3 ms·

The decision from the supreme court is available online: http://www.hogstadomstolen.se/Domstolar/hogstadomstolen/Avgoranden/2016/2016-04-04%20%C3%96%20849-15%20

The decision from the supreme court is available online: http://www.hogstadomstolen.se/Domstolar/hogstadomstolen/Avgoranden/2016/2016-04-04%20%C3%96%20849-15%20Beslut.pdf http://www.hogstadomstolen.se/Domstolar/hogstadomstolen/Avgo... As I understand it, actually the sentence that you quote, §24(3), is not relevant in this case. §24 provides three exceptions to the general system of copyright, and this case turns on §24(1), which says "artwork can be depicted if they are permanently placed in a public place outdoors". So, it would naively seem that photos of public art are not copyright protected. However, the court reasoned that the word "depict" does not cover the act of publicizing the pictures in an open database. They reason based on what kind of use they think the legislators had in mind when passing the law: they think it is intended to allow taking photos of streets, and selling postcards of sculptures, but that a database has more commercial value than a postcard, and therefore the legislators did not intend that to be included in the term...

tobr 11y ago
How do you determine what commercial value something has? Apparently not by whether it costs money or not. The map is offered for free, without ads. Postcards are usually for pay.
- vilhelm_s 11y ago
  They don't say anything about how to determine the value. In general, it seems to me that this decision will create a lot of uncertainty about what is copyrighted and what is free. They do say that the test is whether someone _could_ sell it for money, so the fact that in this case Wikimedia is a non-profit and does it for free does not affect the outcome.
TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
>a database has more commercial value than a postcard That's comparing apples and giraffes. A more accurate comparison would be a publisher's collection of postcards, and the business machinery used to make money from them.

tobr 11y ago

How do you determine what commercial value something has? Apparently not by whether it costs money or not. The map is offered for free, without ads. Postcards are usually for pay.

vilhelm_s 11y ago
They don't say anything about how to determine the value. In general, it seems to me that this decision will create a lot of uncertainty about what is copyrighted and what is free. They do say that the test is whether someone _could_ sell it for money, so the fact that in this case Wikimedia is a non-profit and does it for free does not affect the outcome.

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago

>a database has more commercial value than a postcard That's comparing apples and giraffes. A more accurate comparison would be a publisher's collection of postcards, and the business machinery used to make money from them.