In October 2011, the Institute for Legal Research (Institutet för Rättsvetenskaplig Forskning) organized a symposium to explore various aspects of the theme copyright in a borderless online environment. The symposium gathered prominent Nordic and International scholars and practitioners in the field of copyright and international private law. This volume is in essence the collection of papers presented at the symposium.

Participants and contributors are Stig Strömholm, Paul Torremans, Gillian Davies, Ulf Maunsbach, Jan osén, Daniel Gervais, Silke von Lewinski, Gunnar arnell, Peter Danowsky, Marianne Levin, Marcus Norrgård and Bernt Hugenholtz. Editor is Johan xhamn.

This chapter includes an investigation on exceptions and limitations to the moral rights set out in Article 6bis of the Berne Convention. The chapter includes a general overview of Article 6bis of the Berne Convention, as well as the exceptions and limitations that are permissible in relation to economic rights according to the international conventions on copyright, and discusses whether and to what extent they are relevant also for the moral rights set out in Article 6bis. The chapter also describes the existence of exceptions and limitations to moral rights in some jurisdictions - according to national traditions on dualistic and monistic views on copyright - and analyses the permissibility of exceptions and limitations to moral rights at national level in relation to Article 6bis.

Any derogation from copyright must be interpreted in a strict manner, since it is a derogation from the general principle that the holder must authorize any reproduction of a work protected by copyright. The temporary reproduction acts performed during a "data capture", such as those in the case presented before the national court, must be considered as entirely meeting the conditions of the test made up of three stages, as provided in art. 5 par. (5) of Directive 2001/29/EC, if they meet the requirements under art. 5 par. (1) of Directive 2001/29/EC.

Utredaren har övervägt åtgärder för att stimulera utvecklingen av konsumentvänliga lagliga alternativ för tillgång till framför allt musik och film på Internet.I promeorian skriver utredaren bl.a. att konsumentskyddslagstiftningen inte är tillämplig på handel med digitala produkter när produkterna levereras elektroniskt. Ett konsumentskydd motsvarande det som finns i konsumentköp- och konsumentjänstlagen bör därför införas för dessa slag av avtal.Ett införande av en "bredbandsavgift", som i praktiken innebär en utvidgning av systemet med kassettersättning eller införandet av tvångslicens, är enligt utredarens bedömning inte önskvärd.Utredaren föreslår att en referensgrupp med representanter för Regeringskansliet, nättjänster och rättighetshavare bör tillsättas för att utarbeta förslag till informations- och utbildningsinsatser. Gruppen bör också följa upp insatserna för att främja användarvänligheten. De omfattande intrång som olovlig fildelning gör i upphovsrättigheter är enligt utredarens bedömning ett betydande hinder för investeringsviljan i, och utvecklingen av, de lagliga alternativen. Därför föreslås att Internetleverantören ska kunna vitesföreläggas att vidta åtgärder, t.ex. säga upp avtalet med abonnenten, för att hindra fortsatta intrång med hjälp av den tjänst Internetleverantören tillhandahåller. Abonnentens intresse av att behålla uppkopplingen ska beaktas vid bedömningen av om avtalet får sägas upp och om ett föreläggande ska meddelas.

In recent years, the ability to make available, locate and access copyright protected content over the Internet has increased considerably. Some business models are directly aimed at linking or locating content already made available by other services. Such business models may create value for end users by making it easier to locate and find content on the Internet, but at the same time, they may be deemed to appropriate value from the rightholders or their service providers. In some cases, this has led to tensions and even litigations between the providers of these new business models and the rightholders or their service providers. These tensions are reflections of the underlying policy concerns inherent in the field of copyright law on the necessity to strike a fair balance between the protection of creative content and measures to foster its dissemination. This article will discuss, analyse and draw conclusions from two recent cases from the Court of Justice of the European Union on Internet linking and meta search engines, Svensson and Others and Innoweb, and relate them to the underlying policy concerns in copyright law.

Denna undersökning fokuserar på det skydd som ges åt framställare av databaser, eller sammanställningar med en traditionell benämning. Digitaliseringen, i kombination med upphovsrättens oförmåga att skydda annat än originella alster, har medfört att databaser är i behov av en ny skyddsform, eftersom den investering som krävs för att framställa en databas ofta utgörs av betydande finansiella och mänskliga insatser. Europaparlamentets och Rådets direktiv 96/9/EG av den 11 mars 1996 om rättsligt skydd för databaser syftade till att möta denna utmaning. Direktivets centrala bestämmelse är den nya rätt av sitt eget slag, en rätt sui generis, som är ägnad att skydda databasproducentens investering. Före implementeringen av databasdirektivet i svensk rätt fanns i 49 § svenska upphovsrättslagen ett skydd mot eftergörande av kataloger, tabeller eller annat arbete som bestod av ett stort antal uppgifter. Direktivets sui generis-rätt kom att inarbetas i nämnda lagrum. Ämnesvalet för framställningen kan således ses i ett större perspektiv där upphovsrättens europeisering och funktion som industriellt rättsskydd samvarierar med digitaliseringens inverkan på informationsbearbetning.

An issue which recently has gained increased attention from legislators is how to stimulate the digitization and online availability of the collections held by libraries, museums and other cultural institutions – sometimes referred to as our “common heritage” – and at the same time give full respect to established copyright norms. At European level, this attention is evident in the Digital Libraries Initiative, the Communication from the European Commission on Copyright in the Knowledge Economy, the Commission’s Digital Agenda for Europe and its recent Communication on a Single Market for Intellectual Property Rights. Inherent in these policy documents is the recognition that the new information technologies have created vast opportunities to make the common heritage of Europe more accessible for users online. It is also a shared belief that such access – if coherent with basic copyright principles – will befor the mutual benefit of users, right holders and the society at large. In line with this the Commission has supported the creation and development of a common access point for Europe’s cultural heritage, Europeana.

However, several issues from a copyright perspective have to be solved before undertaking mass-digitization and online dissemination of the collections held by these institutions. One of them is how to make the said digitization and online dissemination lawful from a copyright perspective. To the extent that an item in a cultural institution’s collection is (still) protected by copyright, those acts fall under the author’s exclusive right to authorize and prohibit use of his or her work. As the administrative (“transaction”) costs of finding and negotiating an individual license with every right holder would rise to astronomical levels, there is an obvious risk that major parts of the collections will not be digitized and disseminated online. For this reason, the most practical solution would probably lie in the area of collective rights management.

A way forward is the extended collective license (ECL) model as established and developed in the Nordic countries. The essential component of the ECL model is that it extends a freely negotiated agreement between a Collective Management Organization (CMO) and a user so that it binds also non-members’ rights, sometimes referred to as “outsiders’ rights”. The legal implication of this extension effect is that the agreement not only gives the user the right to use outsider’s rights without any risk of civil remedies but that that it also provides full limitation against criminal sanctions.

To safeguard the outsiders’ interests, the legally supported extended effect only occurs provided that certain conditions have been met. These conditions are, mainly, outsiders’ possibility to opt out, equal treatment vis-à-vis members of the organization and receipt of remuneration. There are also conditions related to the representativeness and supervision of the eligible CMOs. The ECL model has been under consideration by the Commission as a possible solution to stimulate the digitization and online availability of the collections held by cultural institutions.

An additional challenge is to make the collections available cross-border, i.e. also to other countries (territories) than the one where the cultural institution is located. It is inherent in the policy documents of the European commission and also the establishment of Europeana that there is a clear political aim to stimulate such cross-border dissemination. According to prevalent copyright rules, rights for dissemination online have to be cleared in every country where the content can be accessed. Applied to cultural institutions this means that they would have to get a license from CMOs in every EU member state. This would of course lead to substantial administrative costs for the institutions. However, so far no solution have been brought forward which takes into account and could be acceptable by both cultural institutions and right holders.

Two viable cross-border solutions are a country of transmission principle or a solution based on voluntary measures by the national CMOs. A country of transmission principle holds that cultural institutions should only be obliged to obtain a license in the country where the institution initiated the online dissemination. This solution would require legislative intervention at EU level. The other solution essentially means that national CMOs would give each other a mandate to issue multi-territory licenses.

At first glance, an ECL provision combined with either of the cross-border solutions outlined above may be regarded as favoring the cultural institutions’ interests, as it gives them the privilege of both an ECL provision and a simplified measure for cross-border rights clearance. However, the scope of an ECL provision for the benefit of these institutions would primarily be to make available content that is not of a contemporary commercial nature. Hence, the model would aim at establishing a mechanism which would create a supply of cultural heritage content. It is in the interest of the society as a whole that also this content is made available online.

The question of respect for the rule of law in the member states of the European Union (EU) has come up high on the agenda of EU institutions. The background is well known and relates to the disturbing political trend of nationalist and populist forces either rising to power, or gaining increasing political influence across the European continent. While this trend can be discerned in a number of EU member states such as Italy, France, Finland and recently even Sweden, it has been most prominently visible in the ascent of self-proclaimed ‘illiberal democracies’ in Hungary and Poland.

In the concluding chapter, the editors take stock of the state of integration seventy years after the EU’s inception. In the early 2020s, the EU faces once again the fateful question of whether integration should proceed in a federal direction, or whether varied flexible solutions to concrete problems should guide its development instead. The stock-taking is seen against the acute challenges that the current situation in the world underline, not least the war in Ukraine, the energy and cost of living crises, with impact on how the EU and its member states tackle the long-standing climate crisis. In this ominous context, it is important that the member states hold together and find strength in their common endeavours. Nonetheless, certain member states are challenging the Union’s fundamental values in a way never seen before and which have clear implications for further integration. The authors argue that political leadership is needed to stake out the way ahead. The EU’s institutions have a role to play, but they cannot act without legitimacy and support from the member states.

This book celebrates the twentieth anniversary of award-winning intellectual property (IP) blog The IPKat, originally founded in 2003. Over the past two decades, The IPKat has covered and commented on many of the most topical developments in the IP field from a substantive, practical, and policy standpoint alike. Today, The IPKat is considered the ‘Most Popular Intellectual Property Law Blawg’ of all time (source: Justia) and its readers are academics, members of the judiciary, policy- and lawmakers, practitioners, and students from all over the world. By bringing back together several of the current and past contributors to The IPKat—PermaKats, GuestKats, SpecialKats, and InternKats—alongside a cast of eminent Katfriends, this book reflects on the developments which have occurred and directions which have emerged in the IP field over the past twenty years. Topics covered include changes within the main substantive IP rights, as well as IP law, policy, and practice broadly intended and from a global perspective.