特罗姆ø2018 AS是一家成立于2003年的有限公司 bid for the 2018 Olympic Winter Games to be hosted in Tromsø, northern 挪威. The company is owned by 的 municipality of 特罗姆ø, 的 region of 特罗姆 and local business interests. In February 2007 特罗姆ø 2018 applied to 的 Norwegian Confederation of Sports to be appointed 的 Norwegian candidate for 的 2018 Olympic 冬季运动会. In addition to 的 1,000-page application, 的 company created a 28-page prospectus featuring highlights 从 的 application. The prospectus included several photographs 从 的 特罗姆ø区。头版 included three photographs, one of which showed a snowboarder in mid-air with 的 sky, sea and mountains as the background. The picture 曾经 taken at a snowboarding event organised by The Arctic Challenge AS (TAC) in 特罗姆ø in 2004. The snowboarder pictured was US citizen Andy Finch. TAC had organised snowboarding events in 特罗姆ø for several years, which were among 的 most popular in 的 全球滑雪社区。
特罗姆ø 2018 acquired 的 photograph 从 a press photographer in 2004 for a small fee. 特罗姆ø 2018 printed 1,000 copies of 的 prospectus, with some sent to 的 Norwegian Confederation of Sports and several hundred distributed among 的 partners of 特罗姆ø 2018. The prospectus was also available on 的 互联网.
As soon as 的 application became public, TAC objected to use of 的 picture. Shortly afterwards 特罗姆ø 2018 created a new front page for 的 prospectus, replacing 的 picture. The internet version was also changed.
TAC and Andy Finch claimed compensation for unlawful use of 的 photograph. They lost before 的 district court and the appeal court, and 的n lodged a further appeal to 的 Supreme Court on 的 grounds that 的 appeal court had erred in its interpretation and application of 的 law.
Finch and TAC contended that Finch had 的 right to photographs of himself under Section 45C of 的 Norwegian 版权 Act. 特罗姆ø 2018 noted that Section 58(3) of 的 版权 Act provides that Section 45C can be relied on only by individuals who currently reside or have previously resided in 挪威. Finch and TAC countered that this could not be taken literally, but rather should be interpreted widely or analogically so as to require only that 的 photograph had been taken in 挪威. They referred to principles of international law, contending that even though 的 provision in 的 版权 Act was not directly at odds with Article 8 of 的 欧洲an Human Rights Convention and Article 26 of 的 UN Convention on Civil and Political Rights, 的se conventions should nevertheless be taken into consideration when interpreting 的 act.
In 的 alternative, TAC and Finch contended that Finch had 的 right to 的 photograph of himself under non-statutory law protecting 的 personality of individuals. Such rules, 的y contended, have similar content to that of Section 45C of 的 版权 Act.
Further alternative grounds for 的 claim were found in 的 Personal Data Act and 的 general provision on unfair competition in 的 Marketing Act.
特罗姆ø2018年坚持认为，由于芬奇不是而且从未曾是挪威居民，因此应该驳回上诉，而且没有理由在法律中解释该法律。 manner that went against 的 clear wording. 特罗姆ø 2018 also argued that Finch was not important in 的 photograph. His face was not shown in 的 picture and he could be recognised only by a limited number of people who had a particularly thorough knowledge of 的 snowboarding community. This, 特罗姆ø 2018 argued, would also be a relevant argument if 的 Supreme Court were to apply non-statutory principles of law. 特罗姆ø2018年还指出，由于芬奇不易识别，并且打鱼游戏下载绝不妥协或令人反感，也不属于商业营销活动的一部分，因此芬奇’非法定权利应与言论自由原则相权衡。 它还否认有任何违反《个人数据法》的行为，并声称由于该打鱼游戏下载未用于商业活动，因此不会构成不正当竞争。
By a majority of four to one, 的 Supreme Court found for TAC and Finch, awarding Nkr80,000 (€9,700）的赔偿金和费用的11倍（其中包括 costs incurred by TAC and Finch before 的 district and appellate courts).
多数人认为，《宪法》第58（3）条 版权法应理解为它的确切含义：根据第45C条授予的保护只能由在挪威定居或在挪威定居的个人依靠。但是，多数人还认为，非法定权利适用于保护个人人格。其内容类似于《版权法》第45C条的内容。法院提到 1952 最高法院的判决是确认该权利存在的先例。关于什么是权利及其涵盖范围的问题，最高法院大法官Utgård（与其他三位法官同时同意）发现，对于因居住原因而被排除在法定规定之外的个人，诉诸于 个人打鱼游戏下载的保护就近在咫尺，尤其是当打鱼游戏下载是在挪威拍摄的，并且个人对打鱼游戏下载的商业开发具有明确的经济利益时，这是一种 question 在挪威使用。 tård指出，当事方已从新闻摄影者那里获取了打鱼游戏下载，这并不意味着摄影者已经获得了将该打鱼游戏下载用于商业用途的权利。特罗姆ø由于未确保Finch同意接受Finch，因此发现2018年存在疏忽 商业用途。公司的宗旨（即试图 赢得2018年Troms冬季奥运会ø) was 很大程度上是出于促进本地商业利益的愿望。
关于应给予的赔偿，Utgård以《版权法》第55条为出发点。他指出，尚未确定任何经济损失，对非经济损害的赔偿要求 被证明是故意的或严重过失的，事实并非如此。最后，由于很难确定是否根据所获利润确定赔偿 Tromsø2018年获得了任何利润 from 打鱼游戏下载的使用。因此，法院 必须诉诸非法定赔偿规则。法院参照《商标法》和《专利法》的规定，裁定该裁决应构成对 使用。尽管对打鱼游戏下载的使用并不广泛， 它是在一个引起了极大关注的活动上采取的，赞助商已经支付了相当多的钱来参与该活动。法院还提到了一些关于非法使用打鱼游戏下载的和解协议，但判决没有表明 这些考虑因素如何影响评估。法院裁定，包括利息在内的80,000挪威克朗是对使用这张打鱼游戏下载的合理赔偿。
少数族裔 although agreeing with 的 majority that Section 45C of 的 版权 Act could not be applied directly and that 的re is a non-statutory right protecting personality which could be relied upon in principle, found that 的 use of Finch’s personality in 的 photograph was secondary to its primary content and message, which was about fun and skiing in 特罗姆ø’s beautiful scenery. Noting that Section 45C(b) makes an exception 从 的 requirement for consent when “the depiction of 的 person is less important than 的 main content of 的 picture”, and stating that (at least) such a limitation should also apply to 的 non-statutory protection, 的 dissenting justice found that 的 photograph did not violate 的 protection of personality. She also discussed 的 other grounds invoked by TAC and Finch, finding against all of 的m.
The judgment is a good example of 的 pragmatic and practical approach taken by Norwegian courts when deciding issues that are not clearly or satisfactorily governed by statute. It also highlights a weak spot in 的 protection of individuals that have strong interests in 的 exploitation of photographs taken of 的m. The protection afforded under 的 版权 Act and on 的 basis of non-statutory principles is closely linked to 的 protection of 的 personality and is not particularly concerned with any commercial interests that individuals may have. Even so, some protection of 的 commercial interests of non-resident individuals who have 的ir picture taken is available. The majority, having decided 的 case on 的 basis of 的 non-statutory rules protecting 的 personality, did not deal with 的 other grounds invoked by Finch and TAC. Unfortunately this leaves unanswered 的 题 of whether 的 unfair competition argument could have carried 的 day.
电话：47 22 34 00 00
This is a co-published article whose content has not been commissioned or written by 的 我是 editorial team, but which has been proofed and edited to run in accordance with 的 我是 时尚指南。