Komentarze: 0
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.
Komentarze: 0
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.
Komentarze: 0
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.
 przez Rafał Kontowski  |  
Komentarze: 1
Jaki powinien być zakres oraz charakter przepisów i regulacji dotyczących dostępu do utworów, które powstały lub mogą być udostępnione dzięki finansowaniu ze środków publicznych?
Komentarze: 0
Under art. 20 of the Polish Copyright Act, producers and importers of certain data carriers and reprographic equipment are obliged to pay fees to collective management organisations which act on behalf of creators (authors, performers, producers, publishers). These fees are in an amount not exceeding 3 per cent of the sales price. Collective management organisations redistribute them to the right holders. The authors of this article analyse a new and revolutionary Polish court decision that has changed the to-date jurisprudence in similar cases. The court decided that the said copyright levies are not due once analogous charges have already been paid in another EU Member State and regarding the same goods (data carriers, reprographic equipment). By generally sharing the view of the Polish Court of Appeal in Wrocław, that the multiplication of levies is not compatible with the relevant EU law, the authors point out at some controversies in that respect, especially in relation to the territoriality principle under copyright law and freedoms related to EU single market.
Strona:  «  1  2  3  4  5  »  

Ostatnio dołączyli

Ostatnio dodany komentarz

19.06.2020, 20:06
Wzór obliczeniowy to koncepcja matematyczna, która jest wyłączona z ochrony. Art. 1 Ust. 221. Ochroną objęty może być wyłącznie sposób wyrażenia; nie są objęte ochroną odkrycia, idee, procedury, metody i zasady działania oraz koncepcje matematyczne.Więc jeśli używasz samego... więcej »

Nasi komentatorzy