Thank you for you initial responses.
As I understand the situation, the Swedish TV
companies became aware that the police had been
recording their programs for the purpose of
prosecutions. As several contributors have pointed out
there is nothing particularly strange about this,
given that there is exceptions for use judicial
process are commonplace.
What intrigues me about this instance is the fact that
a derivative work was produced. Entry/non-entry of the
work into the public domain is superfluous, as the
manufacture of the derivative work would have taken
place prior to the trial.
My question is whether the exception covers the
extends to the right to produce derivative works, and
if not, are the Swedish police liable, if it can be
proven, as alleged, that the audio sound track has
been altered.
Any further factual background from our Nordic
participants would be warmly appreciated.
- Peter Paul Sint <sint[_at_]oeaw.ac.at> wrote:
> At 11:08 Uhr -0800 04.12.2001, copy right wrote:
> >I came across an interesting story recently
> concerning
> >the use of video evidence in a trial in Sweden.
>
>http://slash.autonomedia.org/article.pl?sid=01/11/30/0639238
> >
> >It appears that the police had recorded television
> >coverage of protests against an EU meeting from the
> >television, and subsequently used the tapes in the
> >prosecution of a protestor.
> >..
> >My question for any Swedish copyright experts out
> >there:
> >(a)Is there an exeption which allows the use of
> >copyrighted works in public prosecutions? and
> >(b)What about in circumstances such as these where
> >there has been the creation of a derivative work.
>
>
> I do not know anything about Swedish law but I do
> not doubt that there is an exeption to use it as
> evidence (as with other proprietary or confidential
> information). The question is less about derivative
> in this case but on falsification/misrepresentation.
> I guess the court could even demand the original
> tapes if necessary (possibly on demand of the
> defendents) and question the journalists and camera
> personnel.
>
> However, the question is also whether it becomes
> public domain in the process.
> In the USA records of court are public domain. A few
> years ago the Church of Scientology vs XX charged
> persons on copyright violation about publishing some
> of their 'secret' teaching material on the Internet.
> In the process they presented the published
> passages. Thus they became legally public (assume
> that I downloaded and read the queer content,
> ROTFL). The lawyers of the Scientology sect could
> have asked to withhold the material from the public
> but failed to do so. Thus for a while this court
> records were legally copyable. (The lawyers demanded
> later non-disclosure). In this case the question was
> rather if critics should have access to proprietary,
> non-disclosed (and thus unpublished) material. I do
> not know whether video tapes may become part of the
> record.
>
> (I am not a lawyer)
> --
> Peter Sint
> sint[_at_]oeaw.ac.at
Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
your unique holiday gifts! Buy at
http://shopping.yahoo.com
or bid at
http://auctions.yahoo.com
Received on Thu Dec 13 2001 - 06:12:26 GMT