WHEN ROYALTIES AREN’T REQUIRED
JURISDICTION REPORT: DENMARK
Nanna Meyland Nicolaisen
Holme Patent
On December 1, 2009, the Supreme Court of Denmark, as the second instance body, ruled in a case settling a dispute over the copyright to a computer program. Te case was tried in the first instance by the Maritime and Commercial Court, on August 21, 2007.
Te parties disputed the copyright and royalties for MediBOX, a computer program developed by Poss Design (Poss) for Fonden for Tidsskriſt for Praktiserende Læger (Fonden). During the case, Poss claimed the rights to MediBOX and said that Fonden should pay royalties for copies it sold. Fonden denied the allegation and asked for judgment for the defendant. It also said that in the event the court found in favour of Poss, the royalties payable should be small.
From 1995, Fonden and Poss jointly developed MediBOX, the program in suit. Poss updated and developed MediBOX according to instructions from Fonden about content, layout and text, and in return for payment.
In 1998, negotiations took place between the parties regarding Fonden’s acquisition of the rights to MediBOX, but no agreement was reached.
In September 2002, Poss first raised a royalty claim, which was elaborated in January 2003 with a more precise indication of the amount claimed. In March 2003, Fonden accepted a quotation from Poss for an update to MediBOX, but at the same time, stated that it did not accept the royalty claim. Te 2003 update was delivered by Poss and Fonden paid for the service. In 2004, Poss delivered an update to MediBOX at Fonden’s request. Later in 2004, the co-operation ceased and Fonden received a debit note from Poss claiming royalties for copies sold in 2004. Fonden denied that the copyright belonged to Poss and claimed to be the sole proprietor of the rights to MediBOX.
Te Maritime and Commercial Court ruled that even though MediBox in relation to third parties may be copyright-protected, the parties are entitled to joint rights to the program due to their mutual relationship. Tis is based on the fact that MediBOX was developed due to mutual effort, an effort that continued in the years aſter the parties had unsuccessfully tried to agree entitlement to the copyright.
However, the Supreme Court of Denmark stated in its argument that Poss alone owns the copyright to MediBOX. Even though Fonden contributed content and made suggestions and demands regarding the functions of MediBOX, this does not change the fact that the actual programming of the computer program was undertaken by Poss. Terefore, the rights belong to Poss, the court found.
Te Maritime and Commercial Court stated that the behaviour of the parties must be understood as if Fonden sold copies of MediBOX and paid
www.worldipreview.com
“IT IS WORTH STRESSING THE IMPORTANCE OF WRITTEN AGREEMENTS WHEN SOFTWARE AND OTHER COPYRIGHT-PROTECTED WORKS ARE DEVELOPED ON COMMISSION. THIS ENSURES THAT ANY SPECIFIC RIGHTS OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER ARE FORMALISED AND GENERALLY CLARIFIES THE LEGAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PARTIES.’’
Poss a salary for specified changes and updates to the program. Without any explicit agreement regarding changes in the parties’ legal relationship, Poss was not entitled to demand royalties. Fonden had at no time accepted Poss’s royalty claim and had not implicitly done so by accepting and paying for the updates of 2003 and 2004.
A three-fiſths majority of the Supreme Court of Denmark ruled that as Poss delivered the 2003 and 2004 updates of MediBOX, even though Fonden rejected its royalty claim, Poss effectively waived further payment in the form of a royalty. Te court also noted that a right to claim royalties cannot be based on Poss’s copyright on MediBox as this does not extend to resale under Danish copyright law. Only the parties’ mutual agreements dictate whether Poss can claim royalties.
Even though two courts judged differently on the issue of who owns the copyright, the outcome was the same: there is no right to claim royalties in the absence of a specific agreement between the parties. Tis ruling is in accordance with Danish copyright law, where the ownership of the copyright does not per se entitle a royalty claim if the copyright holder has already received payment for developing the creation.
Based on these two verdicts, it is worth stressing the importance of written agreements when soſtware and other copyright-protected works are developed on commission. Tis ensures that any specific rights of the copyright holder are formalised and generally clarifies the legal relationship between the parties.
nmn@holmepatent.dk
World Intellectual Property Review March/April 2010
41
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76