A request for a ban on fines is rejected in criminal cases related to a controversial book



[ad_1]

News

Published: 2020-09-03 07:57

The Patent and Market Appeal Court decides to reject the Stiftelsen Beredskapsmuseet’s claim to prohibit fines against Aron Flam. The reason is that the foundation cannot guarantee the harm that a ban on fines could cause the accused.

Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court of Patents and Market lifted the seizure of the 2,282 copies of Aron Flam’s book “This is a Swedish tiger”, which the prosecution seized in June 2020.

The prosecutor in the case concerning copyright infringement has stated that the Beredskapsmuseet foundation has the copyright on the artistic work “A Swedish tiger”. The work consists of a cartoon tiger with blue and yellow stripes and the words A Swedish tiger. According to the prosecutor, Aron Flam has illegally produced copies of the work by printing the book “This is a Swedish tiger”, the cover image of which contains the work in an altered state.

The changes

The changes have mainly consisted of the work being fitted with a swastika bandage and a Sieg Heil salute. Through marketing and sales of the book, Aron Flam has also illegally made “A Swedish Tiger” available to the public.

In this criminal case, the museum foundation also requested that the defendant, Aron Flam, be temporarily prohibited from distributing, reproducing and producing copies of the work “A Swedish Tiger”.

Fines are rejected

The Patent and Market Court rejected the application because it considered that the foundation did not comply with the requirement of guaranteeing the damage that a ban on fines could cause the defendant. Therefore, no other conditions for a provisional prohibition of fines were examined, for example whether there were probable grounds for copyright infringement.

In the Patent and Market Court of Appeal, the foundation has offered a crown as collateral and stated that it has limited resources to provide security. The Court of Appeal for Patents and Markets has rejected the appeal, claiming that no reasons have arisen to justify the release of the foundation from the guarantee requirement.



[ad_2]