©-LAW

Contemporary architecture in Rome: the stunning MAXXI museum by Zaha Hadid The (until fairly recently little-known) copyright exception in Article 5(3)(h) of the  InfoSoc Directive  allowing Member States to authorize the "use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, made to be located permanently in public places", also known as freedom of panorama, has been subject to increasingly frequent (and heated) discussion over the past few years. Freedom of panorama: from niche to ubiquitous? At the EU level, in her  report  MEP Julia Reda proposed to make the exception mandatory for all Member States to have. At the moment, however, there seems to be no real discussion around this issue, nor does it seem that the EU Commission intends to propose legislation in this sense. At the national levels legislatures and courts have been busy addressing this area of copyright  [a handy overview of national approaches (both at the EU and non-EU l...

The Swedish Supreme Court (photo courtesy of ... Wikipedia) Earlier this week the  Högsta domstolen  ( Swedish Supreme Court) issued a  ruling  that has  apparently raised a good deal of attention and possibly more than an eyebrow  [ here ,  here ,  here ] , in that this court appears to have adopted a restrictive interpretation Article 24(1) of the  Swedish Copyright Act .  What is this provision all about? Well, it concerns something that is being perceived as a fairly hot topic also at the EU level  [ here  for the EU Commission's Public Consultation launched last week] : the (in)famous freedom of panorama. As readers will remember,  Article 5(3)(h) of the  InfoSoc Directive  allows Member States to adopt a national exception/limitation to the rights harmonised by that directive to permit the "use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, made to be located permanently in publ...