The latest copyright decision of
the Swedish Patent and Market Court of Appeal,
given on 15 July 2019 (PMT 14029-16), concerns the use of
a film (recorded through a mobile phone)
as well as the use of photos extracted from the film sequence by a TV channel.
The issue at hand addressed whether the
use of previously unpublished (from a copyright perspective) film sequences constitute copyright
infringement, or whether copyright limitations (such as news reporting or
parody), are otherwise applicable.
The film in question (called the “iron pipes” film) showed three leading
politicians of the Swedish Democrats party entering into a fight and using
racist and sexist language against a
heavily intoxicated man as well as against passers-by. The film was recorded by
one of the three politicians (K.E.), part of which was published with the author’s consent in the
official Youtube channel of the party.
The interest in this film was understandable,
taking into account the role of the participants from the Swedish Democrats
and that the film was recorded just a
few months before the 2010 national elections. Parts of the same film were used
by the state television channel (SVT) both for
news reporting and parody. However,
the film sequences used by the SVT were not the ones made available to the
public by the author or with his consent.
K.E. sued SVT for copyright infringement. The SVT had used sequences of
that iron pipes film (which had had been
made available to the public on the
homepage of the newspaper Expressen, but without the authorization of the
author) to made copies, but omitted to identify K.E. as
the author.
According to the Court, the film
sequences and the photos considered in this case had not been made available to
the public from a copyright-law perspective, since they had not
made available by the author (or with his authorization).
The Court then considered the possible
applicability of two copyright limitations. First, it considered 23 § 1 3st of the Copyright Act
concerning news reporting by newspapers and magazines, concluding that one of the most important
criteria for the application of this limitation, namely the fact that photos need
to have previously been made available to the public, was not fulfilled. The
Court reached the same conclusion concerning 25 § Copyright Act, relating to the use of
films in TV news reporting (and on svt.se).
To the contrary, the Patent and Market Court of Appeal held that the use
of these sequences for the purposes of parody were covered by the parody
exception and thus this use did not constitute infringement of K.E’s
neighboring rights.
The ruling of the Patent and Market Court of Appeal affirms that of the Patent and Market Court, although on different grounds. The Court provides an extensive discussion concerning the conformity of the Swedish law with the Infosoc Directive (Official Journal L 167 , 22/06/2001 P. 0010 – 0019) in particular with regard to the concept of parody. Article 5.3 (k) of the Infosoc Directive gives Member States the flexibility to introduce an exception for use for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche.
Although Sweden did not, during the implementation of the Infosoc Directive, choose to introduce an explicit parody exception, Swedish copyright law had already included a parody exception as developed in the case law of the Supreme Court. The Court provides for an explanation why the legislator was silent in this respect during the implementation of the Directive. Thus, according to Swedish case law, parody is in itself an independent work, which means that there is no need for limitations or exceptions to a third party’s copyright.
However, according to the Court, the Swedish approach, providing that parody is an independent work under copyright, could raise concerns as to its conformity with EU law. According to the case law of the CJEU (see Deckmyn C-201/13 para 33), parody has to evoke an existing work yet be noticeably different from it, while constituting an expression of humor or mockery.
On the other hand, according to Deckmyn, parody does not have to mock the copyrighted work (indeed, the copyrighted work may be “appropriated” to mock something else); it does not itself constitute an original work of art; nor does it have to be attributed to someone else than the author of the copyrighted work or mention the source of the parodied work.
Giving a close look to use of copyrighted material |
The Court concludes that the use of the film at hand is a parody since
the SVT film (with the music and text added) is significantly different from
the K.E. film. At the same time, the Court clarifies that the pre-Infosoc
parody principle, requiring the originality of the parody in order for the
exception to be applicable, should not be employed since it is not in
conformity with the Directive.
As for the argument that the right to freedom of expression of SVT trumped the intellectual property rights, this claim was rejected. The Court recognized the importance of
informing the public of the acts of politicians (in particular when such acts
occur just before national elections are set to take place).At the same time, however
the Court noted that nothing would have
prevented SVT from informing of the
specific incident without using the film
or the actual photos in question.
With regards to the infringement of K.E.'s moral rights, the Court
concludes that in connection with the film, 3 § of the Copyright Act (
providing for moral rights) is not applicable. To the contrary, pursuant to 49 § of the Copyright Act,
photographs enjoy moral rights
protection; as such, K.E’s moral rights have been violated.
The Court stated, taking into
consideration the importance of the legal issue of this case, that an appeal to
the Supreme Court would be possible. Indeed,
the SVT has already noted that the decision will so be appealed.
Copyright infringement in the ”iron pipes film” case
Reviewed by Frantzeska Papadopoulou
on
Tuesday, August 13, 2019
Rating:
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html