Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Ingen regel utan undantag? Om upphovsrättsligt skyddat material som bevisning i dispositiva tvistemål

Perklev, Anna LU (2022) LAGF03 20221
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract
Under copyright law, the originator has the exclusive right to his or her work, which includes reproduction as well as the right of communication to the public and the right of making it available to the public. The exclusive right means that others may not use the work in a way that infringes the exclusive right without the rightholder’s consent. The framework has caused uncertainty as to whether or not the use of a work by submitting it to the court as evidence in an action amenable to out-of-court settlement is considered as a copyright infringement. Over the past decade the Patent and Market Court of Appeal (PMCA) has issued a number of rulings
regarding the matter, but until recently the legal position has been unclear. Since, under... (More)
Under copyright law, the originator has the exclusive right to his or her work, which includes reproduction as well as the right of communication to the public and the right of making it available to the public. The exclusive right means that others may not use the work in a way that infringes the exclusive right without the rightholder’s consent. The framework has caused uncertainty as to whether or not the use of a work by submitting it to the court as evidence in an action amenable to out-of-court settlement is considered as a copyright infringement. Over the past decade the Patent and Market Court of Appeal (PMCA) has issued a number of rulings
regarding the matter, but until recently the legal position has been unclear. Since, under civil procedure law, it is the parties who are responsible for evidence in amenable to out-of-court settlements, clarification of whether such use is admissible – or constitutes copyright infringement – is of great interest. Problems relating to fundamental rights and freedoms, such as the right to an effective remedy and a fair trial, predictability and issues regarding procedural economy, are also raised.

Since 2005 Swedish copyright law has been harmonised with EU law through the implementation of the Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (Infosoc) in the Swedish Copyright Act, the Act must be interpreted in accordance with EU law. In some rulings, there has been a discrepancy between how Swedish courts have interpreted the issue based on the Copyright Act and EU law and the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which is contrary to the obligations of national court and authorities to comply with Union law in areas where Member States have undertaken to do so.

The purpose of the paper is to clarify the legal position regarding whether it is permissible to submit copyright-protected material as evidence in an action amenable to out-of-court settlement, and whether Swedish case law in this area is compatible with EU law and the interpretation of the CJEU of the same.

The legal-dogmatic method has been applied in the investigation to determine the applicable law. The choice of material for the study has been made on the basis of the doctrine of sources of law and consists of national and EU legislation, case law from Swedish courts such as the PMCA and from the CJEU, as well as legislative history and doctrine. In relation to EU law, the EU legal method has been applied. In the final discussion, the legal analytical method is applied, which opens up for more evaluative approaches.

The conclusion is that under current law, anyone – including individuals – is allowed to submit protected works as evidence in court under certain conditions. Making a work available to a court is generally permissible, while any reproduction must be executed in the interest of justice.It is still unclear whether such an exception would also require that the material is presumed to
have been relevant as evidence in the proceedings, but regardless, it can be seen as a low requirement.

Based on the case law examined in the paper, it is possible to conclude that national courts have essentially taken EU law and EU case law into account. One deviation occurs in a ruling from 2018 where Swedish legislative history regarding the Copyright Act was given precedence over an interpretation of EU law and the rulings of CJEU. The deviation can be assumed to be due to the fact that the PMCA relied on the legislator to take EU law into account when drafting the legislative motives. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Enligt upphovsrätten har upphovsmannen ensamrätt till sitt verk, vilket omfattar exemplarframställning såväl som tillgängliggörande för allmänheten av alstret. Ensamrätten innebär att andra inte får använda verket på ett sätt som inkräktar på ensamrätten utan rättsinnehavarens samtycke. Regelverket har orsakat juridiska oklarheter beträffande om ett nyttjande av ett alster genom att inge det till domstol som bevisning i ett dispositivt tvistemål inkräktar på ensamrätten eller inte. Under de senaste drygt tio åren har Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen (PMÖD) meddelat ett antal avgöranden i frågan, men rättsläget har fram till nyligen varit oklart. Eftersom det enligt civilprocessrätten är parterna som svarar för bevisningen i dispositiva... (More)
Enligt upphovsrätten har upphovsmannen ensamrätt till sitt verk, vilket omfattar exemplarframställning såväl som tillgängliggörande för allmänheten av alstret. Ensamrätten innebär att andra inte får använda verket på ett sätt som inkräktar på ensamrätten utan rättsinnehavarens samtycke. Regelverket har orsakat juridiska oklarheter beträffande om ett nyttjande av ett alster genom att inge det till domstol som bevisning i ett dispositivt tvistemål inkräktar på ensamrätten eller inte. Under de senaste drygt tio åren har Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen (PMÖD) meddelat ett antal avgöranden i frågan, men rättsläget har fram till nyligen varit oklart. Eftersom det enligt civilprocessrätten är parterna som svarar för bevisningen i dispositiva mål är ett klargörande huruvida en sådan användning är tillåten, eller utgör ett upphovsrättsligt intrång, av stort intresse. Även problematik kring grundläggande frioch
rättigheter som t ex rätten till effektivt rättsmedel, förutsägbarhet och processekonomiska frågor aktualiseras.

Eftersom svensk upphovsrätt sedan 2005 är harmoniserad med EU-rätten genom införlivandet av Europaparlamentets och rådets direktiv 2001/29/EG av den 22 maj 2001 om harmonisering av vissa aspekter av upphovsrätt och närstående rättigheter i informationssamhället (Infosoc) i svenska lagen (1960:729) om upphovsrätt till litterära och konstnärliga verk (URL) ska lagen
tolkas konformt med unionsrätten. I vissa avgöranden har det funnits en diskrepans mellan hur svensk domstol har tolkat frågan utifrån URL och unionsrätten samt Europeiska unionens domstols (EU-domstolen) praxis, vilket strider mot nationella domstolars och myndigheters förpliktelser att följa unionsrätten på områden där medlemsstaterna åtagit sig att göra detta.

Syftet med uppsatsen är dels att klargöra rättsläget avseende huruvida det är tillåtet att lämna in upphovsrättsligt skyddat material som bevisning i dispositiva tvistemål till domstol, dels om svensk rättspraxis på området är förenlig med unionsrätten samt EU-domstolens tolkning av densamma.

Rättsdogmatisk metod har i utredningen tillämpats för att fastställa gällande rätt. Valet av material för undersökningen har gjorts med utgångspunkt i rättskälleläran och består av nationell och unionsrättslig lagstiftning, praxis från svenska domstolar som PMÖD och från
EU-domstolen samt lagförarbeten och doktrin. I förhållande till unionsrätten har EU-rättslig metod tillämpats. I det avslutande diskussionsavsnittet tillämpas rättsanalytisk metod som öppnar för mer värderande infallsvinklar.

Slutsatsen är att det enligt gällande rätt är tillåtet för alla – även enskilda – att lämna in skyddade alster som bevisning till domstol under vissa förutsättningar. Tillgängliggörande av ett alster för en domstol är generellt tillåtet, medan en eventuell exemplarframställning måste ske i rättsvårdens intresse. Att ett sådant undantag även skulle förutsätta ett krav på att alstret ska antas ha haft betydelse som bevisning i processen är fortfarande oklart, men oavsett kan kravet ses som lågt ställt.

Utifrån den praxis som undersökts i uppsatsen är det möjligt att konstatera att nationell domstol i huvudsak har beaktat EU-rätten och unionsrättslig praxis. En avvikelse förekommer i ett avgörande från 2018 där svenska förarbeten till URL gavs företräde framför en tolkning av unionsrätten och EU-domstolens avgöranden. Avvikelsen kan antas bero på att PMÖD förlitat sig på att lagstiftaren beaktat unionsrätten vid utarbetningen av lagmotiven. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Perklev, Anna LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20221
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
private law, EU-law, intellectual property law, copyright law, procedual law
language
Swedish
id
9081315
date added to LUP
2022-06-28 11:14:12
date last changed
2022-06-28 11:14:12
@misc{9081315,
  abstract     = {{Under copyright law, the originator has the exclusive right to his or her work, which includes reproduction as well as the right of communication to the public and the right of making it available to the public. The exclusive right means that others may not use the work in a way that infringes the exclusive right without the rightholder’s consent. The framework has caused uncertainty as to whether or not the use of a work by submitting it to the court as evidence in an action amenable to out-of-court settlement is considered as a copyright infringement. Over the past decade the Patent and Market Court of Appeal (PMCA) has issued a number of rulings
regarding the matter, but until recently the legal position has been unclear. Since, under civil procedure law, it is the parties who are responsible for evidence in amenable to out-of-court settlements, clarification of whether such use is admissible – or constitutes copyright infringement – is of great interest. Problems relating to fundamental rights and freedoms, such as the right to an effective remedy and a fair trial, predictability and issues regarding procedural economy, are also raised.

Since 2005 Swedish copyright law has been harmonised with EU law through the implementation of the Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (Infosoc) in the Swedish Copyright Act, the Act must be interpreted in accordance with EU law. In some rulings, there has been a discrepancy between how Swedish courts have interpreted the issue based on the Copyright Act and EU law and the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which is contrary to the obligations of national court and authorities to comply with Union law in areas where Member States have undertaken to do so.

The purpose of the paper is to clarify the legal position regarding whether it is permissible to submit copyright-protected material as evidence in an action amenable to out-of-court settlement, and whether Swedish case law in this area is compatible with EU law and the interpretation of the CJEU of the same.

The legal-dogmatic method has been applied in the investigation to determine the applicable law. The choice of material for the study has been made on the basis of the doctrine of sources of law and consists of national and EU legislation, case law from Swedish courts such as the PMCA and from the CJEU, as well as legislative history and doctrine. In relation to EU law, the EU legal method has been applied. In the final discussion, the legal analytical method is applied, which opens up for more evaluative approaches.

The conclusion is that under current law, anyone – including individuals – is allowed to submit protected works as evidence in court under certain conditions. Making a work available to a court is generally permissible, while any reproduction must be executed in the interest of justice.It is still unclear whether such an exception would also require that the material is presumed to
have been relevant as evidence in the proceedings, but regardless, it can be seen as a low requirement.

Based on the case law examined in the paper, it is possible to conclude that national courts have essentially taken EU law and EU case law into account. One deviation occurs in a ruling from 2018 where Swedish legislative history regarding the Copyright Act was given precedence over an interpretation of EU law and the rulings of CJEU. The deviation can be assumed to be due to the fact that the PMCA relied on the legislator to take EU law into account when drafting the legislative motives.}},
  author       = {{Perklev, Anna}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Ingen regel utan undantag? Om upphovsrättsligt skyddat material som bevisning i dispositiva tvistemål}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}