Domsrätt vid gränsöverskridande upphovsrättsintrång på internet - En analys av domstols behörighet grundad på Bryssel Ia-förordningens artikel 7.2
(2016) JURM02 20162Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Alster som uppnått ett visst mått av individuell särprägel och originalitet skyddas i Sverige av upphovsrätt. Det upphovsrättsliga skyddet består av en ekonomisk och en ideell del. Vid fall av upphovsrättsintrång kan upphovsrättsinnehavaren väcka skadeståndstalan mot intrångsgöraren. När upphovsrättsintrång begås på internet sker intrången ofta i flera länder samtidigt utan att upphovsrättsinnehavaren vet vem intrångsgöraren är eller var denne befinner sig. Följaktligen uppkommer frågan om i vilka länder upphovsrättsinnehavaren kan väcka skadeståndstalan.
Uppsatsen syftar till att analysera vilka möjligheter en upphovsrättsinnehavare bosatt i Sverige har att driva en effektiv skadeståndsprocess gentemot en påstådd intrångsgörare som... (More) - Alster som uppnått ett visst mått av individuell särprägel och originalitet skyddas i Sverige av upphovsrätt. Det upphovsrättsliga skyddet består av en ekonomisk och en ideell del. Vid fall av upphovsrättsintrång kan upphovsrättsinnehavaren väcka skadeståndstalan mot intrångsgöraren. När upphovsrättsintrång begås på internet sker intrången ofta i flera länder samtidigt utan att upphovsrättsinnehavaren vet vem intrångsgöraren är eller var denne befinner sig. Följaktligen uppkommer frågan om i vilka länder upphovsrättsinnehavaren kan väcka skadeståndstalan.
Uppsatsen syftar till att analysera vilka möjligheter en upphovsrättsinnehavare bosatt i Sverige har att driva en effektiv skadeståndsprocess gentemot en påstådd intrångsgörare som verkar inom EU när ett gränsöverskridande upphovsrättsintrång har begåtts på internet. Med en i huvudsak EU-rättslig metod utreds i uppsatsen under vilka förutsättningar en domstol är behörig att pröva en skadeståndstalan väckt med anledning av ett upphovsrättsintrång begånget på internet och vilken skada som omfattas av behörigheten. För analys av dessa frågor undersöks bland annat hur Bryssel Ia-förordningens artikel 7.2 har tolkats i EU-domstolens praxis. Uppsatsen syftar även till att analysera framtida tänkbara lösningar. För analys av denna fråga studeras CLIP- och ALI-principerna samt generaladvokaters förslag till avgöranden.
Enligt EU-domstolens praxis får käranden väcka talan antingen på orten där den skadegörande handlingen företagits eller på orten där skada uppkommit, när dessa skiljer sig åt. I uppsatsen argumenteras för att svarandens etableringsort/svarandens säte utgör handlingsorten vid gränsöverskridande upphovsrättsintrång begångna på internet. Vidare argumenteras för att behörighet för prövning av samtliga skador bör finnas på handlingsorten, trots att det upphovsrättsliga skyddet är territoriellt begränsat. En sådan lösning är enligt författaren fördelaktig för såväl käranden som svaranden eftersom det möjliggör att talan för samtliga skador kan väckas vid samma domstol. Enligt EU-domstolens praxis kan en talan om påstått intrång i upphovsrättens ekonomiska del väckas på orten där skada uppkommit under förutsättning att den upphovsrättighet käranden åberopar är skyddad i landet där talan väckts och att skada kan uppkomma i domstolslandet. Skada anses kunna uppkomma när en webbsida med påstått intrångsgörande material finns tillgänglig i domstolslandet. Något krav att webbsidan riktar sig mot domstolslandet uppställs inte. I uppsatsen argumenteras för att ett sådant krav skulle kunna bidra till ökad förutsägbarhet för svaranden. Svaranden riskerar i nuläget att bli stämd i samtliga medlemsstater där ett påstått intrångsgörande material finns tillgängligt på internet. Behörigheten på orten där skada uppkommit är begränsad till den skada som uppkommit inom medlemsstaten där domstolen där talan väckts är belägen. (Less) - Abstract
- Work that has achieved a certain degree of individual distinctiveness and originality is protected by the Copyright Act. Copyright protects both economic and moral rights. The copyright holder may bring an action for damages in cases of copyright infringement. In situations when the copyright infringement is committed on the internet, the infringement often occurs without the copyright holder knowing who the infringer is or where the infringer is localized. A question thus arises: in which countries can the copyright holder bring an action for damages?
The essay aimed at analyzing the opportunities available to a copyright holder resident in Sweden to run an effective process against an alleged infringer operating within the EU when a... (More) - Work that has achieved a certain degree of individual distinctiveness and originality is protected by the Copyright Act. Copyright protects both economic and moral rights. The copyright holder may bring an action for damages in cases of copyright infringement. In situations when the copyright infringement is committed on the internet, the infringement often occurs without the copyright holder knowing who the infringer is or where the infringer is localized. A question thus arises: in which countries can the copyright holder bring an action for damages?
The essay aimed at analyzing the opportunities available to a copyright holder resident in Sweden to run an effective process against an alleged infringer operating within the EU when a transnational copyright infringement has been committed on the Internet. By applying a mainly European Union legal method the essay aimed at clarifying under what conditions a court has jurisdiction to adjudicate an action for damages brought due to a copyright infringement committed on the Internet and what damage is subject to the jurisdiction. The analysis of these issues was founded on the interpretation made by the Court of Justice of the European Union of article 7.2 of the Brussels Ia Regulation. The essay also aimed at analyzing future potential solutions by studying the CLIP Principles, the ALI Principles and the Advocate Generals Opinion.
According to established practice from Court of Justice of the European Union the plaintiff can bring an action before a court either at the place of the casual event giving rise to the damage or at the place where the damage occurred, when these places are different. In the essay it is argued that the harmful act is localized at the etstablishment/ the seat of the defendant in cases of cross-border copyright infringement. It is further argued that the court has jurisdiction to rule on all of the damages, despite that the protection of copyright is territorially limited. According to the author, such a solution is beneficial for both the plaintiff and the defendant as it makes it possible to bring an action for all damages before the same court. According to practice from Court of Justice of the European Union, it is possible to bring an action before a court in cases of infringement of economic rights at the place where the damage occurred, provided that the copyright claimed by the plaintiff is protected by the memeber state where the court is situated and damage can occur in that state. Damage is considered to occur when a web page with allegedly infringing material is accessible in the member state where the court is located. It is not required that the web page is directed to the state where the court is located. In the essay it is argued that such a requirement would contribute to a more predictable situation for the defendant. A defendant is currently at risk of being sued in all member states where an allegedly infringing material is accessible through the internet. The jurisdiction of the place where the damage occurred is limited to the damage caused in the member state of the court where the action was brought. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8896487
- author
- Nyström Gustavsson, Gabriella LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Jurisdiction in disputes regarding Cross-border Copyright Infringements - An analysis of jurisdiction based on article 7.2 of the Brussels Ia Regulation
- course
- JURM02 20162
- year
- 2016
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- immaterialrätt, internationell privaträtt, private international law, Bryssel Ia-förordningen, upphovsrätt, domsrätt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8896487
- date added to LUP
- 2017-01-18 12:34:30
- date last changed
- 2017-01-18 12:34:30
@misc{8896487,
abstract = {{Work that has achieved a certain degree of individual distinctiveness and originality is protected by the Copyright Act. Copyright protects both economic and moral rights. The copyright holder may bring an action for damages in cases of copyright infringement. In situations when the copyright infringement is committed on the internet, the infringement often occurs without the copyright holder knowing who the infringer is or where the infringer is localized. A question thus arises: in which countries can the copyright holder bring an action for damages?
The essay aimed at analyzing the opportunities available to a copyright holder resident in Sweden to run an effective process against an alleged infringer operating within the EU when a transnational copyright infringement has been committed on the Internet. By applying a mainly European Union legal method the essay aimed at clarifying under what conditions a court has jurisdiction to adjudicate an action for damages brought due to a copyright infringement committed on the Internet and what damage is subject to the jurisdiction. The analysis of these issues was founded on the interpretation made by the Court of Justice of the European Union of article 7.2 of the Brussels Ia Regulation. The essay also aimed at analyzing future potential solutions by studying the CLIP Principles, the ALI Principles and the Advocate Generals Opinion.
According to established practice from Court of Justice of the European Union the plaintiff can bring an action before a court either at the place of the casual event giving rise to the damage or at the place where the damage occurred, when these places are different. In the essay it is argued that the harmful act is localized at the etstablishment/ the seat of the defendant in cases of cross-border copyright infringement. It is further argued that the court has jurisdiction to rule on all of the damages, despite that the protection of copyright is territorially limited. According to the author, such a solution is beneficial for both the plaintiff and the defendant as it makes it possible to bring an action for all damages before the same court. According to practice from Court of Justice of the European Union, it is possible to bring an action before a court in cases of infringement of economic rights at the place where the damage occurred, provided that the copyright claimed by the plaintiff is protected by the memeber state where the court is situated and damage can occur in that state. Damage is considered to occur when a web page with allegedly infringing material is accessible in the member state where the court is located. It is not required that the web page is directed to the state where the court is located. In the essay it is argued that such a requirement would contribute to a more predictable situation for the defendant. A defendant is currently at risk of being sued in all member states where an allegedly infringing material is accessible through the internet. The jurisdiction of the place where the damage occurred is limited to the damage caused in the member state of the court where the action was brought.}},
author = {{Nyström Gustavsson, Gabriella}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Domsrätt vid gränsöverskridande upphovsrättsintrång på internet - En analys av domstols behörighet grundad på Bryssel Ia-förordningens artikel 7.2}},
year = {{2016}},
}