Source: https://www.profinfo.pl/sklep/zeszyty-naukowe-uniwersytetu-jagiellonskiego-prace-z-prawa-wlasnosci-intelektualnej,7436,r,2017,nr,2.html
Timestamp: 2020-07-14 00:15:45
Document Index: 585084313

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 5', 'Art. 33', 'Art. 26', 'Art. 64', 'Art. 32', 'Art. 21', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 12', 'Art. 12']

Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Prace z Prawa Własności Intelektualnej - Zeszyt 2 (136) (Druk, PDF) - Profinfo.pl
Kod towaru: KAM-6003 201702
Internet memes and the definition of work in copyright law. An attempt at an analysisp. 5
Julia Padlewska Freedom of panorama in comparative
It is a significant issue to establish which part of a meme has the feature of individual character,considering how (simply) the memes are created (they usually consist of only two elements: image and text). The proposed method is to apply the methods currently used to assess different types of creative output, such as texts or photographs/images (as the internet meme almost always is the combination of these two). The answer, however, to the frequently repeated question about the threshold of creativity required by the definition of work, also in relation to internet memes seems to be unclear and illusive. Even though the current requirements regarding recognition of the creations as works protected by copyright are quite low and liberal (as can be seen on the example of the Court of Justice judgment in case C-5/08 Infopaq International A/S v. Danske Dagblades Forening in relation to texts), many memes that can be described as 'common' seem to be still below the acceptable level. The cause for this problem is what appears to be the nature of memes - they are a new method of communicating ideas and the most essential for this purpose is the context, not the form in which they are expressed and which copyright rules require for it to be characterised as individual. That in turn leaves us with the problem of copyright not protecting the ideas, at least so far (some of the recent opinions in this matter, represented for example by prof. R. Markiewicz, can be crucial for changing this in the future). On the other hand, memes that are not considered as 'common' can achieve the required level of creativity (which has to be proven in every specific case) and for this reason they can be protected by copyright, of which fact their authors are often unaware.
This article is dedicated to the freedom of panorama - a provision that allows free dissemination of works that are permanently situated in the public space. It is mentioned in Art. 5(3)(h)of the InfoSoc Directive and because of its facultative character not all Member States have introduced a similar provision, deepening the divide between jurisdictions in the European Union. The author wants to emphasize the importance of the country of origin for understanding this exception. The Polish copyright law is compared with regulations implemented in Germany and France in order to present differences that often have a negative impact on the cross-border application of intellectual property law.
The concept of permanent exhibition is described as an exhibition without specified time limits;it should not be understood as a technical solution - the object does not have to be fixed in one particular place. Sand, ice and clay are mentioned as examples of materials that cause controversies. In this part, the author explains also the idea of permanence in street art and the possibility of overlap between Art. 33(1) and Art. 26 of the Copyright Act.
Nearly seven years after the system of mandatory approval of remuneration tables in the identified fields of use was introduced, it is desirable to analyse and sum up to what extent the system works well in practice and whether it delivers on the goals and assumptions specified in the statement of reasons for CT judgment of 24 January 2006 (SK 40/04). For a reliable assessment of the system, it is necessary not only to refer to the case law of general courts, but also determine whether the amending act of 8 July 2010 introduced the changes necessary to restore the law to a state of conformity to the Constitution. Verification of the existing system of approving tables is also necessary in view of the need to implement Directive 2014/26/EU,which aims to ensure uniformisation and improvement of standards in the field of functioning and transparency of operation of collective management organisations (CMOs) in EU states. The presented reflections lead to formulating two alternative proposals of amendments to improve the way remuneration tables are approved and eliminate the deficiencies of the existing norms. The first scenario assumes acceleration of the table approval procedure using the mechanism of tacit consent of the administration authority; the second scenario assumes fixing the rates of remuneration in a Regulation of the Minister of Culture and National Heritage [Polish abbreviation: MKiDN] after consultation with the Copyright Commission [Polish abbreviation: KPA].
The first scenario is a proposal for an evolutionary change of the system of approving tables using legal instruments that have already been tried and tested in the Polish legal system and are used to approve, e.g. price lists or rules of providing services in the Polish telecommunications law or postal law. The changes proposed in the first scenario do not remove the difficulties with explaining the quasi-normative nature of a decision approving the remuneration tables, but help make the proceedings less lengthy. In line with the proposal in the first scenario, in the course of the mandatory negotiations, drafts of remuneration tables would be developed and then submitted to the MKiDN for approval using the tacit consent mechanism. The mandatory negotiations should be attended by: 1) the applicant CMO; 2) CMOs which,under their permits, manage copyrights or related rights in the same categories of works or objects of related rights in the field of use the application concerns; 3) users' representatives;4) mediators - KPA members, whose role should change compared to that resulting from the laws currently in force (cf. detailed comments in the article).
The Constitutional Tribunal in case no. SK 32/14 recognized author's economic rights as the individual's other property rights that enjoy the protection provided for in Art. 64 of the Constitution. The constitutionalisation of the standard of protection of author's economic rights made a contribution towards refl ections on what appeared to be competing lines of judgments as regards assessing the consequences of the creator's transfer of author's economic rights in a creative contribution to a film shot in times of the Polish People's Republic. The system of values of the Polish Constitution of 1997 recognises the principles of: equal protection of author's economic rights (Art. 32), disallowing the expropriation of individuals without just compensation (Art. 21(2)), and rejection of the value system from the Polish People's Republic period. With respect to transfer of author's economic rights, these principles are now expressed in the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act of 1994. The issue we are dealing with was regulated differently in the People's Republic of Poland under the previous Copyright Act of 1952. In general, it is not disputed in the literature that under Art. 13 of 1952 Copyright Act, state enterprises which were producers of films originally acquired rights in the entire cinematographic work. This did not, however, mean that they acquired author's economic rights in creative contributions which made up the film. During the process of film creation, author's economic rights were acquired independently in respect of the film work as a whole, understood as a sum of component works, on one hand, and in respect of the individual creative contributions, on the other hand. The state enterprise had to conclude copyright transfer agreements with creators of independent component works to acquire these rights. These agreements could differ in character and scope. However, the acquisition of a wider range of rights in a creative contribution than what would result from its cinematographic use as part of an audio-visual work always required detailed provisions in the agreement with film co-creator expressly indicating the acquisition of a wider range of author's economic rights than that indicated above. There was no doubt that state enterprise by virtue of law could acquire all the rights in the contributed work when it was created on the basis of Art. 12(1)(3) of the 1952 Copyright Act for the purposes of advertising or economic propaganda, just as it is in the current state of law the case with the so-called employee creative work under Art. 12 of the 1994 Copyright Act. However, the condition for acquiring the rights was that the employment contract not only had to require the employee to be in 'creative readiness', but it also had to precisely define the characteristics of the creative contribution to be made in its performance. In other cases,the scope of the acquired rights in the component work was defined by an agreement with the creator, which could take the form of an agreement for creating a component work or an agreement transferring author's economic rights in an existing work. Usually, these agreements were imprecise and vague, often with a general clause transferring all author's economic rights in a creative contribution, in violation of the principles of the applicable law: the ban on transferring rights to non-existent (unknown) fields of exploitation or the requirement of precise exemplification of fields of exploitation to which the right in the creative contribution is transferred.
Consequently, the subject of the analysis had to be the legal views expressed in two judgments of the Supreme Court: of 2 December 2010 in case no. I CS 33/10 and of 8 November 2000 in case no. V CKN 693/00. The authors' analysis leads them to conclude that these judgments are not mutually exclusive. Each of the judgments ensured protection of the right to remuneration due to the author of the component work, while taking into account the producer's right to properly exploit the cinematographic work under the changed conditions of recording, reproduction and performance technologies. However, in case no. V CKN 693/00 the Supreme Court pointed out the need to burden both parties to the agreement with the consequences of new fields or ways of exploitation, previously unknown and unpredictable, coming into existence many years after the conclusion of the agreement transferring author's economic rights in the component work. This need occurred especially when, after a period of time, there was a signifi cant increase in the economic value of the component work, which was impossible to predict and even estimate at the time when the creator transferred copyright. The remuneration paid to the creator could not cover this newly created field or way of exploitation of the component work,which in case no. V CKN 693/00, contrary to case no. I CSK 33/10, was capable of existing and being exploited independently of the cinematographic work as a whole. The cartoon characters of Bolek and Lolek can be used in the changed economic environment in other ways than cinematographic exploitation, e.g. in computer games, smartphone applications,books or toys. Today, the creator can effectively protect his/her rights under civil law as well as under industrial property law, obtaining rights in a registered graphic trademark or industrial design. Undoubtedly, the parties to the agreement which transferred the right to use the component work to the film production enterprise did not intend the agreement to cover the right to use it in the abovementioned way, since it was not justified by the requirement to ensure proper exploitation by the producer of the cinematographic work as a sum of the component works.
Representatives of the first viewpoint refer to natural rights of man or the connection between the creator-inventor and the product of intellectual effort and on this basis justify property rights in intellectual goods. In case of Robert Nozick, who drew on Locke's theory of ownership,we can speak of formulating a 'labour' conception: the title to a patent or work is derived from human effort and is an emanation of the individual's moral right to the product of their own effort. This is a legal right, which is universal and exclusive, as well as a natural right - pre-political and complementary to human autonomy. According to the author of 'Anarchy, State and Utopia', copyright is yet another right that a person has and no person or group can violate. Similar views were expressed by Ayn Rand. In this philosopher's creationist theory there is no difference between appropriating tangible and intangible goods. In either case a specific object is created and - by virtue of the right to live - a rationally operating creator is entitled to it. The difference between 'producing' a work or its copy would lie exclusively in that the former act of creation takes place ex nihilo. As a rule, intellectual property rights would be treated in the same way as ownership sensu proprio and would have a natural character: enactments would only sanction the established title.
In a different vein, representatives of the abolitionist view (including N. Stephen Kinsella,Wendy E. McElroy, Boudewijn Bouckaert) stress that introducing the possibility of 'appropriating' works or inventions (the main areas of criticism) lead the propertarianist theory to become internally contradictory. Private ownership is the consequence of scarcity of goods. Meanwhile intangible goods are neither rivalrous nor excludable. Nor can they be ascribed any attribute of the classical Roman ownership triad. Possessing, using, deriving benefits and using up, finally also disposing can only take place in the physical space. It is impossible to take possession (direct and exclusive control) of abstract creations. Ownership of intangible goods is thus impossible on the plane of natural law. Moreover, supporters of deontological theories submitted also that there was no need to introduce 'artificial scarcity' and fiduciary intellectual property on conventionalist underpinnings. In this context it was submitted that intellectual property was not 'property', though not in the way this distinction is made by legal academics,but by virtue of the fact that it is a privilege, sanctioned by the state apparatus of coercion, for certain groups of infl uence, hence an infringement of the principle of non-aggression.