisite of creativity has to be taken into account.
Categories: Art. 1 ARNR | Art. 2 ARNR | Art. 709 CC | copyright law | copyright ownership | copyrightable subject matter | derivative work | Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights | Polish Civil Code | Polish Supreme Court | threshold of creativity.
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 4 February 2010 case file II SAB/Wa 155/09 held that it should be noted that the status of public information is not only afforded to documents directly prepared/edited and technically produced by a public authority, but also to those whose the authority uses to carry out the tasks specified by the law, even when the copyrights belong to another entity. So therefore as documents being the subject of disclosure of public information as defined in the Polish Act of 6 September 2001 on access to public information – API – (in Polish: Ustawa o dostępie do informacji publicznej) Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 112, item 1198, with subsequent amendments, should be deemed the expertises/opinions made for the authority that is required to make the public information available, if such documents are used to perform its task, even if the copyright on these opinions belong to other entities.
The Court held that the overriding principle related to disclosure of public information, is to provide such information. The problem of subsequent use of the documents covered by copyright is not governed by the API, but may be subject to any claims as defined by copyright law and civil law. However, this issue cannot justify the refusal to disclose public information, because the only limits are rules on secrets protected by law. In this case, a natural person requested the expertise prepared for the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Administration, in connection with the creation by this body of IT systems. Such documents in the light of the above-mentioned conclusions are deemed as public information, and therefore should be disclosed, if there is no data that are secrecy protected by law.
Categories: Art. 1(1) API | copyright law | copyright ownership | copyrightable subject matter | Polish Act on Access to Public Information | public information | Voivodeship Administrative Court.
The Supreme Court in its judgment of 26 June 1998 case file I PKN 196/98, published in the Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, the Chamber of Administrative, Labour and Social Insurance (in Polish: Orzecznictwo Sądu Najwyższego Izba Administracyjna, Pracy i Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) of 1999, No 14, item 454, ruled that if the performance of the duties that are originating from the employment relationship has to rely on the creative activity of an employee then it depends on the will of the parties to whom the author’s economic rights will be attributed. If the ownership of these rights is undefined in the employment contract, it means that within the limits of the employment contract and consistent intention of the parties, the author’s economic rights to these works are acquired by the employer in the moment of their acceptance (article 12(1) f the Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights).
Categories: Art. 12 ARNR | copyright law | copyright of employee | copyright ownership | copyrightable subject matter | Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights | Polish Supreme Court.

References: Art. 1
 Art. 1
 Art. 2
 Art. 4
 Art. 6
 Art. 1
 Art. 2
 Art. 9

§ 2
 § 1
 § 1

§ 2

Art. 2
 Art. 1
 Art. 2
 Art. 709
 Art. 1
 Art. 12