Subscribe
Search
ePaper
Newsletters
Subscribe
ePaper
Newsletters
Art market
Museums & heritage
Exhibitions
Books
Podcasts
Columns
Technology
Adventures with Van Gogh
Art market
Museums & heritage
Exhibitions
Books
Podcasts
Columns
Technology
Adventures with Van Gogh
Search
Law
news

Wikimedia Sweden found guilty of violating copyright with database of images of public art

Decision by Supreme Court could have implications for other jurisdictions, legal experts say

Anny Shaw
5 April 2016
Share

The Swedish Supreme Court has ruled that Wikimedia Sweden’s free database of images of public works of art violates copyright laws. The Visual Copyright Society in Sweden (BUS) had sued Wikimedia, part of the non-profit foundation that oversees Wikipedia, for providing the public with a database of royalty-free images without the artists’ permission.

Visitors to the open database, Offentlig Konst, which is owned by Wikimedia Sweden, can browse maps, descriptions and images of public works, including monuments, sculptures and paintings.

The Supreme Court ruled that while taking photographs of works in public spaces was acceptable, it was “an entirely different matter” to store those images on a database for unlimited use. “Such a database can be assumed to have a commercial value that is not insignificant. The court finds that the artists are entitled to that value.”

Legal experts say the case could have far-reaching implications. “I would expect artist’s collecting societies in other countries to look at the judgement carefully and consider what action they might want to take in their jurisdictions, subject to what their own laws permit,” says Simon Stokes, an intellectual property lawyer and partner at the UK firm, Blake Morgan.

According to AFP, Wikimedia Sweden suggested that tourists who take photographs in front of public monuments and post them online might also be at risk of copyright violation. Stokes says: “Photographers can be rather blasé about rights artists have in their works—just because a work is on public display doesn't mean it can be photographed.”

Michelle Paulson, the legal director of the Wikimedia Foundation, says in a blog post that she “respectfully disagreed” with the Supreme Court's decision. "Wikimedia Sweden and the Wikimedia Foundation will continue to defend the dissemination of free information, including freedom of panorama, on sites like Wikimedia Commons and Offentligkonst.se, and across the Wikimedia movement," she says.

LawCopyright
Share

Related content

Lawnews

UK museums' right to charge image fees is called into question

Campaign for institutions to free up photographs of out-of-copyright works is backed by legal experts

Ivan Macquisten
Art lawcomment

The stakes of a copyright case being heard by the US Supreme Court go way beyond Andy Warhol

A forthcoming Supreme Court hearing in a case relating to a Warhol work that used a photographer’s portrait has potentially huge implications for copyright claims

Virginia Rutledge
Diary of an art historiancomment

Court of Appeal ruling will prevent UK museums from charging reproduction fees—at last

Those © symbols on UK museum websites and catalogues are now redundant if the original work of art is out of copyright

Bendor Grosvenor
Subscribe to The Art Newspaper’s digital newsletter for your daily digest of essential news, views and analysis from the international art world delivered directly to your inbox.
Newsletter sign-up
Information
About
Contact
Cookie policy
Data protection
Privacy policy
Frequently Asked Questions
Subscription T&Cs
Terms and conditions
Advertise
Sister Papers
Sponsorship policy
Follow us
Facebook
Instagram
YouTube
LinkedIn
© The Art Newspaper