Seems to me that in public relations terms, this is about as big a gift
as we could have asked for.
The Swedish court has specifically indicated that it has come to this
decision on the basis of European law, by the need to take into account
how the image might be viewed in other countries, over-riding the
considerations of Sweden's own domestic law.
This is very different from how most MEPs believe the FoP law should
work (and other copyright exemptions for that matter), and on the face
of it such a reading would threaten FoP *everywhere* in the EU.
It's a clear sign that the law needs to be clarified at a European
level, and given the depth of popular concern about FoP last year, there
should be no shortage of MEPs willing to come out and say so.
Has anyone contacted eg Cecilia Wikström for a quote ?
It should be possible to play this up very powerfully to the European level.
-- James.
On 04/04/2016 18:44, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
Oops, I meant "layman", not "lawman" :)
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Ryan Kaldari <[email protected]>
wrote:
[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 <[email protected]> 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-tet
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=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fsverigesradio.se%2Fsida%2Fartikel.aspx%3Fprogramid%3D478%26artikel%3D6403634&edit-text=
Enjoy.
Raul
_______________________________________________
Publicpolicy mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
_______________________________________________
Publicpolicy mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
_______________________________________________
Publicpolicy mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
