-
1.
The design of an insurance package (instructions for the package) qualifies as a “work” within the meaning of Art. 1(1) of the CRR as it is a product of a person’s actions, has a fixed form, demonstrates creative elements and has individual features, even if its content is to a certain extent determined by law.
-
2.
The creative (original) character is manifested in a creative combination of insurance products, which have been formed by their specific selection and compilation, the creation of a special, simplified and completely new tariff for them, and giving the package a form which is simplified and useful for agents.
-
3.
Copyright protection cannot be excluded on the grounds that such a package is a procedure, a method or a principle of operation, in accordance with Art. 1(2) of the CRR, as such a package is a way of expressing specific directives of conduct, the determination of which was creative and fully individual.
-
4.
The claim for payment of remuneration for using the work with the consent of the author and the claim for compensation for infringement of proprietary copyrights (use without consent) are not only different claims according to substantive law but also different procedural demands.
-
5.
As such, a request for payment of remuneration results in the interruption of the limitation period of the claim for payment of remuneration and does not affect the period of limitation of the claim for compensation.
-
6.
The appropriate remuneration measure is that which the entitled party would receive if the infringer had concluded a contract with the author for the use of the work in the scope of the violation.
-
7.
Priority is given to the will of the parties expressed in an agreement for the use of the work and only in the absence of relevant provisions is the scope of granted rights and benefits arising from the use of the work taken into account.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
Art. 17: Unless this Act stipulates otherwise, the author thereof shall have an exclusive right to use the work and to manage its use throughout all the fields of exploitation and to receive remuneration for the use of the work.
Art. 43:
-
1.
If the contract does not indicate whether the transfer of the author’s economic rights or the granting of licence was free of charge, the author shall have the right to remuneration.
-
2.
If the contract does not specify the author’s remuneration, such remuneration shall be set taking into account the scope of the right granted and the benefits resulting from the use of the work.
-
1.
Art. 43 § 2: If the contract does not specify the author’s remuneration, such remuneration shall be set taking into account the scope of the right granted and the benefits resulting from the use of the work.
Art. 79:
-
1.
The rightholder may instruct the person who infringed his/her author’s economic rights to:
-
(1)
cease the infringement;
-
(2)
eliminate the consequences of the infringement;
-
(3)
repair the inflicted damage
-
(a)
on the general terms or
-
(b)
by payment of double or, where the infringement is culpable, triple the amount of respective remuneration that would have been due as of the time of claiming it in exchange for the rightholder’s consent for the use of the work;
-
(a)
-
(4)
hand over the acquired benefits.
-
(1)
-
1.
The justification of a judgment should contain an indication of the factual basis of the decision, namely: determination of the facts that the court found to be proven, evidence on which the court relied, reasons for which other evidence was denied credibility and the probative value, and clarification of the legal basis of the judgment with reference to provisions of law.
If there are no specific provisions on proceedings before the court of second instance, the provisions on the proceedings before the court of first instance will apply accordingly to such proceedings. The provisions of Arts. 194–196 and 198 do not apply.
The court of second instance examines case within the limits of the appeal; however, within the limits of the appeal the court takes into consideration the invalidity of the proceedings ex officio.
A plaintiff may pursue several claims against the same defendant in one case, if they are suitable for the same course of proceedings and if the court is competent due to the overall value of the claims, and in addition, if the claims are of different types, as long as no separate proceedings are provided for any of these claims or there is no lack of jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of jurisdiction irrespective of the value of the subject of the dispute.
Author information
Consortia
Additional information
Translation by Joanna Buchalska.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
L.C. v. Towarzystwo Ubezpieczeń Spółka Akcyjna in W. (D. TU S.A.) Copyright and Related Rights Act (CRR), Arts. 1, 17, 43, 79. “Copyright of an Insurance Package”. IIC 49, 724–733 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-018-0732-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-018-0732-0