The provision at the heart of this case, Article��24 paragraph 1 of the Swedish , allows the depiction in pictorial form of a work of art if permanently placed outdoors on or by a public place. When determining what restrictions of the authors’ exclusive rights lay within the concept “depict,” the made a very clear distinction between reproductions of little economic value, such as the creation of postcards, and other uses. The court decided that in its restrictive interpretation of Article��24, it had to strike a balance between the application of the law and the purpose of the database at hand. Although Wikimedia’s platform had the public’s interest in mind, the court determined that “a database of the present kind [provides] for great use of copyright protected works without any compensation being paid to the authors. [It is thus] a considerably greater restriction of their exclusive rights than the provision aims at.” It then added that whether or not Offentlig Konst has a commercial purpose is irrelevant in this case.

This decision raises many concerns that go beyond the realm of databases. First and foremost, what are the potential implications regarding public space and its interaction with technology on a daily basis? As governments around the world have been trying to modernize their respective copyright legislations, it is interesting that the Swedish�� in this case seemed to believe that the main problem with Wikimedia’s platform was the fact that the available pictures were used in a digital environment as opposed to analog depictions, which allow for a much more limited scope of reproduction and distribution. By making the pictures available for unlimited use, the open database took away a significant opportunity for artists to monetize their creations. But isn’t that the case with every picture posted online? believes that following the logic used in this decision would make sharing on social media a selfie in front of a Swedish monument or public artwork an act in violation of Swedish copyright laws. Moreover, the compensation of authors being an important part of this ruling, the fact that social media platforms such as Instagram ask for a on published content could make it harder to argue that, like postcards, such use would be of little economic value.

Aside from the potential implications for social media users, this decision raises a question that is often asked when talking about works in public spaces: should public art automatically be in the public domain? Wikimedia surely seems to think so, as it sees this entire case as a As a matter of fact, when asked about their refusal to negotiate a license fee with BUS, Wikimedia reiterated their belief that public art should be accessible to the public without restrictions. have endorsed this declaration by adding that taxpayers should be able to access art that has been financed with their money and that they should not have to pay for it over and over again. Proponents of this vision should be mindful, however, of the fact that copyright protection gives artists an to create. By not granting protection to those works, an obvious hierarchy between public and non-public art would most likely be created. There already seems to be an implicit divide between the two,��as the rising number of copyright law cases involving street art shows (see IPilogue coverage ).��Public art’s intellectual property rights being more and more infringed upon in the digital age might only accentuate this hierarchy.

Whether or not a similar decision could be rendered in Canada is hard to determine. So far, Canadian courts have not had to rule on this issue. Section 32.2 (1) of the Canadian , which allows the reproduction in a painting, drawing, engraving, photograph or cinematographic work of architectural works and public art, does bear some similarities with Article��24 of the Swedish .When the time to interpret similar provisions comes, courts will have to keep in mind that, as Magdalen Malm, director of Public Art Agency Sweden puts it, Surely, as public space, authors' rights and the act of freely sharing digital content become more and more intertwined, this case will not be the last time we see copyright laws conflict with the digital world.

Aicha Tohry is an IPilogue��Editor and an��Université de Montréal LLB holder.

The post Wikimedia vs BUS: How to Regulate Copyright on Public Art in the Digital Age appeared first on IPOsgoode.

What is Kopimism? It is a religion based on the philosophical belief that “Information holds a value, in itself and in what it contains, and the value multiplies through copying. Therefore, copying is central for the organisation and its members.”

, co-founder of the Kopimism movement and the organization’s chair , were recently interviewed on the CBC Radio. In their respective interviews, both Gerson and Nipe explained that the process of becoming formally recognized by the government Agency as a religion was difficult because they had to demonstrate that Kopimism was in fact a faith. This required a showing of rituals and ‘spiritual language’ in their application. In true form, the Kopimists ‘borrowed’ the theological language of other organized religions to satisfy this requirement - although due to the fact that Kopimism is not focused on humans, concepts of heaven, hell or afterlife do not exist.

What then are the basic tenets of Kopimism? The claims that knowledge, the circulation of knowledge and the act of copying are all sacred. Gerson proclaimed that “copying is holy and information is holy”, while Nipe believes that copying is central to life. Nipe drew parallels between natural evolution and societal evolution. He reasoned that when a child is born, DNA, language and other information is passed on naturally through copying and mimicking, thus copying an inherent and fundamental right.

The raison d’être of establishing Kopimism as a religion is to be guaranteed immunity from acts that could otherwise infringe copyright laws pursuant to Chapter 1, Article 2 of the . In a 2005 , the defendant Åke Green (a religious figure) was acquitted for hate speech on the basis that the freedom of religion and expression. The Court held that although he was not absolved from liability for his actions, the guarantee granted by the European Convention on Human Rights coupled with the history of case law demonstrated that the charges would not be upheld in a European Court in his particular circumstances. This is not to say that the acts of the Church or its members would be protected in the same manner in the event of copyright infringement.

When questioned about his position on copyright laws, Nipe argued that copyright law, unlike the right to copy is neither ethical nor moral. He proclaimed that the livelihood of creators and authors should not be supported via copyright laws because copyright is not a god given right. Nipe further commented that creation is not founded on ‘thin air’ and that as a result access to creation (and thus information) should not be restricted.

Kopimism is not formally recognized as a religion in Canada, nor is it likely that it ever will be. Even if it were recognized, it is unlikely that the guarantee to ‘freedom of conscience and religion’ would override the in this case, or that such a religion would otherwise pass the two step Section 1 Charter limitation test articulated in .

Both the and the indicate that the main tenets of the movement are the right to take [access] the information, remix it and re-release it without restriction: “All people should have access to all information produced. A gigantic Boosting Knowledge for humanity.”

Remixing and re-releasing copyrighted works lawfully obtained would not necessarily be considered infringement based on the proposed reforms to the Copyright Act under , since exceptions such as the ‘youtube’, parody and satire exceptions would be permitted, alongside Fair Dealing. However the Bill also endorses the enforcement of technological protection measures (TPM’s) which may serve to prevent unauthorized open access to copyrighted materials.

There are currently just over 10 Kopimism churches around the world - including the one in Canada – although the original Swedish church is the only one formally recognized as a religion. To become a Kopimist, one simply needs to read and agree to the values posted on the website and then sign up:

“The community of kopimi requires no formal membership. You just have to feel a calling to worship what is the holiest of the holiest, information and copy. To do this, we organize kopyactings – religious services – where the Kopimists share information with eachother through copying and remix. Copy and seed.”

��

The Church currently has just over 4000 members.

Courtney Doagoo is a doctoral student at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law.

The post Copyright or Kopimism? appeared first on IPOsgoode.