Employee’s work on the grounds of Polish Copyright Law

Motivation: Employees’ works are crucial in practice. The validity and need for discussions on the rights of the employer to the employee’s work is justified by the increasing concern for the observance of copyright, and also for employee–employer relations. By entering into an employment relationship, both parties must be aware of their rights and obligations. Aim: This article presents the issue of copyright status of an employee’s work regulated in the Article 12 and 13 of the Act on copyright and related rights. The considerations focus on the legal relationship between the employer and the employee-author, and the issue of acquiring author’s economic rights to the work created by the employee within the employment relationship. The article is based on the analysis of legal regulations and judicial decisions. Results: Regulating rights to the work created by the employee is dependent on the will of the parties. It is only the absence of contractual terms in this respect that results in a reference to the statutory provisions, which define the rules of transferring copyright for the employee’s work to the employer. Article 12 of the Act on copyright and related rights specifies grounds for secondary acquisition of copyright by the employer. One should remember that this regulation concerns solely author’s economic rights because author’s moral rights, which due to their nature are non-transferable, remain with the author or employee.

A missing person as a copyright holder

The disappearance of people is a phenomenon that requires in-depth multi-faceted analysis. The law does not regulate the situation of a missing person between their disappearance and being declared dead. During this time, in the understanding of the law, a missing person remains an entity that can dispose of their property rights and personal rights, but because of the disappearance people are unable to do that, so his/her rights are exposed to be lost or unlawfully used by other persons. As a result, many doubts must be faced by people close to the missing person. This work discusses the copyrights of the missing person, its execution and protection in the time between the disappearance and declaring the person dead. As an introduction, the subject of copyright (work) is discussed and the division of copyright into moral rights and property rights is indicated. Next, the paper presents the possible ways of proceeding in the event of a disappearance, including a minor, spouse, and co-creator. The possibility of appointing a custodian and submitting a request to a prosecutor is indicated, and an analogous application of provisions in the event of death is proposed. Moreover, a situation where an action to protect moral/economic copyrights has been brought before a person missing (the proceedings are pending) is noted. Finally, the consequences of declaring a missing person to be dead are discussed. Based on the considerations carried out, it can be concluded that there is no single appropriate legal solution in a situation where there is a need to exercise and protect the personal/economic copyrights of a missing person. The proposed solutions of proceeding in the missing person case are not specifically designed in the event of a disappearance, and their application is not established in practice. It seems that the court should recognize the need to protect the interests of the missing person and allow the proceedings to be conducted when referring to one of the proposed solutions. Adaptation of the indicated solutions, in the face of the forced inactivity of the missing person, should guarantee the protection of his/her rights. De lege ferenda, it is worth considering the general regulation of a person’s situation from the moment of his/her disappearance until he/she is declared dead. This could be done by introducing a provision providing for the possibility of appointing a custodian to handle the missing person’s affairs.

Augmented and virtual reality art: a new frontier of legal protection

Augmented reality (AR) refers to a type of technology in which a digital overlay can be added to the real world in order to present the viewer with aspects of both reality and a virtual world. Virtual reality (VR) environments consist of a computer-generated, three-dimensional, virtual world. However, in contrast to augmented reality technology these environments are self-contained, and do not allow users to interact directly with the real world around them. 1 This article will explore the current status of protection for AR and VR art in relation to moral rights drawing from three jurisdictions: France, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Copyright law and the freedom of panorama: The right to commercialise photographs of protected works

<p>Making an unauthorised copy of a copyright-protected work is a copyright infringement, as is making an adaptation or a derivative work without gaining prior consent from the author or authors of the copyright-protected work. It was once questioned at one of the Berne Convention amendment meetings whether to take photographs of copyright-protected literary works was to make copies of them. The meeting concluded that taking photographs of literary works meant making copies of them, and, therefore, photographs should not be taken without gaining the prior consent of the author or authors. However, there was no discussion about photographs of other type of works, such as buildings and sculptures. Taking photographs of architectural and sculptural works permanently situated in public places is protected under “freedom of panorama”, a provision of copyright laws that permits the taking of photographs of those works, which is applied differently in some countries. This paper discusses copyright protection for those photographs, though there are not many cases available in this issue as the terminology of “freedom of panorama” was only recently coined. The discussion is based on the Berne Convention, and copyright law in the United States, New Zealand, and Indonesia. Freedom of panorama may seem to limit the exclusive rights for architects and sculptors to authorise any acts to be done over their works. However, photographers also have the need to be sure that their photographs are protected, including photographs that are taken under the freedom of panorama. Therefore, this paper argues that the photographers who take photographs under the freedom of panorama should be able to exercise exclusive and moral rights over their photographs. Although the three countries mentioned provide protection for the “freedom of panorama”, it is protected differently and, therefore, there is a need to include the freedom of panorama in an international copyright treaty to avoid a possible conflict of laws.</p>

Copyright law and the freedom of panorama: The right to commercialise photographs of protected works

<p>Making an unauthorised copy of a copyright-protected work is a copyright infringement, as is making an adaptation or a derivative work without gaining prior consent from the author or authors of the copyright-protected work. It was once questioned at one of the Berne Convention amendment meetings whether to take photographs of copyright-protected literary works was to make copies of them. The meeting concluded that taking photographs of literary works meant making copies of them, and, therefore, photographs should not be taken without gaining the prior consent of the author or authors. However, there was no discussion about photographs of other type of works, such as buildings and sculptures. Taking photographs of architectural and sculptural works permanently situated in public places is protected under “freedom of panorama”, a provision of copyright laws that permits the taking of photographs of those works, which is applied differently in some countries. This paper discusses copyright protection for those photographs, though there are not many cases available in this issue as the terminology of “freedom of panorama” was only recently coined. The discussion is based on the Berne Convention, and copyright law in the United States, New Zealand, and Indonesia. Freedom of panorama may seem to limit the exclusive rights for architects and sculptors to authorise any acts to be done over their works. However, photographers also have the need to be sure that their photographs are protected, including photographs that are taken under the freedom of panorama. Therefore, this paper argues that the photographers who take photographs under the freedom of panorama should be able to exercise exclusive and moral rights over their photographs. Although the three countries mentioned provide protection for the “freedom of panorama”, it is protected differently and, therefore, there is a need to include the freedom of panorama in an international copyright treaty to avoid a possible conflict of laws.</p>

Occupancy, Land Rights and the Algonquin Anishinaabeg

This article is about Indigenous territorial title and land rights, and specifically those of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg Nation. In 1983, the Algonquins of Pikwàkanagàn, residing in the province of Ontario, petitioned the Crown to recognize Algonquin territorial title and rights to 36,000 square kilometres of their natal homelands in the Ottawa River watershed. With negotiations beginning in the early 1990s, an Agreement-in-Principle was developed and ratified in 2016, the penultimate step to the largest modern treaty in Ontario's history. In this article, we examine the argument for moral rights to territory, not in terms of the Canadian or international legal order, nor even through examining the documents and voice of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg, but through the lens of an argument that has been advanced as the basis of the international territorial rights of states. We argue that the justifications for state rights territory—grounded in the considerations that ensue from an analysis of occupancy groups—provides a stronger claim to territorial jurisdiction and title in the case of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg Nation than the competing claim by the Canadian state.

DEFINITION OF THE CONCEPT OF «DEFAMATION» IN THE COUNTRIES OF CONTITENTAL EUROPE

The article discusses the key issues of the interpretation of the concept of “defamation” in the countries of Western Europe. In a modern social and legal state, considerable attention is paid to the protection of individual rights and freedoms as the foundations of democracy. One of the basic personal rights is the right to personal dignity, protection of honor and reputation. Analysis of the structures of the current legislation, the positions of the Supreme Court, acts of the European Court, as well as classical and newest scientific approaches, defamation is an offense expressed in the dissemination of inaccurate information that violates the right of a legal entity to a business reputation. Honor, dignity, business reputation are constituent elements of such categories as personal moral rights and intangible benefits, in order to ensure the realization and functioning of the rights of which, a well-thought-out, well-coordinated and effective protection mechanism must be produced. Attention is focused on the fact that for the proper operation of such a mechanism, it is necessary to determine, first of all, the protected object, what are its features and boundaries that need to be regulated by law. Indeed, in the case of securing an incomplete list of protected in the legislation, fixing in the norms not all signs of the protected or the presence of gaps in the regulation of this legal relationship, the potential for abuse of the right or misinterpretation of its norms arises. National laws define in different ways whether the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff or the defendant. It is concluded that defamation is one of the unlawful acts that infringe upon honor, dignity and reputation and requires further study in the practice of the European Court. In dealing with defamation cases, courts always need to find a compromise and strike a balance between freedom of expression, freedom of thought and speech, and protection of dignity, honor and reputation.

Democratic Law

This chapter argues for a communicative conception of democracy and democratic law by appealing to a duty of respect that we owe to our fellow citizens. To nurture and sustain the social bases of self-respect, citizens must convey to each other their convictions of mutual equality, their commitments to respect essential human needs and moral rights, and their mutual commitment to cooperate and provide every member with a stable place of belonging. Fulfilling these duties of communication requires a public commitment authored by all of us, undertaken through articulate action. Law has qualities of substantive expression that mere discursive messages lack. Law is public and takes the form of an ongoing, articulate commitment. But for law to convey the message that citizens must convey, each of us must be able to contribute to its formation. Hence, for law to play this special function, it must be democratically forged and sustained.

Konsep Masa Berlaku Perlindungan Hak Cipta Perspektif Hukum Islam

The issue of Intellectual Property Rights has not been discussed or even described by classical fiqh scholars in-depth and thoroughly. One aspect that has not been studied is the issue of the period of copyright protection. The assumption is that if copyright protection is not limited in time, it will lead to a monopoly of creation by a few people. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to clearly describe and compare the terms of copyright protection in the Copyright Act and Islamic Law using the Maqashid Syariah perspective. The method used is a qualitative study (library research) with a comparative approach. The results of the study indicate that the period of copyright protection according to Islamic law, for the type of moral rights is valid forever, while for the type of economic rights it applies trade (willingness of the heart) with the provision that the shorter (reasonably) is, the better as long as it does not harm the creator. In addition, the State can determine the period of copyright protection through its regulations according to the country's ability.