VG was entitled to use someone else's photographs

In a series of critical articles on the activities of a law firm, a newspaper used photographs taken from the law firm's website and from an open Facebook profile without consent and without paying a remuneration. The Supreme Court found that the right to use the photographs had to be assessed under the current event rule in section 36 subsection 2 of the Copyright Act and not under the rule on the right of quotation in section 29. The current event condition was considered met. Emphasis was placed on the importance of the freedom of expression in cases concerning issues of great public interest, and references were made to case law from the European Court of Human Rights. The use of the photographs did also not exceed what was necessary based on the purpose of the articles. The newspaper's use of the photographs thus had a legal basis in section 36 subsection 2, which gave the newspaper a right to use them without consent. The Court of Appeal had found in favour of the newspaper with a reference to section 29. Due the obligation to pay a remuneration for the use of the photographs and to the limitations in the Appeals Selection Committee's leave to appeal, the Court of Appeal's judgment was set aside.

Read the whole judgment

Areas of law: Copyright. Freedom of expression. Section 29 and section 36 subsection 2 of the Copyright Act. 

Key paragraphs: 71-74.

Justices: Noer, Ringnes, Arntzen, Thyness, Sæther

Parties: Advokatfirmaet Rogstad AS, A (Counsel Andreas Galtung) (Assisting counsel Steingrim Wolland) v. B, Verdens Gang AS (Counsel Halvard Helle), The Norwegian Association of Editors (intervener) (Counsel Jon Wessel-Aas)