Case Translation “Würtz v. Coop” - Decision of the Danish Supreme Court 18 December 2018 – Case No. 171/2017
(2020) In IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 51. p.109-112- Abstract (Swedish)
- According to Sec. 23(3), of the Danish Copyright Act copies of works of art which have been transferred to others by the author, may be used in newspapers, periodicals, films and TV, when the use is of subordinate purpose in the said context. The use of a work of art, here in the form of applied art, by reproduction on packaging for foods and supermarket leaflets from convenience stores falls outside the scope of use of Sec. 23(3).
A longstanding practice of an industry can in principle restrict the author’s rights in his work in relation to what is set out in the Danish Copyright Act, but it would require strong evidence to establish the existence of such practice.
The use of a copyright-protected work even in a... (More) - According to Sec. 23(3), of the Danish Copyright Act copies of works of art which have been transferred to others by the author, may be used in newspapers, periodicals, films and TV, when the use is of subordinate purpose in the said context. The use of a work of art, here in the form of applied art, by reproduction on packaging for foods and supermarket leaflets from convenience stores falls outside the scope of use of Sec. 23(3).
A longstanding practice of an industry can in principle restrict the author’s rights in his work in relation to what is set out in the Danish Copyright Act, but it would require strong evidence to establish the existence of such practice.
The use of a copyright-protected work even in a commercial marketing context can be of such secondary importance that – notwithstanding that the rights holder has not permitted the use – it would not amount to copyright infringement. Such non-statutory exemption to the copyright should be construed restrictively and may not influence the normal use of the work in any detrimental way. It also may not unreasonably interfere with the author’s interests. The use is not of such secondary importance if the copyright-protected work appears clearly and must be considered to constitute a material element of the reproductions. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/ee00d79f-c7c9-4926-a1c9-a2912a2cab0e
- translator
- Kianzad, Behrang LU
- publishing date
- 2020
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- in
- IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law
- volume
- 51
- pages
- 109 - 112
- publisher
- C.H. Beck
- ISSN
- 0018-9855
- DOI
- 10.1007/s40319-019-00888-9
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- no
- id
- ee00d79f-c7c9-4926-a1c9-a2912a2cab0e
- alternative location
- https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40319-019-00888-9#article-info
- date added to LUP
- 2024-09-28 14:00:05
- date last changed
- 2024-10-02 13:57:19
@article{ee00d79f-c7c9-4926-a1c9-a2912a2cab0e,
abstract = {{According to Sec. 23(3), of the Danish Copyright Act copies of works of art which have been transferred to others by the author, may be used in newspapers, periodicals, films and TV, when the use is of subordinate purpose in the said context. The use of a work of art, here in the form of applied art, by reproduction on packaging for foods and supermarket leaflets from convenience stores falls outside the scope of use of Sec. 23(3).<br/><br/><br/>A longstanding practice of an industry can in principle restrict the author’s rights in his work in relation to what is set out in the Danish Copyright Act, but it would require strong evidence to establish the existence of such practice.<br/><br/>The use of a copyright-protected work even in a commercial marketing context can be of such secondary importance that – notwithstanding that the rights holder has not permitted the use – it would not amount to copyright infringement. Such non-statutory exemption to the copyright should be construed restrictively and may not influence the normal use of the work in any detrimental way. It also may not unreasonably interfere with the author’s interests. The use is not of such secondary importance if the copyright-protected work appears clearly and must be considered to constitute a material element of the reproductions.}},
author = {{Kianzad, Behrang}},
issn = {{0018-9855}},
language = {{eng}},
pages = {{109--112}},
publisher = {{C.H. Beck}},
series = {{IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law}},
title = {{Case Translation “Würtz v. Coop” - Decision of the Danish Supreme Court 18 December 2018 – Case No. 171/2017}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40319-019-00888-9}},
doi = {{10.1007/s40319-019-00888-9}},
volume = {{51}},
year = {{2020}},
}