Advanced

Allmänhetsbegreppet i upphovsrätten

Zabielski, Amanda LU (2012) JURM02 20122
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Rättighetsinnehavaren till ett upphovsrättsskyddat verk har en ekonomisk rättighet att göra verket tillgängligt för allmänheten. Det principiellt viktigaste sättet att göra ett verk tillgängligt för allmänheten i dagens informationssamhälle är rätten att överföra verket till allmänheten. Detta är särskilt reglerat i artikel 3.1 i infosocdirektivet och implementerades i 2 § URL år 2005. Främst tar regleringen fasta på situationen när ett verk görs tillgängligt på digital väg, på internet till exempel, varvid allmänheten kan ta del av verket efter eget val. Varken direktivet eller URL specificerar innebörden av ”allmänheten”. Innebörden ska därför sökas i förarbeten och praxis. Både svenska och europeiska myndigheter understryker att... (More)
Rättighetsinnehavaren till ett upphovsrättsskyddat verk har en ekonomisk rättighet att göra verket tillgängligt för allmänheten. Det principiellt viktigaste sättet att göra ett verk tillgängligt för allmänheten i dagens informationssamhälle är rätten att överföra verket till allmänheten. Detta är särskilt reglerat i artikel 3.1 i infosocdirektivet och implementerades i 2 § URL år 2005. Främst tar regleringen fasta på situationen när ett verk görs tillgängligt på digital väg, på internet till exempel, varvid allmänheten kan ta del av verket efter eget val. Varken direktivet eller URL specificerar innebörden av ”allmänheten”. Innebörden ska därför sökas i förarbeten och praxis. Både svenska och europeiska myndigheter understryker att begreppet ska ges en vid tolkning. Ett verk är uppenbarligen inte tillgängligt för allmänheten om det endast är överfört till en liten privat grupp av personer. Men vad betyder ”allmänheten” egentligen?

Svenska domstolar refererar än idag till äldre prejudicerande rättsfall i relation till 2 § URL. Rafael-fallet var det första förhandsavgörandet där EU-domstolen verkligen utvecklade definitionen av ”allmänheten” i infosocdirektivet. Domstolen gjorde klart att ”överföring till allmänheten” skulle ges en enhetlig tolkning inom EU. Bland andra omständigheter så beaktade domstolen antalet personer som kunde ta del av verken, de kumulativa effekterna av spridningen samt intrångsgörarens vinstsyfte. Dessa kriterier blev tillämpliga i efterföljande praxis. I ett relativt nyutkommet EU-rättsligt fall från april 2012 så betraktades dock ”allmänheten” utifrån något annorlunda kriterier. Vidare har EU-rättslig praxis främst rört ”överföring till allmänheten” genom TV och radio varför definitionen är desto mer oklar vad gäller ”överföring till allmänheten” på internet. Samtidigt som den digitala miljön onekligen hotar skyddet för upphovsrättsliga verk är det viktigt att man inte antar lagstiftning som riskerar att bli obsolet.

EU-kommissionen utfärdade år 2004 ”sanktionsdirektivet” i syfte att bekämpa immaterialrättsligt intrång. Bland andra sanktioner så ger artikel 8 (motsvarande 53 c-53 h §§ URL) rättighetsinnehavaren en rätt att få information från en internetleverantör om en intrångsgörares identitet. Bortsett från den kontroversiella integritetsaspekten, är frågan om rätten ska kunna utövas mot en intrångsgörare eller påstådd intrångsgörare? Medlemsstaterna har här fått utrymme att fastställa beviskravet efter eget skön och den svenska tolkningen är att det måste föreligga ”sannolika skäl” för intrång. Kriterierna i relation till 2 § URL synes ha blivit den yttersta riktlinjen. Frågan är dock om de svenska domstolarna har intagit nya eller annorlunda kriterier för att tolka ”allmänheten” vid tillämpning av reglerna om informationsföreläggande. Högsta domstolen meddelade ett beslut 21 december 2012 gällande tolkningen av “allmänheten” i en digital miljö mot bakgrund av reglerna om informationsföreläggande (53 c-53 h §§ URL). Det är första gången som svensk domstol har gjort en direktivkonform tolkning av allmänhetsbegreppet sedan EU-domstolen meddelade sin dom i Rafael-fallet. Som det ser ut idag så har rättighetsinnehavare mött åtskilliga hinder vid meddelande av informationsföreläggande, varför man kan ifrågasätta dess effektivitet. Härvid måste man beakta det faktum att olagligheten i fildelning inte nödvändigtvis korrelerar med allmänhetens inställning till densamma.

Mina slutsatser gällande “allmänheten” i 2 § URL och EU-rätten kan sammanfattas enligt följande. Först, förutom att söka definitionen i de konventionella rättskällorna, så måste man beakta de särskilda omständigheterna i varje fall och syftet med regleringen ifråga. Utgången i svensk praxis är i princip i linje med den EU-rättsliga praxisen rörande allmänhetsbegreppet. Samtidigt som det finns definitiva likheter i tolkningen av ”allmänheten” i svensk rätt och EU-rätt, som till exempel vinstsyftet, så överensstämmer inte kriterierna helt och hållet. Även om det finns begränsad praxis gällande informationsföreläggande så drar jag ändå slutsatsen att det föreligger viss diskrepans mellan tolkningen av ”allmänheten” i 2 § och reglerna om informationsföreläggande. Anledningen till diskrepansen torde ligga i skillnaderna i omständigheterna mellan fildelning och TV- och radiosändning och det faktum att ”sannolika skäl” är ett lägre beviskrav än ”styrkt”. Reglerna om informationsföreläggande har inte utnyttjats såsom tänkts. Främst beror detta på att rättstillämpningen har stått stilla med anledning av ett vilande beslut hos Högsta domstolen, som senare meddelades den 21 december 2012. Vidare finns rättsliga hinder och tekniska hinder i form av datalagringsregler och anonymiseringstjänster. Hur som helst så är olovlig fildelning vanligt förekommande, varför myndigheterna måste öka allmänhetens medvetenhet kring värdet av upphovsrättsliga tillgångar för att fildelning ska kunna avvärjas. Ett steg i rätt riktning skulle vara att stimulera marknaden för lagliga ”beställningstjänster” på den digitala marknaden. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
The proprietor of a copyright protected work has an economical right to make the work available to the public. The most significant form of making a work available in today’s information society is the right of communicating the work to the public. This is specifically regulated in article 3.1 in the Infosoc Directive and was implemented in 2 § URL in 2005. Especially this regulation pertains to the situation when the work is made available digitally, on the internet for example, whereby the public may access the work by its own choice. Neither the directive, nor URL specifies the meaning of “the public”. The meaning is therefore to be sought in preparatory work as well as case law. Both Swedish authorities and the EU emphasize that the... (More)
The proprietor of a copyright protected work has an economical right to make the work available to the public. The most significant form of making a work available in today’s information society is the right of communicating the work to the public. This is specifically regulated in article 3.1 in the Infosoc Directive and was implemented in 2 § URL in 2005. Especially this regulation pertains to the situation when the work is made available digitally, on the internet for example, whereby the public may access the work by its own choice. Neither the directive, nor URL specifies the meaning of “the public”. The meaning is therefore to be sought in preparatory work as well as case law. Both Swedish authorities and the EU emphasize that the concept should be given a broad interpretation. A work is evidently not made available to the public if it is merely communicated to a small private group of people. But what does “the public” mean in essence?

The Swedish courts are still today referring to old precedential cases in relation to 2 § URL. The Rafael case was the first preliminary ruling where the EU court really elaborated on the meaning of the public in the Infosoc Directive. The court made clear that “communication to the public” should be given a uniform interpretation within the EU. Among other facts, the court considered the number of people who could access the works, the cumulative effects of making the works available and the infringer’s economic purpose. These criteria were also applicable in subsequent case law. In a quite recent case, though, from April 2012, the EU court considered “the public” in another directive on the basis of somewhat different criteria. Moreover the EU case law has mainly concerned the “communication to the public” through television or radio why the definition is more uncertain as regards “communication to the public” on the internet. Whilst the digital environment undeniably threatens the protection of copyrighted work, it is also important not to adopt legislation at risk of being obsolete.

In 2004 the European Commission launched the “Enforcement Directive” (Sw. sanktionsdirektivet) in order to combat infringement of intellectual property rights. Among other sanctions, article 8 (corresponding to 53 c-53 h §§ URL) gives the proprietor the right to obtain information from an internet service provider about the identity of an infringer. Despite the controversial aspect of integrity, the question is if the right should be exercised against an infringer or an assumed infringer? The member states have hereby been given the discretion to elaborate on the standard of proof whereas the Swedish interpretation is that there has to be “probable cause” for infringement. Seemingly, the criteria in relation to 2 § URL have been the ultimate guideline. The question, however, is whether Swedish courts have established new or different criteria in depicting the meaning of “the public” in the rule of right to information. The Swedish High court delivered a decision on December 21st 2012 regarding the interpretation of “the public” in a digital environment on the basis of the rule of right of information (53 c-53 h §§ URL). This is the very first time when a Swedish court has made a harmonised interpretation of the meaning of “the public” since the EU court delivered its judgement in the Rafael case. As of today, the proprietors have met several obstacles in relation to the right of information so one might question its effectiveness. Herein it must be taken into account that the illegality of file sharing does not necessary correlate with public’s approach thereof.

My conclusions regarding “the public” in 2 § URL and EU law can be summarized as follows. Firstly, besides looking for a definition of “the public” in the conventional sources of law, one must consider the specific facts of each case and the purpose of the regulation at issue. The outcome of the Swedish cases is essentially in line with the EU case law regarding the concept of “the public”. While there are definite similarities in the interpretation of “the public”, for example the economic purpose, the criteria do not completely coincide. Even though there is limited case law regarding the right of information, I conclude that there is an underlying discrepancy between “the public” in 2 § and the rule of right to information. The reason for this discrepancy might lie in the difference between the situation of file sharing and TV- and radio broadcast and the fact that “probable cause” is a lower standard of proof than a proven case. The regulation of right of information has not been used as originally envisaged. The main reason has been the standstill in law enforcement because of a pending decision in the Swedish High court, which was later delivered December 21st 2012. Furthermore, there are judicial obstacles and technical obstacles in terms of data storage regulation and anonymity services. Nevertheless, there is a high occurrence of file sharing, why the authorities need to increase the public’s consciousness of the value in intellectual property in order to avert unlawful file sharing. One step in the right direction would be to enhance the market for lawful “services on demand” in the digital field. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Zabielski, Amanda LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
"The public" in copyright law
course
JURM02 20122
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
civilrätt, förmögenhetsrätt, immaterialrätt, allmänheten, informationsföreläggande
language
Swedish
id
3350607
date added to LUP
2013-01-28 13:12:35
date last changed
2013-02-12 13:14:06
@misc{3350607,
  abstract     = {The proprietor of a copyright protected work has an economical right to make the work available to the public. The most significant form of making a work available in today’s information society is the right of communicating the work to the public. This is specifically regulated in article 3.1 in the Infosoc Directive and was implemented in 2 § URL in 2005. Especially this regulation pertains to the situation when the work is made available digitally, on the internet for example, whereby the public may access the work by its own choice. Neither the directive, nor URL specifies the meaning of “the public”. The meaning is therefore to be sought in preparatory work as well as case law. Both Swedish authorities and the EU emphasize that the concept should be given a broad interpretation. A work is evidently not made available to the public if it is merely communicated to a small private group of people. But what does “the public” mean in essence? 

The Swedish courts are still today referring to old precedential cases in relation to 2 § URL. The Rafael case was the first preliminary ruling where the EU court really elaborated on the meaning of the public in the Infosoc Directive. The court made clear that “communication to the public” should be given a uniform interpretation within the EU. Among other facts, the court considered the number of people who could access the works, the cumulative effects of making the works available and the infringer’s economic purpose. These criteria were also applicable in subsequent case law. In a quite recent case, though, from April 2012, the EU court considered “the public” in another directive on the basis of somewhat different criteria. Moreover the EU case law has mainly concerned the “communication to the public” through television or radio why the definition is more uncertain as regards “communication to the public” on the internet. Whilst the digital environment undeniably threatens the protection of copyrighted work, it is also important not to adopt legislation at risk of being obsolete. 

In 2004 the European Commission launched the “Enforcement Directive” (Sw. sanktionsdirektivet) in order to combat infringement of intellectual property rights. Among other sanctions, article 8 (corresponding to 53 c-53 h §§ URL) gives the proprietor the right to obtain information from an internet service provider about the identity of an infringer. Despite the controversial aspect of integrity, the question is if the right should be exercised against an infringer or an assumed infringer? The member states have hereby been given the discretion to elaborate on the standard of proof whereas the Swedish interpretation is that there has to be “probable cause” for infringement. Seemingly, the criteria in relation to 2 § URL have been the ultimate guideline. The question, however, is whether Swedish courts have established new or different criteria in depicting the meaning of “the public” in the rule of right to information. The Swedish High court delivered a decision on December 21st 2012 regarding the interpretation of “the public” in a digital environment on the basis of the rule of right of information (53 c-53 h §§ URL). This is the very first time when a Swedish court has made a harmonised interpretation of the meaning of “the public” since the EU court delivered its judgement in the Rafael case. As of today, the proprietors have met several obstacles in relation to the right of information so one might question its effectiveness. Herein it must be taken into account that the illegality of file sharing does not necessary correlate with public’s approach thereof. 

My conclusions regarding “the public” in 2 § URL and EU law can be summarized as follows. Firstly, besides looking for a definition of “the public” in the conventional sources of law, one must consider the specific facts of each case and the purpose of the regulation at issue. The outcome of the Swedish cases is essentially in line with the EU case law regarding the concept of “the public”. While there are definite similarities in the interpretation of “the public”, for example the economic purpose, the criteria do not completely coincide. Even though there is limited case law regarding the right of information, I conclude that there is an underlying discrepancy between “the public” in 2 § and the rule of right to information. The reason for this discrepancy might lie in the difference between the situation of file sharing and TV- and radio broadcast and the fact that “probable cause” is a lower standard of proof than a proven case. The regulation of right of information has not been used as originally envisaged. The main reason has been the standstill in law enforcement because of a pending decision in the Swedish High court, which was later delivered December 21st 2012. Furthermore, there are judicial obstacles and technical obstacles in terms of data storage regulation and anonymity services. Nevertheless, there is a high occurrence of file sharing, why the authorities need to increase the public’s consciousness of the value in intellectual property in order to avert unlawful file sharing. One step in the right direction would be to enhance the market for lawful “services on demand” in the digital field.},
  author       = {Zabielski, Amanda},
  keyword      = {civilrätt,förmögenhetsrätt,immaterialrätt,allmänheten,informationsföreläggande},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Allmänhetsbegreppet i upphovsrätten},
  year         = {2012},
}