Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Secondary Liability of Internet Service Providers in Poland

  • Chapter
Secondary Liability of Internet Service Providers

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum – Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GSCL,volume 25))

  • 1353 Accesses

Abstract

Secondary liability of ISPs is handled in Poland mostly from the perspective of tort law. The most popular approach is to argue that ISPs may assist in torts committed by third parties and thus become liable for infringements under art. 422 of the Civil Code (CC). Art. 422 CC is, however, limited to damages and requires knowledge of the infringing actions undertaken by direct infringers. The scope of its application in hosting cases resembles, therefore, to a large extent the conditions of safe harbour protection from liability. As regards injunctions, Polish law provides for a legal ground to issue preventive injunctions, the purpose of which is to avoid or limit damage. This provision has been only exceptionally used in court practice, but it may change in the future. Implementation of the safe harbour provisions of the E-Commerce Directive in Poland has not been perfect. The legislator has so far erred on the side of ISPs, granting them wider privileges than the Directive seems to allow.

This paper is an updated and expanded version of the article “Secondary liability of service providers” published in “Rapports polonais: XIXe Congrès international de droit comparé = XIXth International Congress of Comparative Law: Vienne, 20–26 VII 2014, Łódź 2014, pp. 407–422.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See e.g. “Analiza wpływu zjawiska piractwa treści wideo na gospodarkę w Polsce [Analysis of the impact of piracy with regard to video content on the Polish economy], report prepared by PwC, available at: https://www.pwc.pl/pl/publikacje/piractwo/analiza_wplywu_zjawiska_piractwa_tresci_wideo_na_gospodarke_w_polsce_raport_pwc.pdf

  2. 2.

    That is, these are rare when compared to the scale of various infringements on the internet and the number of court decisions on other liability issues.

  3. 3.

    Polish patent law does not regulate indirect patent infringements, unlike most other European countries or the US.

  4. 4.

    Most recently Lackoroński 2013 [Civil liability for indirect infringements].

  5. 5.

    Kur 2002, 41 ff.

  6. 6.

    Picker 1972, 110 f.

  7. 7.

    Katner 1982. [Protection of Property against Indirect Infringements].

  8. 8.

    Judgement of the Regional Court in Warsaw, August 8, 2014, II C 489/12.

  9. 9.

    Barta and Markiewicz 2009; Barta and Markiewicz 2013, 364, Pacek and Wasilewski 2008.

  10. 10.

    Now the prevailing view: recently for example the Court of Appeal in Warsaw, 13 June 2014, I ACa 1754/13.

  11. 11.

    Lewaszkiewicz-Petrykowska 1978, 108 and 110 [Causing Damage by Several Persons].

  12. 12.

    Taking advantage of the damage resulting from a tort cannot cause it since it may only take place after the tort has been committed. Hence, an adequate causal link cannot be required.

  13. 13.

    Banaszczyk 2015, art. 422, point 8,

  14. 14.

    Targosz 2012 [Comment on Supreme Court’s Decision of July 8, 2011, IV CSK 665/10], OSP 2012, no. 4, p. 45 ff.

  15. 15.

    “Tout fait quelconque de l’homme, qui cause à autrui un dommage, oblige celui par la faute duquel il est. arrivé à le réparer”.

  16. 16.

    Longchamps de Berier 1948, 234–235; Sołtysiński 1970., 163–75, Wilejczyk 2013, 55 i ff.

  17. 17.

    Traple 2013, 136 ff; Skubisz 2012, 59 ff.

  18. 18.

    Machnikowski 2009, 380.

  19. 19.

    The exception being the case decided by the Regional Court in Kraków, judgment of May 27, 2015, IX GC 791/12, referred to in more detail below.

  20. 20.

    This is so even when one argues that there are too many exceptions from protection to justify the use of the term property (Czajkowska-Dąbrowska, vol. XXI, 272.

  21. 21.

    Katner 1982 [Protection of Real Estate Property Against Indirect Infringements].

  22. 22.

    Machała 2007 [Specifics of a Claim for Damages under art. 79 Copyright Act]; Machała and Sarbiński 2002. See also critically as to this approach Laskowska, vol. 120 [Legal Ground of Liability for Indirect Copyright Infringements—On Applying Civil Code in Copyright Law].

  23. 23.

    Copyright and Related Rights Act of February 24, 1994 with amendments (Journal of Laws 1994, no. 24 item 81; consolidated text Journal of Laws 2006, no. 90, item 630 with amendments).

  24. 24.

    See eg. Leistner 2010, 1 ff.

  25. 25.

    See art. 66 IPL (patents); art. 154 and 296 IPL (trademarks

  26. 26.

    Art. 296 (2) p. 2 IPL. Even where double identity occurs, it appears that for infringement to be proven at least one function of the trademark must be disturbed.

  27. 27.

    Skubisz 2012, 1070 ff. [System of Private Law. Vol. 14A. Industrial Property Law.]

  28. 28.

    See Giesen 2015, 61 ff.

  29. 29.

    Polish copyright law used to provide for damages equal to a triple license fee in the case of fault and double license fee in the case of innocent infringements. The triple license fee was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Tribunal (Decision of the Constitutional Tribunal of 23 June 2015 r., SK 32/14 (Journal of Laws 2015, it. 932). The double license fee has not been submitted for constitutional review and is still applied by courts (e.g. the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Kraków, 15 October 2015, I ACa 889/15). However, the reasons the Constitutional Tribunal provided to declare the triple fee for infringements committed with fault unconstitutional apply equally strongly (or even more persuasively) to the double license fee. It is therefore likely this regulation will be amended soon.

  30. 30.

    Supreme Court’s Decision of July 8, 2011, IV CSK 665/10. In this decision the Court considered liability ‘based on the provisions of the e-commerce act’ (implementing safe harbour regulations). These provisions cannot be the source of liability—their purpose is to exclude liability resulting from some other legal ground.

  31. 31.

    Lewaszkiewicz-Petrykowska 1978, 112; Szpunar 1957, 287; Supreme Court, July 8, 2011, IV CSK 665/10.

  32. 32.

    Targosz 2012 .

  33. 33.

    Supreme Court, June 3, 2015, V CSK 599/14.

  34. 34.

    Kötz 1974, 158 ff; Peukert 2008, 304.

  35. 35.

    Śmieja 2009, s. 621–622.

  36. 36.

    Lewaszkiewicz-Petrykowska, vol. XIII, 52 ff..; Katner 1982, 156.

  37. 37.

    Court of Appeal in Warsaw, 11 June 2015 r., I ACa 1842/14; Supreme Court, 14 January 2015, II CSK 747/13.

  38. 38.

    Machnikowski 2009, 377.

  39. 39.

    Szpunar 1947, 112 ff.; Sośniak 1959.

  40. 40.

    Dąbrowa 1968, 7 ff.; Lackoroński 2013, 178.

  41. 41.

    Sośniak 1959, 102 ff., Machnikowski 2009, 381.

  42. 42.

    Longchamps de Berier 1948, 234–23, Wilejczyk 2013, 55 ff.

  43. 43.

    See examples provided by Wilejczyk 2013, 56.

  44. 44.

    Regional Court in Kraków, judgment of May 27, 2015, IX GC 791/12.

  45. 45.

    The decision is not final at the time of submitting this chapter. It is under appeal before the Court of Appeal in Kraków, case file no. I ACa 1494/15.

  46. 46.

    “chomikuj” is a verb created from the noun chomik (hamster). As hamsters, when eating, store food in their mouths, the verb means “to store” (for later).

  47. 47.

    BGH, 12 July 2012, I ZR 18/11 (Alone in the Dark).

  48. 48.

    Act of 30 June 2000 Industrial Property Law, consolidated text Journal of Laws 2013, item 1410.

  49. 49.

    It seems that such remedies are required under EU law. See ECJ, 27 March 2014, Case C-314/12 (UPC Telekabel Wien).

  50. 50.

    Recently especially popular in the UK. See e.g. Richemont International SA and others v British Sky Broadcasting Limited and others [2014] EWHC 3354 (Ch), England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division), 17 October 2014.

  51. 51.

    See Commission Staff Working Document: Analysis of the application of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights in the Member States, SEC (2010) 1589 final (Dec. 12, 2010), p. 16: “[n]either Article 11 (third sentence) of the Directive, nor Article 8(3) of Directive 2001/29 link injunctions with the liability of an intermediary”. See also CJ EU L’Oreal v eBay C-324/09 at 127–134.

  52. 52.

    Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, Official Journal L 167, 22/06/2001 pp. 10–19.

  53. 53.

    Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ L 157, 30.4.2004).

  54. 54.

    These provisions state that safe harbours do not affect the possibility for a court or administrative authority, in accordance with Member States’ legal systems, of requiring the service provider to terminate or prevent an infringement. As such they seem to be of a declaratory nature only, and the failure to implement them literally could be excused. However, since the relevant provisions of the copyright and enforcement directives (art. 8 (3), art. 11, 3rd sentence) have not been implemented, either, the overall impression suggests that safe harbours protect ISPs also against injunctions ordering to prevent infringements. As regards an injunction seeking to terminate an ongoing infringement, this cannot be undermined by a safe harbour provision—at least with regard to hosting providers—since such an injunction imparts to the ISP the knowledge about the infringement, thus lifting the safe harbour protection.

  55. 55.

    Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’), Official Journal L 178, 17/07/2000 P. 0001–0016.

  56. 56.

    Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, Official Journal L 167, 22/06/2001 P. 0010–0019.

  57. 57.

    See Supreme Court, 27 June 2014, I CSK 540/13. In this decision the Supreme Court held that the liability of persons falling under art. 422 CC encompasses also the claim for the restitution of profits that cannot be regarded as a typical action for damages, but is a special instrument used in the legislation concerning intellectual property rights, resembling unjustified enrichment.

  58. 58.

    Court of Appeal in Warsaw, 11 October 2012, VI ACa 2/12.

  59. 59.

    Supreme Court, 23 July 2015, I CSK 549/14.

  60. 60.

    An official notice may for instance be a court preliminary injunction. A reliable notice may be information from any source, as long as it is reasonably credible.

  61. 61.

    Court of Appeal in Lublin, 18 January 2011, I ACa 544/10, Court of Appeal in Kraków, 19 January 2012, I ACa 1273/11.

  62. 62.

    See Article 14(3) of the E-Commerce Directive as regards damage claims.

  63. 63.

    Court of Appeal in Gdańsk, 27 November 2013, I ACa 748/13.

  64. 64.

    Regional Court in Kraków, judgment of May 27, 2015, IX GC 791/12.

  65. 65.

    See the bill of 13 July 2012 on amendment to the e-Commerce Act.

  66. 66.

    Konarski 2004, 146 [Commentary on the law on providing electronic services].

References

  • Banaszczyk, Z. 2015. In Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz. Vol. I [Civil Code. commentary. vol. I], ed. K. Pietrzykowski. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo C. H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barta, J., and R. Markiewicz. 2009. Przechowywanie utworów na stronach internetowych [Storing copyright works on websites] ZNUJ. PPWI 2009, vol. 105.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2013. Prawo autorskie [Copyright law]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Czajkowska-Dąbrowska, M. Treść (Elementy Struktury) Prawa Autorskiego a Treść Prawa Własności [Content (Structural elements) of copyright and content of property rights]. Studia Iuridica, vol. XXI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dąbrowa, J. 1968. Wina jako przesłanka odpowiedzialności cywilnej [Fault as condition of tort liability]. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy Imienia Ossolińskich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giesen, B. 2015. Własnościowy model prawa autorskiego—analiza koncepcji przyjętej w prawie polskim [Propietary model of copyright—Analysis of the concept adopted in polish law]. RPiEiS LXXVII: 61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katner, W.J. 1982. Ochrona własności nieruchomości przed naruszeniami pośrednimi [Protection of property against indirect infringements]. Warszawa: Wydawn. Prawnicze.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konarski, X. 2004. Komentarz do ustawy o świadczeniu usług drogą elektroniczną [Commentary on the law on providing electronic services]. Warszawa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kötz, H. 1974. Vorbeugender Rechtsschutz im Zivilrecht. Eine rechtsvergleichende Skizze [Preventive protection in civil law. A comparative sketch] AcP 174: 97–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kur, A. 2002. Use of trademarks on the Internet – The WIPO recommendations. IIC/2 33: 41–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lackoroński, B. 2013. Odpowiedzialność cywilna za pośrednie naruszenie dóbr [Civil liability for indirect infringements].Warszawa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laskowska, E. Podstawa prawna odpowiedzialności za pośrednie naruszenie autorskich praw majątkowych – uwagi do stosowania przepisów kodeksu cywilnego w prawie autorskim [Legal ground of liability for indirect copyright infringements – On applying civil code in copyright Law] ZNUJ PPWI, vol. 120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leistner, M. 2010. Störerhaftung und mittelbare Schutzrechtsverletzung [Interferer’s liability and indirect infringements]. (GRUR-Beil.) 112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewaszkiewicz-Petrykowska, B. 1978. Wyrządzenie szkody przez kilka osób [Causing damage by several persons]. Warszawa: Wydaw. Prawnicze.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. Roszczenie o zapobieżenie szkodzie [Preventive action]. SPE XIII.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longchamps de Berier, R. 1948. Zobowiązania. [Law of obligations]. Poznań.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machała, W. 2007. Specyfika roszczenia odszkodowawczego z art. 79 ustawy o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych [Specifics of a claim for damages under art. 79 copyright act]. Studia Cywilistyczne 47: 189–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machała, W., and R.M. Sarbiński. 2002. Wymiana plików muzycznych za pośrednictwem Internetu a prawo autorskie [Exchange of music files on the Internet and copyright law]. PiP 9: 70–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machnikowski, P. 2009. In System prawa prywatnego. T. 6. Prawo zobowiązań – część ogólna [System of private law. vol. 6. Obligations – General part], ed. Olejniczak A. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pacek, G.J., and P. Wasilewski. 2008. Pomocnictwo w ujęciu cywilistycznym a odpowiedzialność dostawców usług hostingowych – dwugłos w sprawie, [Aiding in civil law and secondary liability of host providers – Two opinions] PPH 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peukert, A. 2008. Güterzuordnung als Rechtsprinzip [Allocation of goods as legal principle]. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Picker, E. 1972. Der negatorische Beseitigungsanspruch [Defensive claim for abatement or removal]. Bonn: L. Röhrscheid.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skubisz, R. 2012. In System prawa prywatnego T 14A. Prawo własności przemysłowej [System of private law. vol. 14A. Industrial property law], ed. R. Skubisz. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Śmieja, A, 2009. In System prawa prywatnego. Tom 6. Prawo zobowiązań – część ogólna [System of private law. vol. 6. Obligations – General part], ed. Olejniczak A. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo C. H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sołtysiński, S. 1970. Licencje na korzystanie z cudzych rozwiązań technicznych [Licences for use of technological solutions] Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Prawnicze.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sośniak, M. 1959. Bezprawność zachowania jako przesłanka odpowiedzialności cywilnej za czyn niedozwolony [Unlawfullness as condition of tort liability]. Kraków.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szpunar, A. 1947. Nadużycie prawa podmiotowego [Abuse of right] Kraków: skł. gł. w krięgarniach Gebethnera i Wolffa.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1957. Wyrządzenie szkody przez kilka osób [Causing damage by several persons] PiP 2: 284–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Targosz, T. 2012. Glosa do wyroku SN z dnia 8 lipca 2011 r., IV CSK 665/10 [Comment on the supreme court decision of July 8, 2011, IV CSK 665/10] OSP 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Traple, E. 2013. In System prawa prywatnego. T. 13. Prawo autorskie [System of private law. vol. 13. Copyright law], ed. J. Barta. Warszawa: Wydawn. C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilejczyk, M. 2013. Dlaczego nie należy chodzić w tłumie ze szpilką wystającą z rękawa? Naruszenie obowiązku ostrożności jako przesłanka odpowiedzialności deliktowej za czyn własny [Why one should not walk in a crowd with a pin in one’s sleeve? Violation of due care as condition of tort liability]. SPP 1.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Polish Chamber of Information Technology and Telecommunications and Internet Advertising Bureau Poland, Warsaw, Poland

    Xawery Konarski

  2. Department of Intellectual Property Law, Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland

    Tomasz Targosz

Authors
  1. Xawery Konarski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tomasz Targosz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xawery Konarski .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Graeme B. Dinwoodie

  2. IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, Oxford, Illinois, USA

    Graeme B. Dinwoodie

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Konarski, X., Targosz, T. (2017). Secondary Liability of Internet Service Providers in Poland. In: Dinwoodie, G.B. (eds) Secondary Liability of Internet Service Providers. Ius Comparatum – Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 25. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55030-5_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation