A Warsaw-based software house completes a two-year development project, ships the product to a client, and only then discovers that its employment contracts never properly assigned copyright to the company. The client refuses to pay. The developer cannot sue for infringement. The window to correct the position has closed.

Under Polish copyright law – the Ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych (Act on Copyright and Related Rights, ACRL) – software is protected as a literary work from the moment of creation, without registration. However, ownership rules, assignment formalities, and enforcement options contain traps that regularly cost Polish and foreign tech companies significant sums. Failure to document rights in writing forfeits the ability to enforce them against third parties, including clients, competitors, and former employees.

This alert covers three pressure points: what the current legal framework requires, who is most exposed right now, and what immediate steps reduce risk before a dispute arises.

What does Polish copyright law actually protect in software?

Polish copyright law protects software as a literary work. Protection attaches automatically at the moment a program is expressed in any form – source code, object code, preparatory design material. No registration with any Polish authority is required. The Urząd Patentowy Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej (Patent Office of the Republic of Poland, UPRP) does not register copyright; it handles patents and trademarks separately.

The scope of protection is broad but not unlimited. Interfaces, programming languages, and underlying algorithms fall outside protection. Only the specific expression of an idea is protected – not the idea itself. This distinction matters enormously in disputes between competing products that solve the same technical problem in similar ways.

One concrete threshold: economic rights in software created by an employee in the course of employment pass to the employer automatically under the ACRL, without any additional written assignment. This rule differs from the general copyright regime, where employer ownership requires an explicit contractual clause. Many companies assume the employment rule covers contractors. It does not. A contractor retains full ownership unless a written agreement transfers rights, and that agreement must specify the fields of exploitation – distribution, modification, sublicensing – individually.

For foreign investors, the interaction between Polish copyright rules and GDPR Poland obligations adds a further layer. Software processing personal data must be both legally owned and technically compliant. Gaps in either dimension create compounded exposure.

Who is most exposed – and what is the deadline risk?

Three categories of business face the sharpest exposure right now. First, companies that engaged contractors or freelancers before 2022 and never updated their IP assignment clauses. Second, foreign-owned subsidiaries that applied their parent group's standard agreements without adapting them to Polish formal requirements. Third, SaaS providers whose terms of service do not clearly address which party owns derivative works created by users.

We secured a reversal of an infringement claim worth over PLN 800,000 for a software client in the Mazowieckie region (autumn 2025). The case turned entirely on a missing field-of-exploitation clause in a contractor agreement signed three years earlier. The contractor had continued to use the codebase commercially, and the company had no written basis to stop him.

The deadline risk is real. Copyright infringement claims in Poland prescribe after three years from the date the rights holder learned of the infringement and identified the infringer. Miss that window and the claim is gone permanently – a classic lost-opportunity scenario. Separately, claims for remuneration under a defective assignment can arise years after delivery, when the software has already been embedded in production systems.

The AI Act Poland implementation timeline adds urgency for companies building AI-assisted tools. Systems classified as high-risk under the AI Act require documented ownership of all training data and underlying software components. A gap in the copyright chain blocks the conformity assessment. DORA compliance for financial-sector software vendors creates a parallel obligation: contractual documentation of IP ownership is now a due-diligence requirement for regulated entities procuring software.

For a detailed framework on protecting IP assets across borders, see our analysis of IP protection strategy for Luxembourg tech companies in Poland.

Our team obtained interim injunctive relief protecting software assets valued at over EUR 1.2m for a German investor's subsidiary in Lower Silesia (spring 2026). The injunction was granted within 14 days of filing – the statutory period for urgent IP measures under Polish civil procedure.

What immediate steps reduce your exposure?

Acting now costs far less than litigating later. The following checklist covers the minimum steps any software-owning business should complete within the next 30 days.

  • Audit all contractor and freelancer agreements concluded in the past six years – verify that each specifies fields of exploitation in writing.
  • Confirm that employment contracts cover software created outside normal working hours if the company intends to claim ownership of that work.
  • Review SaaS and end-user licence agreements to address ownership of user-generated derivative works.
  • Map any open-source components embedded in proprietary products against their licence conditions – GPL contamination forfeits commercial exclusivity.
  • Document the copyright chain for any software subject to AI Act or DORA compliance requirements before the relevant conformity assessment.

Trademark protection is a separate but complementary layer. Registering the software's name and logo as a trademark with the UPRP – or as an EU trademark with the EUIPO – protects the commercial identity even where copyright ownership is disputed. An IP lawyer Warsaw-based or operating across Poland can coordinate both tracks simultaneously.

Trade secret protection under Polish law covers source code that has not been disclosed publicly. If your codebase qualifies, internal confidentiality procedures and non-disclosure agreements create a parallel enforcement route. Our detailed guide on trade secret protection strategies under Polish law explains the conditions and enforcement steps.

For companies involved in disputes where copyright ownership is contested and enforcement requires cross-border recognition of a Polish judgment or award, the procedural framework matters. Our overview of enforcing arbitral awards in Poland addresses recognition and enforcement mechanics relevant to IP disputes resolved by arbitration.

Specific situation at your company requires immediate review before the three-year prescription window closes or a compliance assessment is triggered. Delay is not neutral – it forfeits options that cannot be recovered after the fact.

If your company holds software assets without a verified copyright chain – or faces an infringement claim, a contractor dispute, or an AI Act conformity assessment – we will audit your agreements, identify gaps, and implement corrective documentation: info@kordeckipartners.com.

Frequently asked questions

Q: Does Poland require software to be registered to obtain copyright protection?

A: No registration is required. Protection under the Act on Copyright and Related Rights arises automatically when the software is created and expressed in any form. The Patent Office of the Republic of Poland does not maintain a copyright register. However, the absence of registration makes written documentation of ownership – through employment contracts, assignment agreements, and licence terms – the only reliable evidence of title in a dispute.

Q: Can a company lose copyright in software it commissioned and paid for?

A: Yes. This is a common misconception. Paying for development does not transfer copyright. Under Polish law, copyright in a commissioned work remains with the creator unless a written agreement explicitly transfers the economic rights and specifies the permitted fields of exploitation. A company that paid in full but signed no proper assignment agreement may find itself holding a licence at best – and nothing enforceable at worst.

Q: How long does a copyright infringement claim remain actionable in Poland?

A: The general prescription period is three years from the date the rights holder learned of the infringement and identified the infringer. For claims arising from a continuing infringement, the period runs from each separate act. Costs of litigation vary widely, but preliminary injunctive relief – available within 14 days in urgent cases – is often the most cost-effective first step, particularly where infringing software remains in active commercial use.

About KORDECKI & Partners

KORDECKI & Partners is a law firm based in Warsaw and Krakow, advising business clients across 30 jurisdictions. Our team combines expertise in Polish and international law with a practical approach to IP, technology law, AI regulation, and software copyright protection. We work with Polish entrepreneurs, foreign investors, and in-house legal teams. To discuss your situation, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.

Disclaimer: This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. KORDECKI & Partners assumes no liability for actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this material. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@kordeckipartners.com.