Wypowiedzenie umowy licencyjnej o korzystanie z repertuaru dokonane przez organizację zbiorowego zarządzania prawami pokrewnymi w warunkach nadużywania przez tę organizację pozycji dominującej.
The termination of a license agreement on the use of a repertoire by a collective rights management organization that abuses its dominant position with respect to neighbouring rights.

A case comment to a judgement of the Court of Appeals in Cracow of 25 June 2015, I ACa 466/15

Summary/Abstract: Collective rights management organizations (which manage copyright as well as related/neighboring rights) operating without an approved tables of copyright royalties, are entitled to license, or to terminate an existing license agreement, only for an important reasons. The dispute over a mere royalty rate, without the presence of any other disputable issue, cannot be considered as an important reason under Article 106(2) of the Act on Copyright and Related Rights, justifying the termination of a license agreement for the repertoire of such organization, or a refusal to enter into such contract at all. The shape of the collective management system in Poland makes each organization a monopolist within the scope of its activity (within its own repertoire). Even if a particular repertoire is represented by more than one organization, the nature of the user’s business activity, and the specifics of using the protected content, makes it necessary for the legal user to sign a license contract with all relevant organizations at the same time, which in turn makes product substitutability virtually nonexistent. Refusal to license made under Article 106(2) of the Act on Copyright and Related Rights may constitute the sole and independent ground for establishing an abuse by a collective rights management organization. Provided that conditions of the above Act are fulfilled i.e. the refusal is made for an important reasons, a separate economic scrutiny of the adequacy of royalty fees in terms of article 9(1(1)) of the Act on the Protection of Competition and Consumers may be redundant

• Details
• Contents