We would like to ensure that you are still receiving content that you find useful – please confirm that you would like to continue to receive ILO newsletters.
21 October 2019
Supreme Court decision
On 5 June 2019 the Supreme Court issued a notable judgment (File V CSK 238/19) concerning the rights to the work of a deceased artist and the alleged infringement of his moral copyright.
Józef Hałas, a well-known Polish painter and professor at the Wrocław Academy of Fine Arts, had been with friends with Ewa Kaszewska (the defendant) and her husband, who helped and cared for Józef Hałas in his old age, including spending holidays together from the 1980s onwards (the artist's daughter lived overseas at this time). During this period, Józef Hałas gifted the defendant and her husband his works with dedications, including notes on his family relationships, travels, adventures and the inspiration for some of his paintings and his thoughts on their creation.
In July 2014 with Józef Hałas's consent (and after supplying materials and photos for publication) the defendant established an official website dedicated to his work. However, Józef Hałas had previously said that he did not want some of his work exhibited in an online gallery. In addition, Józef Hałas told the defendant that he wished to provide her with notes and comments on his art drafted throughout his adult life, which were key to interpreting his work, so that she could bring them to the attention of interested parties.
Following Józef Hałas's death on 1 January 2015, he left a will which appointed his daughter (the claimant) as his sole heir. The will also granted the defendant and her husband the right of ownership of the notes and memoirs that Józef Hałas had kept since 1959.
After Józef Hałas's death, the claimant asked the defendant to change the title of her website from 'Józef Hałas' to 'Kaszewska about Hałas'. The claimant also demanded that the defendant immediately cease displaying her father's work online and compensate her for the damage caused by her infringing action. In her defence, the defendant explained that:
Unless transferred by contract, economic copyright may be inherited. Moral copyright is non-transferable or inheritable, but other persons may be entitled to bring an action for the protection of moral copyright and enforce the moral copyright of deceased artists.
According to Articles 78(2) and 78(3) of the Copyright Act (4 February 1994):
in absence of the author's specific will after his death, an action for the protection of the moral rights of the deceased may be brought by the author's spouse or, if there is none, by the following persons in the order they are listed: the descendants, parents, siblings, and descendants of sibling… [who] are authorised, in the same order of priority, to enforce the moral rights of the deceased author.
Under Article 16 of the Copyright Act, moral copyright protects the perpetual, inalienable and non-transferable link between artists and their work and, in particular, their right:
Although protection of the link between an artist and their work does not cease when they die, over time this protection concerns the public interest linked to the artist's cultural heritage.
The Supreme Court examined the defendant's alleged violation of Józef Hałas's moral copyright and found that she had not infringed Józef Hałas's right to communicate his work to the public for the first time by publishing it online after his death as she had been authorised to do so and owned the rights to the published work.
The court stated that there had been no infringement of:
Further, the defendant had complied with Józef Hałas's wishes through the use of new technology to promote his work and had changed the name of the website at the complainant's request to 'Kaszewska about Hałas'. In addition, Józef Hałas had left a specific bequest to the defendant and her husband and had granted them ownership of his notes and materials.
The following additional circumstances were also relevant to the court's assessment:
The Supreme Court's decision underlines that it is difficult to limit the activities of people who have been gifted the work of an artist even after the artist's death, including its public display, especially in the case of a close personal relationship between the artist and the beneficiaries.
Following the death of an artist, close relatives can change the artist's will only in exceptional cases (ie, for political or moral reasons) if it can be shown that the artist would most probably have changed their previous will. However, in the above case such circumstances did not arise.
For further information on this topic please contact Szymon Gogulski or Jacek Zwara at Soltysinski Kawecki & Szlezak by telephone (+48 22 608 7000) or email (firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com). The Soltysinski Kawecki & Szlezak website can be accessed at www.skslegal.pl.
The materials contained on this website are for general information purposes only and are subject to the disclaimer.
ILO is a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. In-house corporate counsel and other users of legal services, as well as law firm partners, qualify for a free subscription.