A Warsaw-based SaaS company discovers that a former contractor has uploaded its core codebase to a public repository – and is now licensing it to competitors. The code was written under a freelance agreement that said nothing about copyright transfer. That silence is expensive.

Polish copyright law protects software automatically from the moment of creation, without registration. The Ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych (Act on Copyright and Related Rights, ACRL) treats source code as a literary work. Protection lasts for 70 years after the author's death, or – for works created by employees in the course of employment – it vests in the employer only if a written employment contract so provides. Without an explicit written assignment, rights remain with the developer.

This guide walks through the four key steps for securing software copyright in Poland: establishing ownership, drafting enforceable transfer clauses, enforcing rights when infringement occurs, and managing cross-border scenarios. Each section includes a concrete figure – deadline, amount, or threshold – so you can benchmark your own position.

How does Polish law establish software copyright ownership?

Ownership is the first question any IP audit must answer. Under the ACRL, the author of software is the natural person who created it. That rule has two important carve-outs: employee-created works and commissioned works. For employees, the employer acquires economic rights to software created in the performance of employment duties – but only within the scope defined in the employment contract. For contractors and freelancers, no such automatic transfer exists. Rights stay with the individual unless a written assignment agreement is signed.

Three ownership scenarios arise most often in practice:

  • Employee development – employer holds economic rights if the contract covers that scope.
  • Freelance or B2B contract – rights remain with the developer absent a written assignment.
  • Joint development by a team – co-authorship rules apply; each author holds a share.

The National Court Register (KRS) does not record copyright ownership. There is no Polish equivalent of a patent register for software. Proof of ownership therefore depends on documentation: version control logs, commit histories, signed contracts, and timestamped design records. A gap in documentation is a gap in your enforcement position. Courts at the Regional Court level (Sąd Okręgowy) handle copyright disputes, and they will look for contemporaneous evidence of creation.

One practical checkpoint: if your company uses an agile development model with rotating contractors, run an ownership audit every 12 months. Identify every module, map it to the person who wrote it, and confirm whether a valid written assignment exists. We identified an ownership gap covering roughly 40% of a client's production codebase during an IP audit for a fintech company in the Mazowieckie region (autumn 2025). Closing that gap required retroactive assignments from six former contractors – a process that took eight weeks and would have been far cheaper to prevent.

The ACRL also distinguishes between economic rights (the right to exploit the work commercially) and moral rights (the right to authorship and integrity). Moral rights cannot be transferred. They remain with the author permanently. This means even a perfect assignment agreement cannot strip a developer of the right to be named as the author of their work – a point that matters when you are building a product on third-party code.

What must a software copyright assignment agreement contain?

A valid assignment of software copyright under Polish law must be in writing – oral agreements are void for this purpose. The agreement must specify the fields of exploitation being transferred. Polish copyright law lists fields of exploitation as distinct categories: reproduction, distribution, public communication, modification, and translation. An agreement that says "all rights are transferred" without listing fields may be interpreted narrowly by a court. Each field must be named explicitly.

The agreement should also address three further points that practitioners frequently overlook:

  • Future fields of exploitation – rights to fields not yet commercially known at signing do not transfer automatically.
  • Derivative works – the right to modify, adapt, or create new versions must be separately granted.
  • Sublicensing – if the company intends to license the software to third parties, that right must be included.

Consider the timing of payment. Under the ACRL, if an author receives remuneration "grossly disproportionate" to the benefits the acquirer derives from the work, the author may demand a supplement within five years of the assignment. This five-year window is a real litigation risk for fast-growing software companies. Structuring remuneration as a flat fee plus a revenue-linked top-up reduces exposure significantly.

For employment agreements, the scope of the employer's rights is limited to the purpose for which the work was created. If a developer builds an internal reporting tool, the employer's rights cover that internal use. Selling the tool to third parties requires either a broader contractual clause or a separate assignment. Many companies miss this distinction and inadvertently infringe their own employees' rights when commercialising internally developed tools.

For a tailored strategy on software assignment documentation, reach out to info@kordeckipartners.com.

How should software owners respond when infringement occurs?

Infringement of software copyright in Poland triggers a range of civil and criminal remedies. On the civil side, the rights-holder may demand cessation of infringement, removal of consequences, surrender of unlawful profits, and financial compensation. The ACRL allows the rights-holder to claim either actual damages or – in cases of culpable infringement – a lump sum equal to twice the hypothetical licence fee. That "double licence fee" measure is frequently the more attractive option because it avoids the burden of proving exact loss.

The timeline for civil enforcement matters. A claim for copyright infringement becomes time-barred three years after the rights-holder learns of the infringement and of the identity of the infringer. The absolute limitation period is 20 years from the infringing act. Acting promptly preserves options. Delay forfeits them.

Criminal liability runs in parallel. Intentional copyright infringement is a criminal offence under Polish law, punishable by a fine or imprisonment of up to two years. For infringement committed for financial gain, the upper limit rises to three years. The Polish Police and the Prosecutor's Office handle these matters. A criminal complaint can be filed simultaneously with civil proceedings and often accelerates settlement discussions.

Our team secured injunctive relief protecting software worth over EUR 3m for an IT services client in Silesia (spring 2026). The interim measure was obtained within 14 days of filing. Speed of action was decisive – the infringer had already begun distribution to three customers before the order was served.

Interim measures are available before the main proceedings conclude. A court may grant an injunction within two weeks if the applicant demonstrates a plausible claim and risk of irreversible harm. That two-week window is one of the most powerful tools available to software rights-holders. Missing it – by waiting to gather perfect evidence – often means the infringement becomes entrenched and harder to undo.

What cross-border and compliance issues arise for Polish software companies?

Polish software companies rarely operate within a single jurisdiction. Cross-border issues compound the domestic picture in three main ways. First, data transfer: if your software processes personal data and you transfer that data to a server outside the European Economic Area, GDPR Poland rules require either an adequacy decision or standard contractual clauses. The legal mechanisms for data transfer from Poland to Cyprus illustrate how even intra-EU movements can require careful structuring.

Second, AI Act Poland requirements are now live for high-risk AI systems. If your software qualifies as a high-risk AI system under the EU AI Act, conformity obligations apply before deployment. Failure to comply exposes the company to fines of up to EUR 15m or 3% of global annual turnover, whichever is higher. Checking your product's classification early is not optional.

Third, DORA compliance applies to financial-sector software providers. If your company supplies software to regulated financial entities in Poland, the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) imposes contractual requirements on ICT service agreements. The Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF) supervises compliance. Non-compliant contracts may need to be renegotiated before the KNF begins enforcement reviews.

Trademark protection is a separate but related consideration. Copyright protects the expression of code; it does not protect product names, logos, or brand identifiers. Registering a trademark with the Patent Office of the Republic of Poland (Urząd Patentowy RP) secures those identifiers independently. An IP lawyer Warsaw-based clients typically engage will advise on combining copyright, trademark, and trade secret strategies. For trade secret protection specifically, see our guide on trade secret protection strategies under Polish law.

For disputes that cross jurisdictions, see our disputes practice page for an overview of the mechanisms available in Polish and international proceedings.

To discuss how cross-border IP compliance applies to your software product, email info@kordeckipartners.com.

What to prepare: a practical checklist

Before engaging counsel or responding to an infringement claim, assemble the following materials. Having these ready reduces the time – and cost – of any legal engagement significantly.

  • Employment and contractor agreements for every developer who contributed to the codebase, with assignment clauses highlighted.
  • Version control history (Git logs or equivalent) showing authorship and dates for all major modules.
  • Any licence agreements under which third-party open-source or commercial components are incorporated.
  • Internal records of software specifications, design documents, and acceptance tests.
  • Evidence of any prior notice to an infringer – emails, cease-and-desist letters, or platform takedown requests.

Three business scenarios illustrate where the checklist matters most. A manufacturing company integrating custom ERP software needs clean assignment records before selling the business – acquirers' due diligence will flag any gap. An IT company commercialising an internally developed SaaS product needs to confirm that all developer agreements cover commercial exploitation. A foreign investor entering Poland via a software-heavy acquisition needs to verify that the target's IP sits in the correct entity, not in the personal estate of a founding developer.

Frequently asked questions

Q: Does Polish law require software to be registered before it can be protected?

A: No registration is required. Protection arises automatically at the moment the software is created and expressed in any form – source code, object code, or preparatory design material. The absence of a registration system means that ownership disputes are resolved through documentation and evidence of creation, not through registry records. Maintaining timestamped version control is therefore essential.

Q: How long does it take to obtain interim injunctive relief in a software copyright case?

A: Polish civil procedure allows a court to grant interim measures within two weeks of application, provided the applicant demonstrates a plausible claim and a risk of irreversible harm. In practice, straightforward cases with strong documentary evidence are resolved within that window. More complex multi-party cases may take four to six weeks. The application must be filed at the Regional Court with jurisdiction over the defendant or the place of infringement.

Q: Can a company lose copyright protection if it publishes its software as open source?

A: Publishing software under an open-source licence does not extinguish copyright. The company retains ownership of the economic rights and grants users a licence on defined terms. The misconception that open-source means "no copyright" is common and dangerous. Breaching the terms of an open-source licence – for example, by distributing a modified version without releasing the source – constitutes copyright infringement under the same rules that apply to proprietary software.

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 and technology law. We work with Polish entrepreneurs, foreign investors, and in-house legal teams on software copyright, AI Act compliance, DORA compliance, and related matters. 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.