The Court in Denmark has ruled in a case concerning a copyrightable work transformed into another work. The case at hand focus our attention on the following painting by artist Tel R:
This painting has been purchased for $90 000 by Dann Thorleifsson and Arne Solmunde Leivsgarð, founders of the watch manufacturer company Letho.
They launched a campaign where the winners can order watches, which dials are made of small painting parts.
According to the artist, this was a completely new way of using of his painting that transforms the original work. He claimed that copyright permission for such use was needed.
The Letho’s position was that in this case there was a destruction of the work which according to the Danish law does not constitute copyright infringement.
The court ruled that there was a copyright infringement because the painting was made available to the public in a changed form, which requires copyright permission.
WIPO reports about new individual fees payable for designation of Denmark in international applications for trademarks. These fees, which will come into force on 01.07.2019, are as follow:
Emil Jurcenoks and Peter Nørgaard reported for one interesting and at the same time an important decision of the Danish Supreme Court.
The case concerns advertising photographs made by the Danish supermarket chain Coop which contained among other tableware by the Danish designer Kasper Heie Würtz for which use, however, there wasn’t a concent by the designer nor any remunerations.
A lawsuit was been initiated. According to Coop there was no copyright infringement because the Danish legal practice allows minor use of copyrighted works in case that the works are not famous and the use is only as a background and minimal.
Würtz won the case before the first instance Maritime and Commercial High Court.
The Supreme Court upheld this decision. According to the court, Coop failed to prove that there is a legal practice which allows such copyright exceptions for applied art for advertising purposes. What’s more, the Court considers the use at hand as not minor due to the fact that all photographs contain the aforementioned tableware. An exception is possible but in very narrow cases where relevant works are not distinctive enough and are not essential elements in the reproductions.
The full article is accessible here.