News

This time in Rzeczpospolita, Dr. Michal Markiewicz writes about citation, comparing the application of this institution to two intellectual property rights, i.e. the right to register an industrial design and copyright. Seemingly the same name, but obviously different meanings. The citation in copyright law is confined rather narrowly, although there are attempts at a broader interpretation, limited, however, at present by CJEU case law. On the ground of industrial designs, citation serves a completely different purpose, and the approach to its interpretation is far more open to broadening its intuitive scope. Publicly available excerpt from the article: https://archiwum.rp.pl/artykul/1508848-Cytat-w-prawie-wlasnosci-intelektualnej.html?fbclid=IwAR3Gdlu9gNaGYo-7AibkFYCG0dSmVtxmZJmh4GTawH7c-Bhnov6230XkDcM

Yesterday’s Rzeczpospolita featured an article by editor Jan Skoumal, in which we were asked to comment on Polish law in the context of liability for the use of works for the purpose of teaching AI algorithms. In addition to the doubts related to the possibility of invoking temporary reproduction (Article 23(1) of the Copyright Act), it is once again surprising that more than 4.5 years have not been enough for us to implement the DSM Directive (2019/790), including the exception for data mining (TDM). We are already 2.5 years past the deadline, and the counter continues to tick. Link to article: https://www.rp.pl/internet-i-prawo-autorskie/art39646041-pozew-przeciwko-sztucznej-inteligencji-czy-bylby-mozliwy-w-polsce

New year, old habits. In today’s Rzeczpospolita, Dr. Michal Markiewicz writes about the problem of commercial use of items purchased on property. So: is it permissible to publish photos of board members against the background of purchased paintings, is it permissible to post photos of the office containing well-known and recognizable furniture on the website, and is it permissible to use the appearance of the office for the purpose of creating flyers, souvenirs, etc. advertising a particular business? And if all of these activities would be prohibited, is it at all permissible to invite third parties, for example, to a meeting, in such a decorated space? Publicly available excerpt from the article: https://archiwum.rp.pl/artykul/1508121-Reklama-a-przedmiot-w-tle.html

In a recent article in Rzeczpospolita, Dr. Michal Markiewicz writes about the risks of using artificial intelligence from the perspective of businesses, including the narrower scope of rights they acquire when employees use AI. In the text, he also addresses the controversial topic of the possibility of invoking the presumption of authorship in the case of works developed by AI – is this a procedural gateway that allows the assumption of protection for works created by AI (until the presumption is rebutted by the other party, provided it has the relevant evidence), or is it a condition of invoking the presumption that the work must be shown to be of human authorship? Publicly available excerpt from the article: https://archiwum.rp.pl/artykul/1507515-Wykorzystanie-sztucznej-inteligencji-oslabia-prawa-przedsiebiorcow.html

In today’s Rzeczpospolita, Dr. Michal Markiewicz writes about the work contract and the “strange” rulings limiting its application to the intangible effects of these contracts. Despite the fact that the Supreme Court clearly indicates that the same effect can be the result of both a contract for work and a contract for services, and it is up to the parties to the contract to decide how they want to shape their relationship, still some courts, including the Supreme Administrative Court, introduce surprising requirements to some subjects of such contracts. 👉 So how to draw the correct line between a contract for work and a contract for the provision of services, and how to reconcile the conflicting rulings of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court? ➡️ Publicly available excerpt from the article: https://archiwum.rp.pl/artykul/1506745.html

Thank you very much for the opportunity to participate in the XV Congress of Competition Law, to listen to interesting lectures and voices in discussions. Quoting from Attorney Jaroslaw Sroczynski, “The OCCP procedures, which I had the opportunity to speak about, were a significant part of the subject matter of the Congress. I hope that the next amendment to the law will ensure a proper balance between the powers of the OCCP and entrepreneurs. To the benefit of both parties and in accordance with the principles contained in the ECN+ Directive. As always, Business Pulse was an excellent organizer and facilitator of this event.” Many thanks to Editor Renata Grzeszczak and the PB Team. More about the Congress: https://newsletter.pb.pl/konferencje/xv-kongres-prawo-konkurencji-fb793240-26eb-4a21-b850-c7f1f04f9c93?fbclid=IwAR38TqQB1UfVJ8g8Qt-vWs14OHo-XJOhz4DMmMKr-i4qyJhzUApVLivVQtc

This time in Rzeczpospolita, Dr. Michal Markiewicz presents the issue of cumulation of IP protection from the perspective of a single product, the protection of which entrepreneurs can expand by obtaining multiple rights whose “direction” of protection differs. Thus, we can, among other things, protect specific details of a design or the overall impression it creates, protect against the risk of association by the average viewer, or the use of a new technical achievement. In the text, Dr. Markiewicz writes why it is worthwhile to seek additional protection of an important project for the entrepreneur. He also points out the systemic dangers of failing to standardize exceptions and limitations to exclusive rights – an example of which is the recent and widely commented ruling of the Court of Justice of the EU in the Audi C-344/22 case. Publicly available excerpt from the article: https://uprp.gov.pl/sites/default/files/inline-files/Wyniki%20konkursu%20na%20informację%20medialną%202023.pdf