Abstract
The Hungarian Copyright Act (HCA) includes a separate chapter on the terms of license (“use”) contracts. The provisions of the HCA serve as lex specialis against the background of general and special rules of contract law codified by the Hungarian Civil Code (HCC). From a historical point of view, the birth of software as a new type of protected work encouraged the reform of copyright contract rules. Nevertheless, the HCA does not contain specific rules on FOSS and CC licenses. It has certain rules on non-written (oral) contracts, introduced especially for these types of licenses entering into Hungarian legal practice. Both pieces of legislation mentioned above apply in relation to FOSS and CC licenses.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Act LXXVI of 1999.
- 2.
See: Art. 42–55 of the HCA. Interpretation of the Act see in P Gyertyánfy (ed.), Nagykommentár a Szerzői jogi törvényhez (Budapest, Complex Kiadó, 2014); Á Dudás, A szoftver Szerzői jogi védelme I–II. (Iparjogvédelmi és Szerzői Jogi szemle 2005/2–3.); G Faludi, Az új Ptk. hatása a szerzői jogi és iparjogvédelmi jogátruházási szerződésekre. [A Pogácsás, Quarendo et Creando – Ünnepi kötet Tattay Levente 70. születésnapjára (Szent István Társulat, Buadpest, 2014.)]; E Telek, A szoftver felhasználási szerződések elmélete és gyakorlata, avagy a végfelhasználók és szoftvergyártók hborúja (Inkommunikáció és Jog, 2008/27.); E Telek, Lex Informatica, led Licentia. Alternatív szerzői jog? (Infokommunikáció és Jog, 2011/5.)
- 3.
Act IV of 1959. The Hungarian Parliament adopted a new Civil Code in 2013 (Act V of 2013) that has come into force on 15 March, 2014. (Hereinafter referred to as: New HCC.)
- 4.
The Council’s functions are regulated by 156/1999 (XI.3) Korm.rendelet a Szerzői Jogi Szakértő Testület szervezeté ről és működéséről. The Council’s main task is to offer legal opinions on copyright related questions raised by courts, other authorities or private parties [Art. 1(1)]. The Council has the power to provide expert opinions on matters related to any copyright, neighboring right or sui generis database dispute, further in respect of any uses of economic rights [Art. 1(2)-(3)]. The chair of the Council designates the panel that gives the expert opinion. The Council panel generally consists of three experts. The chair is often a distinguished copyright lawyer, the Rapporteur a copyright lawyer with special expertise on the legal issue raised before the council, and the third panelist is either another copyright lawyer or, where necessary, a person with professional experience relating to the legal issue (i.e. an architect in the case of a copyright-related issues pertaining to plans and buildings). For cases that raise particularly difficult or significant legal issues, the panel might include five panelists. For less difficult issues, it is possible to designate only one Rapporteur [Art. 6(1)-(1a)]. The Council is not allowed to review and decide on facts, instead it must rely upon the documents submitted and questions raised to it by the authorities or parties. It might request, however, the submission of further information where necessary [Art. 8(1)].
- 5.
Old HCC, Art. 198(1). New HCC Art. 6:58.
- 6.
The new HCC gives general rules on legal statements which shall be applied to contracts and unilateral statements.
- 7.
Old HCC, Art. 205(1). New HCC Art. 6:63.
- 8.
On the offer or invitation to treat distinction see in the Hungarian literature: T Kadner Graziano and J Bóka, Összehasonlító szerződési jog (Budapest, Complex Kiadó, 2010) 97–143. Compare to Art. 216(2) of the Old HCC as well (see further below).
- 9.
Old HCC, Art. 201(1). New HCC Art. 6:61.
- 10.
On the issue of consideration see in the Hungarian literature: Kadner Graziano and Bóka: ibid at 145–204.
- 11.
New HCC Art. 6:7 and 6:70.
- 12.
Decision no. 4.P.20.188/2010/7 of the County Court of Győr-Moson-Sopron.
- 13.
Decision no. Pf.V.20.167/2011/4 of the Court of Appeals of Győr.
- 14.
See especially BH1994. 22, BH1994.24, BH1994.129 or BH1994.249. The previous HCA served the legal basis for these decisions; however, the relevant provision was codified into the current HCA without any significant change.
- 15.
HCA Art. 45(3).
- 16.
See also New HCC Art. 6:77.
- 17.
New HCC Art. 6:81.
- 18.
On the substantively similar provisions of the New HCC see: Art. 6:86–87.
- 19.
Decision no. 21.P.22.998/2006/24 of the County Court of Pest.
- 20.
Decision no. 8.Pf.20.034/2009/6 of the Court of Appeals of Budapest.
- 21.
Decision no. 3.Pf.20.032/2010/3 of the Court of Appeals of Budapest.
- 22.
HCA Art. 42(3).
- 23.
New HCC Art. 6:191.
- 24.
New HCC Art. 6:152.
- 25.
Compare to HCA Art. 43(5), see further section “Interpretation of Broad and Unspecific License Grants”.
- 26.
Compare to HCA Art. 33–41.
- 27.
Compare to HCA Art. 59–60, see further section “Interpretation of Broad and Unspecific License Grants”.
- 28.
For some similar provisions see further HCA Art. 47(1)-(2), (4):
-
“(1) A license to use a work includes the adaptation of a work only if it is expressly stipulated.
-
(2) A license to reproduce a work permits the user to fix the work in a video or phonogram or copy it by way of computer or onto electronic data media only if it is expressly stipulated.
-
(4) A license to reproduce a work shall, in case of doubt, include distribution of the reproduced copies of the work. This does not pertain to the importation of copies of the work into the country in order to distribute or market them.”
-
- 29.
HCA Art. 51(1)-(5); Art. 53(1)-(4).
- 30.
Art. 51(1) HCA.
- 31.
Compare to Art. 53(4) HCA on the revocation of the author’s permission to the communication to the public of the work covered by the licence.
- 32.
HCA Art. 42(2).
- 33.
HCA Art. 13.
- 34.
See especially HCA Art. 94(1):
“In the event that his rights are infringed the author may – in accordance with the circumstances of the case – lodge the following civil law claims:
-
(a)
he may demand a court ruling establishing that there has been an infringement of rights;
-
(b)
he may demand that the infringement of rights be terminated and that the infringer be enjoined to cease any further infringement of rights;
-
(c)
he may demand that the infringer make amends for his action – by declaration or in some other appropriate manner – and, if necessary, that such amends should be given due publicity by and at the expense of the infringer;
-
(d)
he may demand that the infringer provide information on parties taking part in the manufacture of and trade in goods or performance of services affected by the infringement of rights, as well as on business relationships established for the use of the infringer;
-
(e)
he may demand restitution of the economic gains achieved through infringement of rights;
-
(f)
he may demand that the infringement be terminated, the antecedent state of affairs be restored, and the seizure of those assets and materials used exclusively or primarily in the infringement of rights, as well as of the goods infringing on the rights, or demand that they are delivered to a particular person, recalled and definitively withdrawn from commercial circulation, or destroyed.”
-
(a)
- 35.
You can find the English translation of the most important laws regulating public procurement in Hungary under the following link: http://kozbeszerzes.hu/nyelvi-verziok/hungarian-act-on-public-procurement/.
List of References
T Kadner Graziano and J Bóka, Összehasonlító szerződési jog (Budapest, Complex Kiadó, 2010).
P Gyertyánfy (ed.), Nagykommentár a Szerzői jogi törvényhez (Budapest, Complex Kiadó, 2014).
Á Dudás, A szoftver szerzői jogi védelme I-II. (Iparjogvédelmi és Szerzői Jogi szemle 2005/2-3.)
G Faludi, Az új Ptk. hatása a szerzői jogi és iparjogvédelmi jogátruházási szerződésekre. [A Pogácsás, Quarendo et Creando – Ünnepi kötet Tattay Levente 70. születésnapjára (Szent István Társulat, Buadpest, 2014.)]
E Telek, A szoftver felhasználási szerződések elmélete és gyakorlata, avagy a végfelhasználók és szoftvergyártók háborúja (Inkommunikáció és Jog, 2008/27.)
E Telek, Lex Informatica, lex Licentia. Alternatív szerzői jog? (Infokommunikáció és Jog, 2011/5.)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Grad-Gyenge, A., Mezei, P. (2016). License Contracts, Free Software and Creative Commons in the Hungarian Law. In: Metzger, A. (eds) Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and other Alternative License Models. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 12. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21560-0_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21560-0_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-21559-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-21560-0
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)