The defendant, H.F., together with other persons, had participated in the unauthorised making available of 22 cinematographic works through links published on websites associated with the streaming facilitation service Dreamhost. These links enabled Dreamhost’s paying users to stream the films without the consent of the rightholders. The acts occurred partly on 8 August 2019, and for some works continuously between 8 August 2019 and 30 November 2020. Two film companies, Svensk Filmindustri (SF) and Nordisk Film, each held rights to nine of the affected films. The unlawful making available constituted both a violation of their exclusive economic rights and a criminal copyright offence. H.F. was accordingly convicted of copyright crime, a conviction that had already come into force prior to the civil proceedings.

In the civil proceedings before the Patent and Market Court, SF and Nordisk Film sought damages comprising both reasonable compensation for the unauthorised use and additional damages for further harm, including reputational damage to the works and non-pecuniary damages. The Patent and Market Court awarded both forms of compensation. On appeal, the Patent and Market Court of Appeal upheld the economic components but rejected the claims for non-pecuniary damages, holding that legal persons are generally not entitled to non-pecuniary damages in cases concerning infringement of economic rights.

SF and Nordisk Film appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted leave to appeal solely on the question of whether a legal person may obtain compensation for non-pecuniary damages under § 54 of the Swedish Copyright Act.

This article reflects on the doctoral dissertation done in 2021 and examines the ongoing interpretive challenges surrounding the right of communication to the public under EU copyright law, arguing that a shift toward a genuinely technology-neutral and legally neutral framework could offer greater coherence and predictability. While such a solution may appear conceptually straightforward, its practical implementation remains complex due to legislative fragmentation and the evolving nature of digital technologies. The recent commercial emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) intensifies these challenges, marking a new phase in the regulatory cycle historically associated with technological innovation. Ultimately, the article argues that AI exposes the limitations of a fragmented, technology-specific approach to copyright law and underscores the need for a more principled, future-proof regulatory framework capable of accommodating ongoing technological change.

Bok recension

The availability of learning and teaching material poses a threat to the sustainability of education – even more so if online and hybrid teaching is to become the norm. The COVID-19 pandemic in the EU reinforced structural weaknesses in education and its delivery and revealed the lack of resilience of educational systems. This chapter looks firstly into the concept of a resilient educational system and to what extent it can be achieved by an educational exception. This is followed by an analysis of the current legal framework for the dissemination of knowledge in the form of the education exception within the European Union. Finally, this chapter concludes by exploring whether the discretion given to EU Member States when implementing the education exception has become legally insurmountable and whether machine learning is a way forward to create a functioning educational exception in digital and cross-border education.

Translation and case note Ö 5978-21 (AstraZeneca v Swedish Patent and Registration Office).

Translation and case note B 1513-22  (Quatar TV).

Translation and case note PMT 1782-21 (Cosmos Organic).

Translation and case note B 12315-20 (Swedish Tiger).