Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
DamianFlisak
ofexploitationfields,andthususesforthework,isunlimited12.Tisconclusionis
alsoconfirmedbythewordingofArt.50PCA,whichincludesthedistinctivewords
“inparticular”.TePCAalsolacksconvincingargumentsthatthescopeofworkuse
shouldbe“frozen”,denyingtheauthorexpansionofthewaystheworkcanbeused
beyondthosespecifiedinArt.50PCA.
InPoland,thenatureofcopyrightusedtobeexplainedbytheownershipmodel,
inwhichitsscopeisdefinedingeneralterms(Art.17PCA)andthespecification
ofexploitationareas(Art.50PCA)isonlyexemplary13.Teconsequenceofsuch
anapproachisaquasi-presumptionthattheauthorisentitledtoalltherightstouse
thework.Itwascorrectlynotedthatthankstothisapproachthelevelofcopyright
protectionisadditionallyincreased14.Contrarytothisposition,whichthePolishcourts
havealsotakenaccountof15,abetterapproachtocapturetheessenceoftheauthor’s
exploitationrightsistoextendcopyrightprotectiononlytothoserightswhichare
expresslymentionedinthelaw(theconceptofcopyrightmonopoly)16.Itmustalso
beadmittedthattheownershipmodelcurrentlyhasgreaterlegalanchoring,ifonly
becauseofthenon-exhaustivecatalogueofexploitationfields(Art.50PCA).How-
ever,atheoreticaldiscussionaboutdiferentmodelsofcopyrightdoesnotbringusany
closertodelineatingitsboundaries.
3.BORDERLINEWORKUSE
TevastmajorityofcourtdisputesinPolanddonotevenallowaspecificaction
oracttobechallengedasanactofrelevantworkexploitation.Asarule,suchactwill
undoubtedlycomewithinthescopeofcopyright.However,certainworkusedoesnot
meritcopyrightprotection(inthispapercalled“borderlineworkuse”,ausejustbelow
thethresholdofcopyrightprotection)–seetheexamplesnamedintheintroduction
tothisarticle.Althoughfamiliarizationwiththecontentofaworkispossibleinsuch
cases,thereisanintuitiveneedtoplacesuchsituationsbeyondthescopeofcopyright
protection.Formulatingaformallycorrectargumentinsuchcasesisnot,however,
easy.Polishdoctrinealsomentionsborderlineuse.Forinstance,deliveringentertaining
media(moviesonaphysicalcarrierasanexample)toothersinordertodisseminate
themshouldnotberegardedasrelevant17.Rightlyassertedwasinsuchcasetherela-
tivelysmallornon-existingimpactonthelegitimateauthor’sinterests18,or–abitmore
12T.Targosz,(in:)Ustawaoprawieautorskimiprawachpokrewnych.Komentarz,D.Flisak
(ed.),Warszawa2015,p.723.
13Asimilarlegislativetechniquewasusedwhendefiningthenotionofwork.
14J.Barta,R.Markiewicz,Prawo,p.126;seealso:B.Giesen,Własnościowymodelprawaautor-
skiego–analizakoncepcjiprzyjętejwprawiepolskim,RPEiS2015,no2,p.61,passim.
15See:thejudgmentoftheConstitutionalTribunalof23June2015(SK32/14),par.6.1,
Dz.U.item932.
16J.Barta,R.Markiewicz,Prawo,p.126.
17E.Traple,(in:)System,t.13,2013,p.198.
18E.Traple,(in:)Ustawaoprawieautorskimiprawachpokrewnych.Komentarz,J.Barta,
R.Markiewicz(eds),Warszawa2011,p.341;similarly:J.Chwalba,Korzystaniezprogramówpeer-
to-peeradozwolonyużytekprywatnywprawieautorskim,ZNUJPPWI,2008,vol.102,p.28.
130
