A missing person as a copyright holder
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21564/2414-990X.154.238983Keywords:
missing person, declared dead, work copyrightsAbstract
The disappearance of people is a phenomenon that requires in-depth multi-faceted analysis. The law does not regulate the situation of a missing person between their disappearance and being declared dead. During this time, in the understanding of the law, a missing person remains an entity that can dispose of their property rights and personal rights, but because of the disappearance people are unable to do that, so his/her rights are exposed to be lost or unlawfully used by other persons. As a result, many doubts must be faced by people close to the missing person.
This work discusses the copyrights of the missing person, its execution and protection in the time between the disappearance and declaring the person dead. As an introduction, the subject of copyright (work) is discussed and the division of copyright into moral rights and property rights is indicated. Next, the paper presents the possible ways of proceeding in the event of a disappearance, including a minor, spouse, and co-creator. The possibility of appointing a custodian and submitting a request to a prosecutor is indicated, and an analogous application of provisions in the event of death is proposed. Moreover, a situation where an action to protect moral/economic copyrights has been brought before a person missing (the proceedings are pending) is noted. Finally, the consequences of declaring a missing person to be dead are discussed.
Based on the considerations carried out, it can be concluded that there is no single appropriate legal solution in a situation where there is a need to exercise and protect the personal/economic copyrights of a missing person. The proposed solutions of proceeding in the missing person case are not specifically designed in the event of a disappearance, and their application is not established in practice. It seems that the court should recognize the need to protect the interests of the missing person and allow the proceedings to be conducted when referring to one of the proposed solutions. Adaptation of the indicated solutions, in the face of the forced inactivity of the missing person, should guarantee the protection of his/her rights. De lege ferenda, it is worth considering the general regulation of a person’s situation from the moment of his/her disappearance until he/she is declared dead. This could be done by introducing a provision providing for the possibility of appointing a custodian to handle the missing person’s affairs.
References
Act of April 23, 1964, The Civil Code (consolidated text, Journal of Law of 2019, item 1145, as amended).
Act of February 25, 1964, Family and Guardianship Code (consolidated text, Journal of Law of 2020, item 1359, as amended).
Act of February 4, 1994 on Copyright and Related Rights (consolided text, Journal of Law of 2019, item 1231, as amended).
Act of November 17, 1964, Code of Civil Procedure (consolidated text, Journal of Law 2020, item 1575, as amended).
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, Paris Act of 24 July 24 1971, as amended on 28 September 1979. WIPO Publication No 287 (E).
Barta, J., Markiewicz, R. (2016). Prawo autorskie i prawa pokrewne. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer Polska.
Błeszyński, J. (2017). „Własnościowy” model autorskich praw majątkowych według polskiej ustawy o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych. In: Experientia docet. Księga jubileuszowa ofiarowana Pani Profesor Elżbiecie Traple, P. Kostański, P. Podrecki, T. Targosz (Eds.). Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer Polska.
Burch, R.A. (2017). Presumed Dead: Why Arizona Should Shorten the Required Time for Beloved Missing Persons to Be Declared Legally Dead. Arizona Summit Law Review 10, 1.
Citroni, G. (2014). The Pitfalls of Regulating the Legal Status of Disappeared Persons through Declaration of Death. Journal of International Criminal Justice, vol. 12, issue 4, 787–803.
Flisak, D. (2018). Commentary to art. 1. In: Komentarz do wybranych przepisów ustawy o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych. D. Flisak (Ed.).
Gajda, J. (2020). Commentary to art. 101. In: Kodeks rodzinny i opiekuńczy. Komentarz. K. Pietrzykowski (Ed.). Warsaw: C.H. Beck.
Gajda, J. (2020). Commentary to art. 184. In: Kodeks rodzinny i opiekuńczy. Komentarz. K. Pietrzykowski (Ed.). Warsaw: C.H. Beck.
Grzybczyk, K. (2017). Commentary to art. 1. In: Ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych. Komentarz. P. Ślęzak (Ed.). Warsaw: C.H. Beck.
Jankowska, M. (2017). Commentary to art. 78. In: Ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych. Komentarz. P. Ślęzak (Ed.). Warsaw: C.H. Beck.
Jones, P. (1997). Copyright Law and Moral Rights. Waikato Law Review, 5.
Kalus, S. (2018). Commentary to art. 29, 30. In: Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz. Tom I. Część ogólna (art. 1–125). M. Fras, M. Habdas (Eds.). Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer Polska.
Kubala, W. (1995). Autorskie prawa majątkowe jako przedmiot obrotu prawnego. Przegląd Prawa Handlowego, 5.
Lerman, L.G. (2001). Misattribution in Legal Scholarship: Plagiarism, Ghostwriting, and Authorship. South Texas Law Review, 42, 2.
Lewandowska, E. (2017). Niektóre aspekty dziedziczenia praw autorskich majątkowych przez Skarb Państwa. Monitor Prawniczy, 12.
Lewandowska, E. (2018). Ghostwriting, ghostpainting, ghostcomposing… czyli o pozornym autorstwie. In: Gospodarka narodowa a rynek wewnętrzny Unii Europejskiej. Prawno-ekonomiczne problemy integracji. Własność intelektualna – konkurencja – przedsiębiorczość. M. Królikowska-Olczak, D. Ossowska-Salamonowicz, M. Salamonowicz, A. Cekała (Eds.). Olsztyn: E-Seria Monografie Wydziału Prawa i Administracji UWM.
Lewandowska, E. (2018). Katalog podmiotów uprawnionych z tytułu praw autorskich osobistych po śmierci twórcy. In: Prawo w służbie małżeństwu i rodzinie. Księga jubileuszowa dedykowana ks. prof. dr. hab. Ryszardowi Sztychmilerowi z okazji 70. rocznicy urodzin, M. Różański, J. Krzywkowska, M. Rzewuska (eds.), Olsztyn.
Lewis, A., Cahn-Fuller, K., Caplan, A. (2017). Shouldn't Dead Be Dead?: The Search for a Uniform Definition of Death. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, vol. 45, issue 1, 112–128.
Lisnicha, T.V. (2011). The Law Consequences of Appearance of a Person Who Was Declared Dead: Detection and Solutions to Related Problems. Law and Safety, 4.
Lombard, J. (2012). The Definition of Death. Hibernian Law Journal 11, 63–84.
Madison, M.J. (2017). IP Things as Boundary Objects: The Case of the Copyright Work. Laws, 6, 3.
Markiewicz, R. (2018). Ilustrowane_prawo_autorskie. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer Polska.
Matusiak, I. (2017). Commentary to art. 17. In: Ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych. Komentarz. P. Ślęzak (Ed.). Warsaw: C.H. Beck.
Matveev, A.G. (2016). The Structure of Copyright Systems of France, Germany and Russia. Vestnik Permskogo universita. Juridicheskie nauki – Perm University Herald. Juridical Sciences, vol. 33, 348–353.
Pazdan, M. (2012). In: Prawo cywilne – część ogólna. System Prawa Prywatnego. Vol. 1. M. Safjan (Ed.). Warsaw: C.H. Beck.
Pilich, M. (2021). Commentary to art. 29. In: Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz. Tom I. Część ogólna, cz. 1 (art. 1–55(4)). J. Gudowski (Ed.). Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer Polska.
Pisuke, H. (2002). Moral Rights of Author in Estonian Copyright Law. Juridica International, 7, 166–175.
Pogonowski, P. (2021). Commentary to art. 7. In: Kodeks postępowania cywilnego. Komentarz. Vol. I. Art. 1–366. T. Wiśniewski (ed.). Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer Polska.
Ramghani, H.M., Roshan, M., Khah, M.N. (2017). The Effect of Death on Dissolution of Marriage Contract with Emphasis on Presumed Death. Journal of Politics and Law, vol. 10, no. 1, 219–227.
Romanow, Sz. (2021). Zarząd majątkiem dziecka sprawowany przez rodziców, Transformacje Prawa prywatnego, 1, 125–152.
Sarbey, B. (2016). Definitions of Death: Brain Death and What Matters in a Person. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, vol. 3, issue 3, 743–752.
Schoeman-Malan, L. (2018). Missing Persons – Current Tendencies. Tydskrif vir Hedendaagse Romeins-Hollandse Reg (Journal for Contemporary Roman-Dutch Law), vol. 81, issue 2, 218–238.
Sokołowska, D. (2018). O możliwości przeniesienia „całości” autorskich praw majątkowych. In: Qui Bene Dubitat, Bene Sciet. Księga jubileuszowa dedykowana Profesor Ewie Nowińskiej, J. Barta, J. Chwalba, R. Markiewicz. P. Wasilewski (Eds.). Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer.
Stewart, R.J. (1988). Presumption of Death. Advocate (Vancouver Bar Association) 46, no. 4.
Szyjewska-Bagińska, J. (2011). In: Ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych. Komentarz. E. Ferenc-Szydełko (Ed.). Warsaw: C.H. Beck.
Ślęzak, P. (2007). Dziedziczenie praw majątkowych w świetle polskiego prawa autorskiego. Rejent, 1.
Traple, E. (2010). Umowy o eksploatację utworów w prawie polskim. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer.
Traple, E. (2013). In: Prawo autorskie i prawa pokrewne, System Prawa Prywatnego. Vol. 13. J. Barta (ed.). Warsaw: C.H. Beck.
Wojnicka, E., Giesen, B. (2013). In: System Prawa Prywatnego, Prawo autorskie. Vol. 13. J. Barta (Ed.). Warsaw: C.H. Beck.
Wyrwiński, M. (2019). Autorskie prawa osobiste w obrocie prawnym. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer Polska.
Wyrwiński, M. (2021). Commentary to art. 78. In: Komentarz do ustawy o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych, Ustawy autorskie. Komentarze. Vol. II. R. Markiewicz (Ed.). Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer Polska.
Załucki, M. (2017). Commentary to art. 46. In: Ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych. Komentarz. P. Ślęzak (Ed.). Warsaw: C.H. Beck.
Załucki, M. (2018). Wokół problemów dziedziczenia praw autorskich. In: Qui Bene Dubitat, Bene Sciet. Księga jubileuszowa dedykowana Profesor Ewie Nowińskiej, J. Barta, J. Chwalba, R. Markiewicz, P. Wasilewski (Eds.), Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer.
Judgment of Administrative Court in Bialystok of March 8, 2013, case reference: No. I ACa 894/12 (legalis database, No. 715198).
Judgment of Administrative Court in Lodz of March 22, 2018, case reference No. I AGa 54/18 (lex database, No. 2684129).
Judgment of Court of Appeal in Szczecin of June 18, 2014, case reference I ACa 236/14 (legalis database, No. 1241503.
Judgment of the Court of Appeal in Katowice of December 16, 2020, case reference V AGa 652/18 (lex database, No. 3112822).
Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of January 21, 2021, case reference No. II GSK 954/18 (lex database, No. 3118365).
Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of July 11, 2018, case reference No. II FSK 1845/16 (lex database, No. 2528581).
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Ewa Lewandowska
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
