[Warning: This is a lawman's analysis. I'm not a lawyer.]
Wow, this is a pretty incredible decision. It seems the Swedish Supreme Court has gutted the country's Freedom of Panorama law (for all works including buildings) by simply declaring that the the law's statement that "Works of art may be reproduced..." ("Konstverk får avbildas...") doesn't apply to the internet. They seem to have bent over backwards to reach this conclusion, citing the European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29 / EC of 22 May 2001 (which they say "imposes a strong protection of copyright, especially in the digital environment") and even the fact that other Nordic countries don't have Freedom of Panorama (they do, it's just restricted to buildings). Their basic conclusion is that the law must be interpreted as conservatively as possible because otherwise it would "unreasonably prejudice" the author's financial interests (without acknowledging at all the public's interest). They awkwardly explain that postcards don't constitute a significant impact on commercial exploitation, but when it comes to new technology like the internet, the law must be assumed to not apply (despite what a reasonable person would assume from the law's text). This is very disappointing indeed.On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Raul Veede <raul.veede@gmail.com> wrote:_______________________________________________Hi.Most likely the Swedes can explain the exact nuances better, but from the little I have gathered, it seems that Swedish Supreme Court today decided that although there is Freedom of Panorama in Sweden, it cannot be extended to publishing the images of public art on the Internet.Now, the exact reasoning, all the consequences and WMSE's further actions notwithstanding, my question is whether this makes Sweden the only country in the world where such a distinction is established? If yes, this is a very dangerous precedent. If not, I would very much want to know the peculiarities in the other cases.In either case, we should be prepared to counter suggestions to adapt that distinction to the other countries in Europe.Some links:* WMSE's press release: http://www.mynewsdesk.com/se/pressreleases/hoegsta-domstolen-vaeljer-att-krympa-det-offentliga-rummet-istaellet-foer-att-gaa-paa-wikimedia-sveriges-linje-1360834* The same in Google Translate: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mynewsdesk.com%2Fse%2Fpressreleases%2Fhoegsta-domstolen-vaeljer-att-krympa-det-offentliga-rummet-istaellet-foer-att-gaa-paa-wikimedia-sveriges-linje-1360834&edit-text=* Supreme Court's decision in Google Translate: https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.hogstadomstolen.se/Domstolar/hogstadomstolen/Avgoranden/2016/2016-04-04%2520%25C3%2596%2520849-15%2520Beslut.pdf&usg=ALkJrhhlSJXySoC2n5KkvshhCcIsShp6iQ* Swedish Copyright Act in English (on Unesco's homepage): http://portal.unesco.org/culture/admin/file_download.php/se_copyright_2005_en.pdf?URL_ID=30264&filename=11418280643se_copyright_2005_en.pdf&filetype=application%2Fpdf&filesize=174806&name=se_copyright_2005_en.pdf&location=user-S/Some coverage in Swedish:http://feber.se/webb/art/346833/offentligkonstse_bryter_mot_up/ http://www.svt.se/kultur/konst/brottsligt-sprida-bilder-av-offentligt-konst-pa-natet http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/lag-och-ratt/hd-dom-olagligt-att-publicera-bilder.htm http://www.friatider.se/wikipedia-f-r-inte-visa-bilder-p-konstverk http://www.dn.se/kultur-noje/konst-form/hd-brottsligt-att-sprida-bilder-av-offentlig-konst-pa-natet/ http://www.kamerabild.se/nyheter/foto/hd-beslut-olagligt-att-avbilda-konst-f-r-spridning-p-n-tetOne particular piece of news in translation, demonstrating the journalist's depth of comprehension, starting with the headline "Copyright of outdoor art also applies online":Enjoy.Raul
Publicpolicy mailing list
Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy