©-LAW

A few days ago the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued yet another interesting judgment, which - albeit not directly related to IP - might be nonetheless relevant for the interpretation and application of public policy/morality exclusions, especially in the case of blasphemous and offensive subject matter. The decision is the one in   E.S. v Austria , Application No 38450/12 . Background The case related to the applicant's criminal conviction in Austria for  disparaging religious doctrines  (Articles 188 and 283 of the Austrian Criminal Code) , and her claim that this violated her freedom of expression under Article 10 of the  European Convention on Human Rights  (ECHR). More specifically, the conviction resulted from a series of  public  seminars entitled 'Basic Information on Islam' that the applicant had delivered  at the right-wing Freedom Party Education Institute . One of these seminars was attended...

One of Malka's Flair photographs A few days ago this blog  reported  on an interesting  decision  of the Swedish Supreme Court that held that unauthorized 'appropriation' of a substantial part of a photograph for use in a painting did not amount to copyright infringement, as the meaning of the defendant's work was different from the original work. A few days ago, also a French court (Versailles Court of Appeal) had the opportunity to decide a case ( Malka v Klasen , RG No  15/06029,  16 March 2018 ) with a similar factual background.  Unlike the Swedish Supreme Court, the Versailles Court of Appeal held that the defendant had  infringed  the claimant's copyright. It found that the defendant could neither invoke the parody defence under French copyright law nor freedom of (artistic) expression under the  European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) . Let's see what happened. Background Photographer Alix Malka ...