Protection of personal rights, which is “creativity”, will only be granted in exceptional cases. It is important to separate the issue of protection of personal rights, i.e. “artistic creativity”, from the protection of author’s personal rights, and to make the protection of the above-mentioned goods independent of the premise of creativity under Art. 1 car There are many situations in which, despite the fact that human activity does not meet the conditions for creativity in the copyright sense, there is a strong psychological connection between a human person and the effects of his or her intellectual activity. It should be stated that the structure of protection of personal rights under common law (Articles 23 and 24 of the Civil Code) should become an independent basis for the protection of personal interests regarding the effects of human intellectual activity, independent of copyright protection. The only criterion proving a violation of the described sphere of personal interests should be the prevention of the “self-realization of a human person” or mental discomfort (disruption of the state of peace of mental life) assessed objectively from the point of view of the moral or moral views prevailing in a given environment.
An exception to the general rule should be considered a situation in which the use of someone else’s intellectual activity devoid of “individual character” will cause such a significant violation of the “sphere of the psyche” of its author or limit his “self-realization in society as a human person” to consider the injured party’s claims justified. As society becomes more and more sensitive to issues related to the exploitation and presentation of intellectual activities, civil law, on the one hand, should not be indifferent to such changes and social needs, and, on the other hand, reasonable judicial practice should develop a level of protection of personal interests that does not will be an obstacle to the development of science and culture.
