Hi,

There is a distinction in Swedish law around taking the photo for your own use - and transferring the photo to other people. Taking (digital) photos are still okay, and it is explicitly stated in the law that it is okay to transfer the photo in the analog sense (i.e. put the image in a book or on a postcard and sell it for profit is perfectly fine).

But what we were sued for was our work with Offentligkonst.se, where we are using digital means to transfer these images to other people. We, and our legal councils, thought that the court would interpret the law technology neutral (i.e. if a printing press is okay to use as a tool, then a computer would). We were wrong...

Best,

John- - - -John AnderssonWikimedia SverigeProject ManagerPhone: +46(0)73-3965189Email: john.andersson@wikimedia.seSkype: johnandersson86

From: publicpolicy-request@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Publicpolicy Digest, Vol 46, Issue 2 To: publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 17:44:34 +0000

Send Publicpolicy mailing list submissions to publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to publicpolicy-request@lists.wikimedia.org

You can reach the person managing the list at publicpolicy-owner@lists.wikimedia.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Publicpolicy digest..."

Today's Topics:

1. Re: Is the Swedish Twist unique? (Ryan Kaldari)
2. Re: Is the Swedish Twist unique? (Ryan Kaldari)

---

Message: 1 Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 11:44:03 -0600 From: Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org To: Publicpolicy Group for Wikimedia publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Publicpolicy] Is the Swedish Twist unique? Message-ID: CACT3B=VicsSHNPKnPp2iB8eyqRUTkxOi+M0xKALG8Vncc=kXOw@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

[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-kry...

• The same in Google Translate:

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_...

• Supreme Court's decision in Google Translate:

https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&ie...

• Swedish Copyright Act in English (on Unesco's homepage):

http://portal.unesco.org/culture/admin/file_download.php/se_copyright_2005_e...

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-... http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/lag-och-ratt/hd-dom-olagligt-att-publicera-bil... 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-o...

http://www.kamerabild.se/nyheter/foto/hd-beslut-olagligt-att-avbilda-konst-f...

One particular piece of news in translation, demonstrating the journalist's depth of comprehension, starting with the headline "Copyright of outdoor art also applies online":

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_...

Enjoy.

Raul

---

Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy