Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
Evolutionofcopyright–realityorillusion?
generally–theobstructionofalreadyexistingtradingpractices19.Authorshavelinked
theuseofworknotsomuchtoobjectiveuse,buttotheactualeconomicimportance
fortheauthor(orotherentitledparty).Tislineofinterpretingcopyrightsbywayof
theauthor’seconomicinterestsdeservesrecognition.Tisisalsoreflectedinaruling
oftheAppealCourtinKraków:“Itisimpossibletoacceptthatinasituationwhere
listeningtomusicisnottherealobjective,butresultsfromanintentiontopurchase
adiscorcassettecontainingmusicrecordingssoughtbythecustomer,orchecking
whetherthediscortapeistechnicallyintact,wearedealingwiththepublicpresenta-
tionwithinthemeaningof[PCA–D.F.]Customer’srelativelyshortstaytopurchase
adiscormusictapecannotbetreatedasapublicreceiptofthemusic”20.Anotherway
to“rationalize”thescopeofcopyrightisthe“extensive”interpretationofthefairuse
provisions.Eventhoughatfirstsightthislooksattractive,itcannotaddressthecruxof
theproblemformanyreasons.Fairuseprovisionsasexceptions21mustbeinterpreted
strictly,notonlyduetothethree-stepstest(aslaiddowninArt.35PCA).Tisholds
trueeventhoughtheECJheldthatastrictinterpretation“maynothamperthedevel-
opmentofnewtechnologiesandmustachieveafairbalancebetweentheinterests
ofright-holders,usersandsocietyatlarge”22.Inaddition,theyconcernspecifically
describedsituationsandfollowingPolishcourtjurisprudencetheirapplicationoften
provestobeproblematic.
AnoptionalexceptioncontainedinArt.5par.3pointi)Directive2001/29/EC
wasrecentlyintroducedintoPolishcopyrightlawasArt.29(2)PCA(“Itshallbeper-
missibletounintentionallyincludeaworkinanotherwork,providedthattheincluded
workdoesnothaveanyrelevancefortheworkitwasincludedin”).Ingeneral,itis
aspecificdeminimisclauseconcerninguseofthework.Firstofall,sincetheDirective
doesnotspecifythelinebetweenanincidentalandasignificantinclusionofawork,
itisuptothecourttodecideonitsapplicationtakingintoaccountsuchthingsas
theintentofinclusionandthesizeoftheincludedwork.Asamatteroffact,Art.29(2)
PCAaimstojustifytheuseoftheworkcompletelysubordinatedtotheproperobject
ofpresentation.Tus,thisprovisioncanonlybeofuseinsomeminorcasestojustify
therandomworkuse.Forexample,itshouldallowsomeofthebackgroundelements
tobeusedinafilm,whichalthoughsubjecttoself-protectiondonotcreateafilm
atmosphere,aresimplyirrelevanttothefilm.Certainlylackof“intention”(orbetter:
incidentalinclusion)willconstituteasignificantobstacletotheapplicationofthispro-
vision.
19Z.Okoń,(in:)Ustawaoprawieautorskimiprawachpokrewnych.Komentarz,D.Flisak(ed.),
Warszawa2015,p.268.
20RulingoftheAppealCourtinKrakówdated4April2000,IACa239/00.
21Adiscussionastowhethercopyrightlimitationsaremereexceptionstoexclusiverightsor
whethertheyshouldbeconceptualizedassubjectiverightsisbeyondtheremitofthisarticle.
22S.Bechtold,(in:)ConciseEuropeancopyrightlaw,T.Dreier,P.BerntHugenholtz(eds),2.edi-
tion,AlphenaandenRijn2016,p.455.
131
