Using existing art in order to create new art is a well-knownpart of human culture. Humans learn and are inspired by what comes before us and those who come afterwill, in turn,be inspired by us. Stories and artscropup time and timeagain throughout history with new takes and twists. Such has been the case since time immemorial. With the advent of economical value tied to creative workssociety decided to give certain rights and protections to those who created suchworks. These came in the form of exclusive rights and control overthe created work.With this exclusivity comes the risk of hampering the creative freedom of other artists, since another cannot create something that is toosimilar toa protected work. Thus, a balance is needed between the two interests. There must be a degree of freedom to use protected works in the creative process, just as there must be some protection and exclusivity of works already created. A question of large importance is then: ”to what extent can existing and protected works be used by artists who are trying to create new art?” This is the question this study attempts to answer. Knowing the answer to this question willmake the playing field for artists more concrete and clearer. Which hopefully will make creating art by using existing works easier and with less risk of copyright infringement.The study went about this by identifying what laws come into effect when protected works are used for creating new art, and analyse how those laws work in practice. The study applied a legal dogmatic method in order to investigateand analyse the applicable lawin search of principles and guidelines for how art can be used in this way. The investigationconsists in large part of analysis of prejudicial court rulings. The analysis is done with the help of legal doctrine in the form of comments to rulings and other legal literature. The conclusions found in the investigation was then subjected to critical reflection where they were put in the context ofvisual arts and what they meanfor artistsin practice. The study found that the conditions for using art in the creation of new art are relatively good, at least when it comes to the question of imitation (efterbildning). There are many things an artist can dowhen using existing art in their creative work inorder toavoid it being an imitation according to courts. However, when it comes to the ”right of respect” of a piece of art,the applicable law is unclear. The assessment of whether changes to an artwork constitutes a violation of the right of respect is very complex and, in many cases,unclear. It relies heavily on old preparatory works,and it is unclear to what extentthese preparatory works are actually still applicable.The study findsthata clearerright of respect is desirablein order to have a more effective copyright law that better allows for using existing art in order to create new art.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA1/oai:DiVA.org:su-215328 |
| Date | January 2022 |
| Creators | Karlén, Albin |
| Publisher | Stockholms universitet, Juridiska institutionen |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | Swedish |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis, text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0026 seconds