[ad_1]
News broke last summer that comedian and writer Aron Flam is being prosecuted for copyright infringement due to the cover of his book “This is a Swedish tiger” and the images he has posted on his social channels. The question refers to the famous “A Swedish Tiger” by illustrator Bertil Almqvist, a stylized tiger with yellow and blue stripes that was used during World War II to urge caution.
On the cover of the book, Aron Flam has changed the tiger to wear a swastika and give a Hitler salute. The Museum of Emergency Preparedness in Helsingborg, which holds the copyright to the work, has reported Aron Flam to the police, as they believe he has infringed “A Swedish Tiger.”
– The copyright holder has also repeatedly declared to the defendant that he has committed copyright infringement, prosecutor David Ludvigsson said in a press release in connection with the indictment filed.
Aron Flam on the other hand He believes that he did not commit any crime, but that he parodied Bertil Almqvist’s 1941 work.
– I never published Bertil Almqvist’s work “A Swedish Tiger” unchanged, he told DN earlier this summer.
– I will affirm that I have done parody and satire, as I always do. And that I have working height. I think I have it. Then the court must decide whether or not it is so.
The hearing will begin on Thursday at the Patent and Market Court of the Stockholm District Court.
“A Swedish tiger” by Bertil Almqvist in original condition.
Photo: Bertil Almqvist
The issue as a court assessing is whether Aron Flam has infringed copyrights or whether what he has created can be judged as a parody of his own copyright.
– Copyright is a protection for creation. Anyone who has created something has the sole right to decide how it should be used, when and where and how – that’s the basis, says Catharina Ekdahl, a senior attorney at PRV’s Patent and Registration Office.
The protection arises at the same time that a work is created and connected to the physical person, this generally applies from the life of the creator and 70 years after the death of the author. The right to one work can also be sold or transferred to another, in the case of “A Swedish Tiger”, the Emergency Management Museum has received copyright from the heirs of Bertil Almqvist.
There are also a number of restrictions on copyright, which means that protection is not always that strong.
– There is a paragraph that means that I can be inspired by what someone else has created and then I can create something myself. This is exactly the section that the next court hearing will be about. Ie: Has Aron Flam created something independent and own enough through the image processing he has done, to make it a parody with his own protection? says Catharina Ekdahl.
The subject of copyright because “A Swedish Tiger” is not new, but has previously been the subject of a fierce dispute between the Military Intelligence and Security Service, Must, and the Museum of Emergency Preparedness, a dispute in which the museum was right.
“A Swedish Tiger” was created by artist and illustrator Bertil Almqvist in 1941 and was part of a government campaign aimed at urging the public to be vigilant when it comes to handling information, the so-called surveillance campaign.
– It was a campaign during the war. It has gotten a bit misunderstood. Well, the original text says: “A Swedish tiger as far as defense is concerned.” It’s not a call for people to shut up, but it’s about not chatting about the secrets of the military, says Thomas Roth, first curator of the Army Museum.
– The lion is the symbol of the national coat of arms, but it was a small adaptation to the situation quite simply. It’s a joke, a Swedish tiger.
In time came “A Swedish tiger” to be used as a symbol in the military security service.
– They thought it was appropriate in a campaign where people in the military wouldn’t just discuss secrets, says Thomas Roth.
In 2007, the Svea Court of Appeals ruled that the Armed Forces could not prove that they were allowed to use the plant in any way other than what had been done during the surveillance campaign. Therefore, the rights of the tiger passed to its author Bertil Almqvist and, by extension, to his daughters, to whom the copyright was transferred upon his death in 1972. They in turn passed it to the Emergency Management Museum.
It all ended with that the Armed Forces paid 700,000 SEK in damages for using the Swedish tiger without permission, 300,000 SEK each to the two daughters of Bertil Almqvist and 100,000 SEK to the Museum of Emergency Management.
This spring, the Skåne Region launched a campaign featuring “A Swedish Raccoon”. The raccoon in the campaign is made of foam and was like “A Swedish tiger” with yellow and blue stripes, in profile and with its head turned towards the viewer.
– We thought of it from the beginning as a paraphrase with a twinkle in the eye and a serious adjustment to the story, which some will recognize, says Annika Hörlén, a brand manager in the Skåne Region who was involved in the production of the image for the campaign.
After the Museum of Emergency Preparedness from the region, the image of the raccoon was removed from the social networks where it was published.
– We did not prioritize a process around branding in this difficult situation, instead we chose to focus on other ways to get people to react and together reduce the spread of infection, says Annika Hörlén.
In an interview with SVT’s Kulturnyheterna, Marie Andrée, representative and co-founder of the Museum of Emergency Preparedness, says that Bertil Almqvist’s work is part of Swedish history.
– The image has a gigantic explosive power, if you have seen it once you will recognize it forever. It is the most famous image of Sweden. Would they have said the same if it had been used in the “wrong” context? Should we offer it too? Marie Andrée said to Kulturnyheterna.
Catharina Ekdahl at PRV He doesn’t want to speculate on the outcome of Thursday’s hearing, but highlights two similar copyright cases that have made it all the way to the Supreme Court.
One applies when the character from the children’s book Alfons Åberg became the subject of satire on the P3 program “Pippirull”. Gunilla Bergström’s character was cut off along with the sounds of the Danish film “Pusher”, and Alfons Åberg was portrayed as a Danish drug dealer and pimp. The second case concerns the painting “Swedish Scapegoats” by Marcus Andersson. The artist of the painting was inspired by a photograph depicting Christer Pettersson taken by Jonas Lemberg.
– What is a little different in this case is that you have taken the existing illustration and changed it. So it’s not exactly the same as the other two cases, but all three cases raise the problem of what’s called the parody exception, says Catharina Ekdahl.
The Supreme Court ruled that the two previous cases were parodies and that, therefore, there was no copyright infringement.
– What had been created was independent enough, because it was used in a new context with a new meaning, to be judged to have its own protection.
Where is the limit for a work to be classified as sufficiently independent and new?
– Only the court can really comment on that, says Catharina Ekdahl.
DN has sought out prosecutor David Ludvigsson, Marie Andrée and Aron Flam of the Museum of Emergency Management.
Read more:
“A battle of Swedish tigers”: the emergency museum receives a no from HD
Aron Flam makes a new version of “A Swedish Tiger”
