Originality above all else - winning the battle against the landscape writer

Yes, so can I, so can you, the creator can be

When creating a text on a chosen topic, you may assume that everything you write will be protected by copyright. This assumption will be correct - as a whole, our text will be a work, provided that it meets specific requirements. The decisive factor is whether a given entry was the result of creative activity and has an individual character. Therefore, there must be a new, separate, objectively tangible result of our independent activity, and our goal should be to create something completely new. Individualism, on the other hand, is evidenced by the fact that our text is, to a greater or lesser extent, unique and has no equivalent in the past, and at the same time is a manifestation of our style (it bears the stamp of the creator's personality).

However, if we introduce unsophisticated elements into our text, which for the sake of completeness describe, for example, an object, an event or a person, we have to reckon with the fact that such an unsophisticated description, in which we use simple sentences and everyday language of communication, will not be subject to copyright protection and, as such, can be used by third parties.

Exclusive subject matter?

In our client's case, the litigation opponent considered that basically every sentence written by our client on a rather narrow landscape topic of his choice constituted a separate work protected by copyright. He therefore alleged that our client had unlawfully used extracts from his texts in content published on social media. In doing so, the plaintiff argued that each of the excerpts was a separate work for which the said client was entitled to remuneration and that their use constituted an act of unfair competition.

The Regional Court and the Court of Appeal in Warsaw fully shared our argument, assessing that none of the disputed fragments bore any signs of originality. When bringing an action against our client, the plaintiff made a completely erroneous assumption that each of his statements from the so-called ‘his plot’, which appeared in public and was subsequently used, deserved copyright protection. The courts of both instances regarded this argument as a manifestation of the extremely liberal Anglo-Saxon doctrine that everything thatiscopied deserves copyright protection (‘everythingthatis worth copying, is worth protecting’). This assumes that it is in the use of a particular expression itself and not in its individuality or originality that the characteristics of the work are found.

Clear boundaries

By working closely with the client, we were able to fend off groundless claims against the client. This case has also become an excellent indicator of the boundaries of copyright protection. Certainly, Polish copyright law does not protect an author's aspiration that every statement he makes, on even the most specialised topic, deserves to be called a work. It also shows that attempts to obtain financial benefits from alleged copyright infringements are not tolerated in the Polish legal order. Dismissing the appeal, the Court ordered the claimant to reimburse the costs of the proceedings in favour of our client.