Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Upphovsrättsintrång genom bevisföring? - En utredning av upphovsrättsinnehavares möjlighet att bli ersatt när dennes verk används som bevisning i en rättegång

Karlsson, Jonatan LU (2022) JURM02 20221
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Under de senaste åren har Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen hanterat flertalet mål där käranden har stämt svaranden på skadestånd för upphovsrättsintrång efter att svaranden i en tidigare rättegång lämnat in bevisning till vilken käranden äger upphovsrätt. En sådan prövning innefattar en konflikt mellan rätten till rättvis rättegång och äganderätten till upphovsrättsliga verk. Eftersom verket i och med införandet i rättegång blir en allmän handling, och därmed kan begäras ut, blir konflikten särskilt tillspetsad. Arbetet syftar till att utreda hur svensk rätt hanterar den aktuella konflikten och om det eventuellt finns ett bättre sätt att göra hantera den på.
I utredningen har visats att ett upphovsrättsligt skyddat verk som ges in som... (More)
Under de senaste åren har Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen hanterat flertalet mål där käranden har stämt svaranden på skadestånd för upphovsrättsintrång efter att svaranden i en tidigare rättegång lämnat in bevisning till vilken käranden äger upphovsrätt. En sådan prövning innefattar en konflikt mellan rätten till rättvis rättegång och äganderätten till upphovsrättsliga verk. Eftersom verket i och med införandet i rättegång blir en allmän handling, och därmed kan begäras ut, blir konflikten särskilt tillspetsad. Arbetet syftar till att utreda hur svensk rätt hanterar den aktuella konflikten och om det eventuellt finns ett bättre sätt att göra hantera den på.
I utredningen har visats att ett upphovsrättsligt skyddat verk som ges in som bevisning till en rättegång i princip alltid blir en allmän handling som inte skyddas av sekretess. Trots detta har PMÖD tagit en ståndpunkt där införande av bevisning till domstolen aldrig är att betrakta som ett tillgängliggörande till allmänheten. Detta beror på att PMÖD anser att domstolen aldrig kan falla under rekvisitet ”allmänheten”, trots att verken därifrån kan begäras ut av allmänheten. Dessutom poängterar PMÖD att en annan ordning hade kunnat strida mot rätten till en rättvis rättegång. Exemplarframställning av verket inför införandet av det som bevisning har i tre av de fyra fall som PMÖD avgjort ansetts vara tillåtna enligt bl.a. undantaget för användande i rättsvårdens intresse enligt 2 kap. 26 § B UrL, under förutsättning att verket haft betydelse i den tidigare rättegången. Konflikten har således lösts genom att starkt inskränka upphovsrätten, till fördel för rätten till rättvis rättegång.
Utredningen visar dock att det inte strider mot rätten till rättvis rättegång att ett rättssystem medger ersättningsansvar för förande av viss bevisning. Således bör PMÖD inte bestämma generellt att en domstol aldrig ska falla in under rekvisitet ”allmänheten”. Om verket i och med ingivandet av bevisning kan begäras ut av allmänheten borde istället rekvisitet vara uppfyllt. Domstolen får då istället tillämpa undantaget i 2 kap. 26 b § UrL, och göra intrångshandlingen tillåten endast om verket haft betydelse som bevisning. (Less)
Abstract
During the last couple of years, the Patent and Market Court of Appeal (“PMCA”) have handled multiple cases where the plaintiff has sued the defendant for damages for copyright infringement after the defendant in a previous trial has submitted evidence to which the plaintiff have copyright. Such a trial involves a conflict between the right to fair trial and the right of possession of copyrighted works. Since the work becomes a public document and thus publicly accessible, when it is introduced into a trial, the conflict is particularly acute. This article aims to investigate how Swedish law handles the relevant conflict and whether there may be a better way to handle it.
The investigation has shown that a copyrighted work that is... (More)
During the last couple of years, the Patent and Market Court of Appeal (“PMCA”) have handled multiple cases where the plaintiff has sued the defendant for damages for copyright infringement after the defendant in a previous trial has submitted evidence to which the plaintiff have copyright. Such a trial involves a conflict between the right to fair trial and the right of possession of copyrighted works. Since the work becomes a public document and thus publicly accessible, when it is introduced into a trial, the conflict is particularly acute. This article aims to investigate how Swedish law handles the relevant conflict and whether there may be a better way to handle it.
The investigation has shown that a copyrighted work that is submitted as evidence in a trial almost always becomes a public document that is not protected by secrecy. Despite this, the PMCA has taken a position where the introduction of evidence to the court is never to be regarded as making it available to the public. This is because the PMCA claims that a court can never fall under the prerequisite “public”, despite the fact that the works are publicly accessible from there. In addition, it is pointed out that a different order could violate the right to fair trial. Reproduction of the work, before it is handed in as evidence in a trial has in three of the four cases handled by the PMCA considered allowed according to i.a. the exception for the use to ensure the proper performance of judicial proceedings in 2 chap. 26 b § of the Copyright Act. This is provided that the work has had significance in the previous trial. The conflict has thus been resolved by severely restricting the right to copyright, in favour of the right to fair trial.
However, the investigation shows that it is not in violation with the right to fair trial that a legal system allows for a court to award damages for the presentation of evidence in a trial. Thus, The PMCA should not rule that a court in general never can be considered as the “public”. If the work becomes publicly accessible through the submission of evidence, the prerequisite instead should be deemed fulfilled. Then the court must instead apply the exception in 2 chap. 26 b § of the Copyright Act and deem the infringement allowable only if the work has had significance as evidence in the earlier trial. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Karlsson, Jonatan LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Copyright infringement through submission of evidence? - An investigation of copyright holder´s possibility to be compensated when his work is used as evidence in a trial
course
JURM02 20221
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Civilrätt, Immaterialrätt
language
Swedish
id
9079958
date added to LUP
2022-06-16 20:50:26
date last changed
2022-06-16 20:50:26
@misc{9079958,
  abstract     = {{During the last couple of years, the Patent and Market Court of Appeal (“PMCA”) have handled multiple cases where the plaintiff has sued the defendant for damages for copyright infringement after the defendant in a previous trial has submitted evidence to which the plaintiff have copyright. Such a trial involves a conflict between the right to fair trial and the right of possession of copyrighted works. Since the work becomes a public document and thus publicly accessible, when it is introduced into a trial, the conflict is particularly acute. This article aims to investigate how Swedish law handles the relevant conflict and whether there may be a better way to handle it.
The investigation has shown that a copyrighted work that is submitted as evidence in a trial almost always becomes a public document that is not protected by secrecy. Despite this, the PMCA has taken a position where the introduction of evidence to the court is never to be regarded as making it available to the public. This is because the PMCA claims that a court can never fall under the prerequisite “public”, despite the fact that the works are publicly accessible from there. In addition, it is pointed out that a different order could violate the right to fair trial. Reproduction of the work, before it is handed in as evidence in a trial has in three of the four cases handled by the PMCA considered allowed according to i.a. the exception for the use to ensure the proper performance of judicial proceedings in 2 chap. 26 b § of the Copyright Act. This is provided that the work has had significance in the previous trial. The conflict has thus been resolved by severely restricting the right to copyright, in favour of the right to fair trial.
However, the investigation shows that it is not in violation with the right to fair trial that a legal system allows for a court to award damages for the presentation of evidence in a trial. Thus, The PMCA should not rule that a court in general never can be considered as the “public”. If the work becomes publicly accessible through the submission of evidence, the prerequisite instead should be deemed fulfilled. Then the court must instead apply the exception in 2 chap. 26 b § of the Copyright Act and deem the infringement allowable only if the work has had significance as evidence in the earlier trial.}},
  author       = {{Karlsson, Jonatan}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Upphovsrättsintrång genom bevisföring? - En utredning av upphovsrättsinnehavares möjlighet att bli ersatt när dennes verk används som bevisning i en rättegång}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}