Artykuły

In the judgment of the Polish Court of Appeal in Warsaw of May 22, 2013 (I ACa 1359/12) it was confirmed that the use of an audiovisual work is—by virtue of a legal presumption—subject to an exclusive right of the producer of such a work and, as long as that work is used as the whole, the broadcasters or rebroadcasters transmitting it do not require additional licences for its integral parts (for instance musical and worded-musical works with words) from the respective copyright collecting society representing those integral parts or pre-existing works. The court pointed out that until that assumption was disproven it is the producer and not the authors who holds the right to use the audiovisual work as a whole. The Appeal Court stressed also that an audiovisual work is not a set (collection) of various so-called component works: it is a single work.

The object (source, material) stemming from the public domain that is an idea or inspiration for a used spatial trade mark cannot be subject to exclusive rights as granted for the protected spatial trade mark using that object, but may potentially be subject to protection under copyright law.

Under the provision of art.79(1) of the Polish Copyright Act, among the forms of redress available to a right holder whose rights have been infringed is the right to demand that the infringing party repair the inflicted damage by payment of double or, where the infringement is culpable, triple the amount of appropriate remuneration that would have been due as of the time it was claimed in exchange for the right holder’s consent for the use of the work. The Supreme Court held this provision to be of a punitive nature and that there is no connection between the culprit’s liability and the actual damage suffered by the right holder. Consequently, as the court stated, only the actual infringement of the protected right triggers the liability in question. This remedy is intended to provide the right holder with simpler and faster access to protection against and compensation for the infringement. In the authors’ view, the discussed judgment may be highly controversial, as the Polish Supreme Court seems to be disregarding the EU system of IP rights enforcement, primarily established by Directive 2004/48 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (the Enforcement Directive). The Supreme Court seems also to disregard the premises establishing civil liability of the perpetrator.

In a judgment of November 17, 2011, Case III CSK 30/11, the Polish Supreme Court held that claims brought by collecting societies regarding copyright are as a rule subject to a 10-year limitation period, even if the claims—by virtue of law—can be brought to the court only by the respective collecting society (mandatory representation). The specific length of the limitation period (3 or 10 years) depends, however, on the respective nature of the claim. The judgment also provided insight into the Supreme Court’s views on the extent to which submission of and access to documents can be demanded to determine remuneration and fees claimed by a collecting society (CS) based on art.105 (2) of the Polish Copyright Act.

Jaki powinien być zakres oraz charakter przepisów i regulacji dotyczących dostępu do utworów, które powstały lub mogą być udostępnione dzięki finansowaniu ze środków publicznych?