Source: http://rychlicki.net/en/issue/copyright-law/copyright-ownership/
Timestamp: 2013-06-19 15:30:27
Document Index: 607559274

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 1', 'Art. 36', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 16', 'Art. 4', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 16', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 10', 'Art. 16', 'Art. 17', 'Art. 4', 'Art. 54', 'Art. 58', 'Art. 7', 'Art. 7', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 2', 'Art. 4', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 2', 'Art. 9', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 2', 'Art. 709', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 131', 'Art. 144', 'Art. 156', '§1', 'Art. 164', 'Art. 253', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 81', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 131', 'Art. 144', 'Art. 164', 'Art. 253', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 12']

Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm » copyright ownership
Archive for: copyright ownership
Categories: Art. 1 ARNR | copyright infringement | copyright law | copyright ownership | copyrightable subject matter | Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights | Polish District Court. Copyright law, case C-128/11
July 5th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki
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. Copyright law, case I Ns 700/12
June 20th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki
Categories: Art. 36 ARNR | copyright law | copyright ownership | Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights | Polish law | Polish Regional Court. Access to public information, case I OSK 2265/11
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 4 February 2010 case file II SAB/Wa 155/09 agreed with the Company and ordered the MIA to disclose requested information. The Court ruled that such expertises are public information, so they should be disclosed, unless they contain secret information protected by law. The Minister of MIA filed a cassation complaint. The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 3 August 2010 case file I OSK 757/10 repealed the contested judgment and returned it to the VAC for further reconsideration. However, the SAC only discussed and held that the VAC did not examine whether there was administrative inaction of the MIA. The Court did not examine the allegation that there was a breach of regulations 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. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 8 September 2011 case file II SAB/Wa 174/11 was bound by the interpretation of the SAC, and decided that there was administrative inaction. The Minister of the Interior and Administration, once again filed a cassation complaint.
There was also a specific issue of the expropriation of copyright for public purpose. Article 1 of the Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights provides that the subject of copyright should be any manifestation of creative activity of individual nature, established in any form, irrespective of its value, purpose or form of expression (work). Opinions and expertise made by qualified persons or entities meet the statutory definition. According to Article 4 of the ARNR, the copyright should not apply to legislative acts and their official drafts, official documents, materials, logos and symbols. Expertises commissioned by the Ministry, are official documents within the meaning of the Article 4(2) of the ARNR. They are used as a servant in decision-making process of the executive authority and are not the subject of copyright. The Polish Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court agree that the official documents are materials that come from the office or other state institution or concerned official matters, or was the result of application of the official proceedings. As it was decided by the Supreme Court in its judgment of 26 September 2001 case file IV CKN 458/00, and by the Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 19 February 1997 case file I SA/Kr 1062/96. The effectiveness of social control and supervision over the information used on completion of assigned tasks of public authority correspond with such understanding of the relationship between the provisions of Article 1 of the API and Article of the ARNR. Such opinion was confirmed by the Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 27 January 2012 case file I OSK 2130/11. Hence, the definition of an official document, provided in Article 6(2) of the API does not provide a basis for restricting access to public information, defined in the Article 1(1) of the API, including the catalog of examples contained in Article 6(1) of the API.
Categories: Art. 1 ARNR | Art. 1(1) API | Art. 16 API | Art. 4 ARNR | Art. 6 API | computer law | copyright law | copyright ownership | e-documents | e-law issues | e-services | expropriation of copyright | legal regulations on computer networks | Polish Act on Access to Public Information | Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights | Polish courts | Polish law | Polish Supreme Administrative Court | public information | Voivodeship Administrative Court. Copyright law, case C-406/10
May 5th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki
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.
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. Tax law, case II FSK 1548/10
Categories: advertising law | Art. 16 ARNR | computer law | copyright infringement | copyright law | copyright ownership | copyrightable subject matter | e-adverstising | e-law issues | legal regulations on computer networks | permissible use of copyrighted materials | Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights | Polish Supreme Administrative Court | tax law. Copyright law, case I OSK 678/11
Categories: Art. 1 ARNR | Art. 1(1) API | Art. 10 API | Art. 16 API | Art. 17 API | Art. 4 ARNR | Art. 54 PBAC | Art. 58 PBAC | Art. 7(1) API | Art. 7(2) API | copyright law | copyright ownership | copyrightable subject matter | Polish Act on Access to Public Information | Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights | Polish Act on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts | Polish Supreme Administrative Court | quotation right. Copyright law, case I OSK 1975/10
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. Copyright law, case II CSK 527/10
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. Copyright law, case IV CSK 274/10
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. Trade mark law, case II GSK 746/09
Categories: Art. 1 ARNR | Art. 131(1)(i) IPL | Art. 144 IPL | Art. 156 §1 pt 2 APC | Art. 164 IPL | Art. 253(2) IPL | company name or firm | copyright infringement | copyright law | copyright misuse | copyright ownership | distinctive character | generic sign | personal rights or interests | Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights | Polish Administrative Proceedings Code | Polish Supreme Administrative Court | trade mark invalidation | trademark law. Copyright law, case I CR 312/75
Categories: copyright infringement | copyright law | copyright ownership | copyrightable subject matter | derivative work | expropriation of copyright | moral rights | permissible use of copyrighted materials | Polish courts | Polish law | Polish Supreme Court | threshold of creativity. Access to public information, case II SAB/Wa 155/09
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. Copyright law, case I CSK 160/09
Categories: advertising law | Art. 81 ARNR | case law | copyright infringement | copyright law | copyright ownership | copyrightable subject matter | image | media law | moral rights | personal rights or interests | Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights | Polish Appeallate Court | Polish District Court | Polish Supreme Court | right of publicity. Copyright law, case I ACa 1145/06
Categories: Art. 1 ARNR | computer law | copyright infringement | copyright law | copyright ownership | copyrightable subject matter | legal regulations on computer networks | Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights | Polish Appeallate Court. Trade mark law, case VI SA/Wa 2284/08
Categories: Art. 1 ARNR | Art. 131(1)(i) IPL | Art. 144 IPL | Art. 164 IPL | Art. 253(2) IPL | Art. 8(1) TMA | Art. 8(2) TMA | company name or firm | copyright infringement | copyright law | copyright misuse | copyright ownership | distinctive character | personal rights or interests | Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights | Polish Act on Trade marks | trade mark invalidation | trademark law | Voivodeship Administrative Court. Copyright law, case I PKN 196/98
March 21st, 2005, Tomasz Rychlicki
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. Rychlicki.net - your news on Polish IT and IP law