creative industry - legal aspects of new technologies

An interview with Daniel Bigos, Gabriel Dymowski, Marcin Lorenc and Piotr Żelazko, members of the DoxyChain team (formerly DigiDocs), which took second place in the Polish phase of the Global Legal Hackathon.

Justyna Zandberg-Malec: Your project took second place in the Global Legal Hackathon. What is your solution all about?

Marcin Lorenc: We proposed basing powers of attorney for litigation, and in the future also other documents, on the secure blockchain technology. Using our application, which we are now perfecting, it will be possible to appoint or dismiss an attorney, as well as manage the circulation of powers of attorney and access the history of operations. The principal will know where his authorisation was used and who is the actual attorney in the given case. Lawyers in Poland use the right of substitution, passing on the representation of the principal to a colleague, which means that the principal doesn’t always know for sure who is actually representing him. In turn, the attorney may not remember all the cases where he was appointed to represent the client. Our solution comprehensively resolves the problem of such documents.

An interview with Karol Kłaczyński, Agnieszka Poteralska, Artur Tanona and Maciej Zalewski, members of the team that won first place in the Polish phase of the Global Legal Hackathon.

You won the Polish phase of the Global Legal Hackathon with a solution that you yourselves describe as “a plug-in to Word,” but which has the chance to truly expedite the work of lawyers. What is your concept all about?

Karol Kłaczyński: InteliLex provides quick access to the document database created at the given organisation. In our discussions with lawyers this problem often comes up. The knowledge exists, it has been developed, but searching for it is time-consuming and inefficient. InteliLex helps improve the efficiency of the search.

Star Wars Battlefront II, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, Overwatch, FIFA 18: these are just a few examples of video games using loot boxes. They are becoming an increasingly common form of microtransaction introduced into video games by developers. But concerns are being raised that they can lead to addiction, particularly among young players. Gambling regulators in various countries are also beginning to take a close look at loot boxes. The Polish government, for one, has announced that it plans to study loot boxes and the related risks. Do loot boxes truly pose a threat requiring regulation?

Last week, without fanfare (compared to the bluster shown by the government a few days later in announcing support for the game industry at Poznań Game Arena), a draft of the Act on Financial Support for Production of Cultural Video Games was released. The solutions bruited for several months stir mixed feelings in the industry. Particular controversy surrounds the “cultural test” games will have to pass before they win support. Some commentators fear this may trigger a flood of poor-quality, superficially patriotic games developed solely with the aim of winning government support. It’s worth taking a closer look at the solutions provided in the bill to reach our own conclusions on how they may impact the Polish game market.

Andrzej Sapkowski’s demands for more money for copyrights to The Witcher is the tip of the iceberg. Changes in the gaming industry, like increased production costs and the dominance of digital distribution platforms, will give rise to an increasing number of disputes, in particular over intellectual property rights. What could trigger these disputes and how can they be prevented?

Within the EU, web-blocking injunctions have become an increasingly prevalent mechanism utilized by copyright holders to protect against the unauthorized use of their copyrighted materials online. Recently extended to protect trademark rights, these injunctions are heralded by rights holders within the music, film, and luxury goods industries, as an incredibly effective method in protecting copyrighted/trademarked material from online infringement. However, these injunctions should be considered a weapon of last resort in fighting online infringement, rather than a standard tool of enforcing intellectual property rights (IPRs). Implementing these injunctions or filtering mechanisms should be done so sparingly, as their increased use endangers fundamental civil liberties such as free speech and due process.