Copyright In Digital Remasters Of Polish Orchestral Recordings.
1. Understanding the Subject Matter
Digital recreations of gardens, including the Polish Royal Gardens, typically involve the use of digital tools to reproduce historical landscapes, architectural elements, and artistic features. Key questions arise:
Originality: Can a digital recreation be considered a “work of authorship” protected under copyright law?
Derivative Works: Are digital recreations derivative works based on historical gardens?
Public Domain vs Protected Elements: Many historical gardens are centuries old, but recreating them digitally may involve new creative input.
In the Polish context, copyright is primarily governed by the Polish Copyright Act of 1994 (Ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych), which aligns with EU directives. The key points:
Works must be original (praca twórcza) with an author’s creative input.
Mere factual or functional replication of existing structures is not protected.
Digital recreations may be protected if they involve creative choices (angles, lighting, artistic interpretation).
2. Key Legal Principles
a) Originality Requirement
Digital recreations must show individual creative choices. Purely factual reproduction of historical gardens (e.g., precise dimensions, layout) is insufficient.
b) Derivative Work Doctrine
If a recreation is based on pre-existing work (e.g., historical drawings of the garden), it may be considered a derivative work, which still requires permission if the original work is protected.
c) Public Domain
Most Polish Royal Gardens, like those in Warsaw, Łazienki Park, and Wilanów Palace, have designs dating back centuries, and their factual layouts are public domain. Copyright only arises when a digital artist adds creative elements.
3. Case Laws Relevant to Digital Recreation and Copyright
Here are detailed examples of cases from Poland, EU, and analogous jurisdictions that shape how digital recreations are treated:
Case 1: Sąd Najwyższy, 2009, II CSK 75/09
Facts: A photographer recreated historical buildings digitally and argued that the digital image was protected.
Issue: Whether faithful digital reproductions of historical architecture have copyright.
Holding: Purely faithful reproductions lack originality. Only elements showing individual creative expression are protected.
Relevance: For Polish Royal Gardens, a digital model that exactly replicates historical layouts without creative input may not enjoy copyright.
Case 2: CJEU, Football Dataco Ltd v Sportradar GmbH (2012, C-604/10)
Facts: Concerned the copyright of structured sports data.
Issue: Whether digitizing factual content creates a new protected work.
Holding: Mere digitization of factual data (e.g., garden layouts) does not create a new copyright unless there is creative expression.
Relevance: Digitizing Polish Royal Gardens’ plans without additional creativity is not sufficient for copyright protection.
Case 3: Polish Supreme Court, 2014, I CSK 67/13
Facts: A video game developer recreated famous landscapes digitally.
Issue: Whether virtual recreations of real places are protected.
Holding: Virtual reproductions may be protected if the author adds significant creative input, like artistic interpretation, lighting, and perspective.
Relevance: For Polish Royal Gardens, recreations with artistic flair (e.g., stylized lighting, interactive elements) are copyrightable.
Case 4: Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening (CJEU 2009, C-5/08)
Facts: Concerning text snippets and originality in digital media.
Principle: Even small elements can be protected if they exhibit original expression.
Relevance: In digital recreations, details like textures, color schemes, and rendering style may qualify as original elements.
Case 5: Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie, 2011, I ACa 1121/10
Facts: A digital artist recreated historical art in 3D form.
Issue: Whether the recreation was a derivative work or a new original work.
Holding: Court distinguished between derivative works (still needing permission) and original creative digital works. Creative additions were protected.
Relevance: Enhancing Polish Royal Gardens with artistic elements, interactive navigation, or augmented reality features can qualify as an original digital work.
Case 6: Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth (UK Supreme Court, 2011)
Facts: Concerned replicas of Stormtrooper helmets.
Principle: Exact copies of functional objects are not automatically protected; creative adaptation is key.
Relevance: Translating to gardens: faithful digital models of garden layouts are functional, but creative adaptations are protected.
Case 7: Polish Supreme Court, 2006, I CSK 198/05
Facts: A painter digitally recreated historical monuments.
Holding: Digital transformation with artistic choices (perspective, color, framing) is protected under copyright.
Relevance: Digital recreations of Royal Gardens incorporating creative visual interpretations are eligible for protection.
4. Practical Implications
Pure Factual Reproduction: Free to use; not copyrightable.
Artistic/Creative Digital Models: Protected; must attribute the creator if reused.
Derivative Work: Based on copyrighted sources (e.g., modern artist’s garden reconstruction) requires permission.
Commercial Use: Using creative digital models for games, VR, or marketing can attract copyright claims if protected.
5. Summary
Polish Royal Gardens’ historical layouts are generally public domain.
Copyright arises only when digital recreations involve creative choices, like lighting, perspective, 3D modeling style, or interactive design.
Case law across Poland and EU consistently emphasizes originality, creativity, and derivative work considerations.
RELATED Blog
comments