http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/12/sculptor-sues-glass-maker-over-swedish.html
As readers may be aware, Articles 18-22 of the Directive (EU) 2019/790 (DSM Directive) [IPKat coverage here] establish protective measures for authors and performers that license or transfer the exclusive economic rights over their works and performances to third parties for the purpose of exploitation.
Specifically, Article 20 of the Directive (so called ‘best seller’ provision) states that authors and performers are entitled to claim additional, appropriate, and fair remuneration if the initially agreed remuneration has turned out to be disproportionately low compared to the subsequent revenues generated through the use of the work or performance in question.
Sweden has also transposed Article 20, by amending Section 29 of the Swedish Copyright Act, and news has broken that litigation has begun in that Member State over the application of the resulting national provision and its temporal scope of application.
Ann Wolff, a sculptor started working with Kosta Boda, a Swedish glass manufacturer, in 1972, creating the iconic “snowball” glass lantern, a staple of Swedish household design:
As of today, more than 15 million copies of the glass lantern have been sold worldwide. However, according to an article published by The Guardian, she claims that she only earned 2% in royalties from the 1970s -1980s, at which time her contract also expired, due to the lapse of copyright protection for works of applied art in Sweden back then.
When Ann Wolff read about a change in Swedish copyright law at the start of this year, she approached the manufacturer about retrospective pay for her design. Following unsuccessful negotiations between the parties, litigious proceedings were brought.
Comment
The implications of Article 20 of the DSM Directive in practice are potentially very significant, especially considering its scope of application time-wise. This Kat hopes that the present case will help shed light on how Article 20 DSM Directive is to be interpreted, including whether there is a retroactive application of the provision, what is regarded as “additional, appropriate and fair remuneration”, and what courts deem as “disproportionately low”.
The IPKat will keep readers posted about forthcoming developments in this case!
Content reproduced from The IPKat as permitted under the Creative Commons Licence (UK).